MoveOn Pulls the “Trigger” on Rahm

4 words that don’t belong in the same sentence.
“honest” and “health insurance company”.

Whatever “trigger” or whatever he wants to call it, Emanuel has up his sleeve, he can shove it up his sleeve. Anything less of a public option is only half-assed and is unacceptable to the people who voted Obama into office.

Trigger = extortion & blackmail threats.
What else is new with this admin? Typical operating procedure of corrupt Chicago politics & phony liars bent on an agenda.

So Obama’s statement today can be read as both a walk-back of Emanuel’s remarks and support of them. When I pointed this out to a White House adviser, the response was succinct: ‘Mission accomplished..’”
=============
It’s this way with everything with Obama. He has taken every position on everything.
I know who’d I’d put my money on in a MoveOn v Emmanuel smackdown. The one with the biggest oppo reasearch organization.

I don’t recall electing Emmanual to any office. Is there any campaign promise Obama has stayed true to? Asking insurance companies to self-regulate is like asking Wall Street to self-regulate. I really don’t understand why we need all these forms and overhead in between the American people and health care.

I find Rahm’a comment sleazy, and Obama’s response unsatisfactory. With advisors like Larry Summers, Tiny Tim G., and Rahm – we need a new cabinet or admit we were conned as a nation. When are our troops coming home anyway? We were bambozeled there too!

Its funny that the righwing extremists who have such a harsh mistrust of the government for health care have no problems innately trusting the government for national defence.

This is the conservative line of argument against national health care. 1) The government will run us out of business in no time, private insurance can’t compete. 2) The government is completely incompetent and can’t tie their own shoes much less deliver health care. So, what they are saying is that they run their business SO poorly that even the government with their unmitigated incompetence will run them out of business… Who do I want between me and my doctor, some unaccountable wage slave who make a few more bucks by denying me care? Or a disinterested bureaucrat who gets paid wither way. Give me the bureaucracy!

Is it a little crowded in MoveOn’s back pocket, Mr. President?

Timmy . ..
This seems be another part of the fantasy world you live in … liberals are all evil and untrustworthy.

So Obama’s statement today can be read as both a walk-back of Emanuel’s remarks and support of them. When I pointed this out to a White House adviser, the response was succinct: ‘Mission accomplished..’”
=======================
We’ve fallen thru the looking glass and landed in Orwell’s world of 1984.

Can’t we have both?

Posted by: Rick Cain | Jul 7, 2009 11:41:06 PM
Its funny that the righwing extremists who have such a harsh mistrust of the government for health care have no problems innately trusting the government for national defence.
=======================
I seriously doubt they have much trust for Obama when it comes to national defense either.

DANITA AND THE LEFT IN GENERAL DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DISCUSS ISSUES IN DEPTH WITH ANY KIND OF RATIONAL THINKING. NO DOUBT THIS IS ONE MAJOR REASON WHY THE LEFT TALK RADIO HAS BEEN SUCH A FAILURE EXCEPT FOR PUBLIC RADIO WHICH IS TAXPAYER FUNDED. IT GALLS ME THE MY TAXES HAVE TO GO FOR SUCH GOBBLEDEGOOK. THAT SOCIALIST JUNK DIDN’T WORK IN EUROPE AND WON’T WORK HERE.

rick cain says: “Its funny that the righwing extremists who have such a harsh mistrust of the government for health care have no problems innately trusting the government for national defence.”
Call me whatever you want, but I have a deep mistrust of the government in all areas, not just in being the sole health care provider. We don’t innately trust the government for national defense, they are capable of great stupidity and inefficiency. (my wife is an eye doc in the navy, so I have seen some really moronic policies) One of the only things that government was intended to provide for was the national security of the people so that they can pursue happiness, among other things.

danita says: “According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the “only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage” (i.e. some kind of insurance).”
Huh, I wonder why you had to include the “(i.e. some kind of insurance).” Maybe because having insurance does not mean getting care. If I have insurance, but there are no docs available, it does me no good. I die, but at least I don’t die with health care bills!

This place is educational. According to Danita, “This seems be another part of the fantasy world you live in … liberals are all evil and untrustworthy.” And according to Ryan, “All right wingers lie.” So apparently liberals believe in absolutes, even when making assumptions about what conservatives believe.

If OBama and his crew would use this same reasoning with our education system, maybe we could see a few graduates who have LEARNED something in their 12 years. Competition is the ONLY way the schools are going to improve. Vouchers is the answer. Maybe we can convince OBama that what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander!!

“The wonderful thing about ‘triggers’
Is ‘triggers’ are wonderful things…”
Can’t get that song out of my head. This bears repeating:
“National defense is one of the few areas that the Constitution says is the responsiblity of the government. Health care is NOT one of those areas. Come on people…WAKE UP!!!”
Free market competition builds a better mousetrap, better schools and better health care. The health insurance industry needs to operate a little more like the automobile insurance companies.
No one (that I’ve heard) is talking about overhauling car insurance. Let some entrepreneurs develop new health care companies, akin to Geico or Progressive, offering everything from bare bones (sorry about the pun) coverage to full coverage.

Compare two states… Georgia and Massachusetts.
Georgia has traditional health insurance and the average cost is $200/month. Massachusetts has Universal Health Care with a number of plans similar to the public plans proposed by Obama.
Average cost per month? $600.
For those who find that math is hard. The state that has public plans on average costs three times as much as the state with private plans.
What about wait times to see a doctor? In Atlanta, Georgia… Eleven days. That is not optimal but Massachusetts probably has a better response time since it costs so much more, right?
Nope. In Boston, Massachusetts it takes an average of fifty, that’s 5-0, days wait time to see a doctor.
That doesn’t make sense. Rahm is right.
Let the private insurance companies work to reduce costs and offer affordable insurance, like catastrophic only for young adults whose risks are lower.
Oh, and if you really want to lower health care costs? Two words:
TORT REFORM. Jackpot verdicts obscenely enrich lawyers (like John Edwards, have you seen his house?) and drive up the costs for everyone.

Obama has always voted “present”. what makes people think he will change? As for Canada–they take advantage of all the medical miracle discoveries that were started in the US.

Let’s hope Moveon attacks more democrats; it will make 2010/2012 that much easier for Republicans as the dems eat their own!

afkbrad:”Let’s hope Moveon attacks more democrats; it will make 2010/2012 that much easier for Republicans”
Yes, we all saw in 2008 how the lockstep, uncritical, blind support of Republicans for their leaders worked out.

This release of Rahm Emanuel’s take on the healthcare insurance debate is good news and cause for some hope for anyone who might have been fearing a strong-handed government takeover of the entire system (where would we get such a crazy notion?). Now the devil is in the details as to what actions will the Obama administration and congress pursue to bring about the goal of reducing the ever-increasing healthcare costs. Let this discussion continue in a realistic and sober non-political manner and perhaps the best solution strategies will emerge.

Concerned in OH:”As an American it’s my human right to force another human being to service and/or pay for my health care.”
That’s what we have right now.
Universal healthcare would force everyone to pay for their healthcare, rather than the current system of forcing those willing to pay to also support everyone whose healthcare plan is: Go to ER. Get treatment. Don’t pay.
Based on the actual, documented reality, you comment is a strong endorsement of most of the health care reform being proposed.

Rahm Emanuel never talks to the media unless he wants to put out some propaganda that Obama can claim to distance himself from. This is a two-pronged media attack on private health care. You have Obama lying about costs and benefits, and you have Emanuel lying about the intentions of the government. Our government and our political system are illegitimate. The government is the enemy of the people. Freedom will be achieved only through revolution, separating Free America from the liberal fascists.

jhw539 says: “Actually, out of about 4000 votes in the state senate, he voted present less than 130 times.”
It is interesting to note that when he did vote present it was usually on some controversial issue that he did not want to take a stand on and ruin his presidential aspirations. It is also interesting that he seems to go every which way the political winds are blowing now as president. He has reversed himself so many issues, I would be pretty upset if I had voted for him. I really hope his policy of appeasment does not encourage the Iranians or the Norks to continue to misbehave, but I can’t see any reason why they will back down from someone they see as being unwilling to call them on the carpet.

watching – You said “I have yet to hear of ONE congressman (rich or not)turn down their life time guaranteed full coverage government heaalth care or social security.”
Let me tell you that you are 100% wrong and need to get your head out of the dark.
Congressmen do not have FREE health insurance. Their employer is the federal government and like many employers, it provides him with an insurance plan from a private insurance company. Congressmen have been required to get their health insurance in this manner since passage of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1983. In this case the federal government utilizes the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) plan to provide a choice of different private insurance plans to choose from, The federal government as the employeer pays a portion of the monthly premium and the Congressman as the employee pays the remainder. The Congressman is responsible for any copays or deductable payments when service is provided by a healthcare provider.
The governments only other involvment with the FEHB is to negotiate rates and benefits for each plan once a year. If you want to get educated just Google FEHB and go to the site and see what the differnt plans are.
If the government were to open these plans to the public the monthly premiums for a family plan would roughly be between $425.00 and $1300.00, for an individual the monthly premium would roughly be between $177.00 and $550.00. One of the differences in the plan costs is the level of benefits provided and the amount the patient pays when receiving healthcare. To me this would be a viable option as the government would not have to make a large outlay to open these plans to the public and they already negotiate the cost and benefits each year with the plan providers.
I wish that the left would get educated before you go making statements like this regarding benefits which are paid to members of Congress.
let me educate you a little you probably are under the belief that members of Congress do not participate in Social Security. Once again you would be wrong, federal government employees hired after 1984 and ALL members of Congress no mater when they were first elected are required to participate in Social Security. These same people also participate in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) which is where they receive their retirement benefits when they retire. The employee has the Social Security (and Medicare) withheld from his check just like you do every pay period. Additonally they have an additional sum witheld which goes into the FERS retirement fund and if he chooses he can have an additonal sum witheld and placed in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), The TSP operates similar to a 401k and has sveral funds which the employee can choose to have his money held in (many federal employees lost money when the economy collapsed as the TSP is mainly in stocks).
The actual retirment for a Congressman is determined by a formula which looks at his salary for the highest three year period prior to retirement and then uses a formula which uses his age at retirement and number of years served. To achive retirement the employee must have a minimum number of years (just like the rest of the world) and have a minimum number of years served (just like the rest of the world).
Once again if you want to learn more Google FERS and TSP which should get you to the proper pages on the internet, none of this is hidden data it is there for anyone to read.
If we were to have term limits for Congressmen; 2 terms (12 years) for Senators and 4 terms (8 years) for the House then the retirement payouts would not be that great for retired Congressmen.
Now something you probablly don’t know. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, during the phase-in period of Social Security, Congress was able to grant generous benefit increases because the system had perpetual short-run surpluses. Congressional amendments to Social Security took place in even numbered years (election years) because the bills were politically popular, but by the late 1970s, this era was over. For the next three decades, projections of Social Security’s finances would show large, long-term deficits, and in the early 1980s, the program flirted with immediate insolvency. From this point on, amendments to Social Security would take place in odd numbered years (years that were not election years) because Social Security reform now meant tax increases and benefit reductions. When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government bonds, thus the Social Security Trust Fund indirectly finances the federal government’s general purpose deficit spending. It is also interesting to note that the Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that “entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right”. In simple terms, the decision means that since no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits, Congress can cut or eliminate benefits at any time.
The Trust Fund is regarded by some as an accounting trick which holds no economic significance. Others argue that it has specific legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt. It is important to note, however, that while the Treasury guarantees the interest and principal payments it makes to the Social Security Trust Fund, the benefit payments made from the Social Security Trust Fund to American retirees have no guarantee at all. The Social Security Administration’s authority to make benefit payments as granted by Congress extends only to its current revenues and existing Trust Fund balance, i.e., redemption of its holdings of Treasury securities. Therefore, Social Security’s ability to make full payments once annual benefits exceed revenues depends in part on the federal government’s ability to make good on the bonds that it has issued to the Social Security trust funds.

Rahm is probably just looking out for #1.
In a few years (after Obama has discaded Rahm, along with the health care industry), Rahm doesn’t want to die while waiting in line to see one of the few Obamacare doctors.

As an American it’s my human right to force another human being to service and/or pay for my health care.
Posted by: Concerned in OH
—————————————
No it’s not, it may be your right to want this, but you have NO right to force it ! You must be a Democrat.

James Danley:”That’s because individuals with pre-existing illnesses will naturally mean immediate and constant payouts. THAT ONE CHANGE could force many of the 1,300 private healthcare providers out of business. As I stated in the very beginning, these companies are in business to MAKE MONEY. Being forced to insure individuals with pre-existing conditions will greatly limit their ability to make a profit. So if a private company can’t make a profit, they will go out of business.”
This is nonsense. That one change won’t force a single properly run insurance company out of business. Their actuaries already have the numbers (they’ve been using them for years to identify unprofitable customers to avoid or try to drive off) – it’s a matter of perhaps a week to adjust their rates to cover it. It is perfectly reasonable to argue this one change will raise rates across the board (perhaps less than you’d think since the consistently expensive customers – seniors – are already in the government pool), but drive insurance companies out of business wholesale? Absurd hyperbole does not serve anyone in this debate.

Posted by: jhw539 | Jul 8, 2009 11:24:56 AM
Apologies for the “mis-atrributation” (is that a word?). Good luck on the job bid!

Outstanding! It’s time to fix healthcare!

Hey Jake,
Please ask Obama if politicians will be taxed on their healthcare benefits too.

Imagine a public health option where the govt says it will pay for itself with premiums. Then a year or so down the road, some Congreessmen to win votes says we need to make it less expensive, provide more expensive coverage and open it up to more people so we’ll just throw a couple of hundred million into the plan. And that is how the public option will eventually undercut private insureance resulting in private insurance going out of business. That is what Congress did to Social Security, Medicaid and anything else it controls. How much of the gas tax goes only to transporatation? In CT, 32% of state gas taxes goes to transportation. You can’t trust politicians to keep their word and this public option will lead to a takeover by govt that we will pay for deeply.

Why can’t we all be adults for a change and admit that the only method of REALLY cutting costs (which are completely unsustainable) is through some form of rationing. That’s why europe/canada ration big time…not because they’re mean, but because it’s necessary.
Unfortunately the voters won’t stand for it, and the pols don’t have the guts to tell us the truth. So the pols cobble together a deliberately misleading bill which will certainly result in rationing. We don’t deserve democracy. We can’t handle it.

Why can’t we all be adults for a change and admit that the only method of REALLY cutting costs (which are completely unsustainable) is through some form of rationing
===========
It’s true.
Whether it’s rationing treatments available to patients or rationing the choice of doctors/hospitals/clinics, etc…there will have to be limits placed on medical care if costs are going to be significantly cut.
Further, cutting spending does not equal cutting costs. As we’ve seen in California, cutting spending too much for one group often results in costs going up for other people.

Keep private insurers honest? Who keeps the government honest? Take for example the Democrats’ massive giveaway of almost a trillion dollars of “stimulus” to fund pet projects and special interests that are near and dear to Obama’s heart.
A government run health plan WILL crowd out the private sector, since politicians do not have the political will to charge market prices for value of a government managed plan. This is the fundamental problem with Social Security & Medicare, and is precisely why each are headed for insolvency in the next decade. This is also precisely why government must not become involved in healthcare.
The simple fact is that the federal government itself is heading for insolvency. If you add a public health plan into the government mix, you just make the pending insolvency that much more painful and messy for yet another critical segment of our economy.
Obama’s tax-and-trade and health care entitlement bills are simply a smokescreen to hide the real issues he should be addressing. It is irresponsible for the Democrats to be adding to the burden of the average tax payer in a time when the massive entitlement system they created is already unaffordable and close to bankruptcy.

ELF:”Keep private insurers honest? Who keeps the government honest?”
Ask the ‘permanent Republican Majority’ about that.
“Take for example the Democrats’ massive giveaway of almost a trillion dollars of “stimulus” to fund pet projects and special interests ”
Cute. So now the 3/4 of a trillion dollar program is a full trillion, and the 30% of that spending that was tax cuts (almost 10% of those from a single REPUBLICAN amendment to the Senate bill that cut taxes only for the upper middle class or higher) is all the Democrats ‘pet projects.’
There are legitimate ideological differences. You don’t have to lie and grossly exaggerate to have a debate.

ELF:” It is irresponsible for the Democrats to be adding to the burden of the average tax payer in a time when the massive entitlement system they created is already unaffordable and close to bankruptcy.”
Not enough time to tackle all your nonsensical ideas, but you do realize that Americans have some of the lowest taxes in the first world? Far lower than the average tax burden under Reagan. You do know that is documented reality, right?
The choice is do we want to have a sustainable level of taxes, perhaps back to the levels in the 1990′s, or drop our level of infrastructure and national services to that of a 2nd world nation? Interstates impassable for long periods due to infrastructure failure, at least halve the size of military, accepting a lower life expectancy, occasional brownouts or blackouts common during the summer, accepting high number of elderly living on the streets or in religious shelters (perhaps we can have our own Mother Teresa to help them die), reduced research of the “pet project” type that resulted directly in the creation of the Internet, gutting our world-leading research system, etc.
Republicans have been putting our nation on the credit card since Reagan. Time to pay up or downgrade from the best, most powerful nation mankind has ever seen to a low tax paradise more like Poland. I am more than willing to pay up (and yes, I certainly do pay a good amount but view it as a pittance for the privilege to live in this nation).

2 million for swine odor research courtesy of Sen Tom Harkin. 600 million to buy hybrids for gov’t employees?? And I have been telling everyone that climate change/global warming is one of the best marketing schemes ever thought up…look how many people buy into it :p 400 million for the cdc to screen and prevent std’s. I have a solution, wear a condom or don’t have sex. Or take the risk, whatever. 1.2 billion for youth programs, namely summer jobs. Since the private sector doesn’t need govt money to hire folks…I’m guessing these are govt jobs. Can anyone say Obama(Hitler) youth? 160 million for paid volunteers at Corporation for National and Community Service. Um, I might be mistaking, but isn’t the idea of volunteering to give your time freely? If you get paid, then its a job right? And not volunteerism? 200,000 dollar exemption on excise tax for wooden arrows used by children? Just to name a few. Nope, no pork there.

Has Janet Napolitano added MoveOn to the domestic terrorist list yet?

Want another botched up government program? How stupid can people be to think the government can manage health care. What the government really wants is power over your life (and death).

MayBee:”The use of the future tense “will have to be” indicates that currently there is no rationing.
==========
It indicates no such thing.”
Yes, yes it does. It indicates a change of state. This is basic grammar.

Independent60:”Want another botched up government program? ”
Yeah like that internet boondoggle – what a wasteful example of government pork!

James Danley:”40% of the nation’s wage earners pay to the federal government ONLY the payroll tax. It’s time that everyone pay their fair share. ”
Never mind that those deadbeat 40% provide the bulk of the men in our armed forces (although 9/11 did result in an admirable blip of high income applicants), or that a consumption tax is used in most European nations (VAT) and has proven absolutely NOT to be the panacea you imagine it.
Their taxes DO need to go up. Taxes need to go back up across the board, at least to the levels they were in the 90′s. Everyone’s taxes need to go up and we need to quit charging our first world nation infrastructure to the national debt. The alternative is to embrace our current astonishingly low tax rates AND the second world status they can actually afford to support (more akin to Mexico than Canada).

Someone posted World Health Organization, 2000 report which showed the US health system with a relatively speaking poor ranking compared to other developed nations.
I’d run across that info years ago, along with things like comparative rankings for things like infant mortality, or life span. I was surprised where we fell and so I looked up WHY.
You’ll be amazed if you check it out too. Those statistics aren’t measuring what you’d expect, AT ALL. Which means, of course, that the resulting rankings you see quoted are pretty meaningless in terms of actually measuring actual health care, availability, etc.
If interested, here are a few links to short articles get you started:
WHOm Are They Kidding?
by Glen Whitman
(about what that WHO study is actually measuring)
Canada’s Single-Prayer Health Care
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
(this one also has eye opener’s on worldwide infant mortality “rankings”)

This has got to be the most dysfunctional Congress and White House ever.
A trillion needed to stimulate the economy and keep unemployment down doesn’t seem to be working no matter how you ‘create or save’ jobs.
Health care. Neither side seems to know the other proposals being worked on.
Such amateurs. Guess Hillary was right about Obama not being ready. He wasn’t. Isn’t. Never will be.

I get very, very worried when these brilliant thinkers in government, from our great universities and colleges, start to “fix” things. I remember when there was no stimulus package; however, there was something called a deduction we had that was called a “Personal Interest” deduction, that could be listed on the IRS 1040, Schedule A (Itemized Deduction) Form. Personal Interests that were deductible was: 1) Home mortgage interest (which we still have); 2) Credit card and charge account interest; 3) Financial charge paid as interest; 4) Membership fees; 5) Credit investigation fees; 6) Interest paid on a revolving charge account; 7) Finance charge a retail store added if the charge was based on your monthly unpaid balance; 8) Interest on your personal note for money you borrowed from a bank, credit union or another person; 9) Loans on life insurance if you paid the interest in cash and you reported on the cash basis; and, 10) Installation contracts on personal property, such as cars. These are some of the “Personal Deductions” you could claim – 100% before 1987. In 1987 you could deduct only 65% of the interest you paid. In 1988 it changed to 40%. In 1989, you could only deduct 20% of the interest you paid. In 1990, only 10%. After 1990, instead of telling us how much personal interest we could deduct, the Schedule A, Block 12a, reads: “Personal Interest is no longer deductible.” And, we, the people, let that happen, just like we will let this multi-trillion debt build and build until we on the brink of a catastrophic economical and cultural demise.

Timmy . ..
Strange that nice article doesn’t mention the $288 billion in tax benefits in the Recovery and Reinvestment bill.
I guess when you have an agenda a little thing like $288 billion in tax credits just don’t matter.
Wouldn’t that figure in somehow?

Percy- excellent point. Lower income tax rates came at the price of more deductions. Obama is threatening to both raise rates and limit deductions.
I suspect the elimination of the personal interest deduction gave rise to the home equity/line of credit phenomenon. Mortgage interest was the last deductible interest, and people started using home equity to buy cars, go on vacation, etc.
It may have been partially responsible for fueling the housing bubble as well as creating the situation where people overextended themselves into foreclosure.

Golem, actually the credit for the comment belongs to And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again.

The government will do the same thing with a “public plan” as they do with Medicare and Medicaid…
Contract insurance companies to run it.
Surprise!
They’re telling you what you want to hear, “gonna punish those bad ol’ insurance companies.” BCBS is salivating, knowing the hook is in and Obama is reeeeeeeeeling the line…

The obama supporters are on the defense in this blog, where they should be. The obama tactic, however, is always to be on the offense – . You obama supporters better work harder; unfortunately you don’t have a lot to work with, including sliding job approval numbers.

That there is $288 BILLION in tax benefits in the Recovery and Reinvestment plan? That’s almost like – how shall i put this – REDUCING taxes isn’t it? Posted by: danita | Jul 8, 2009 10:01:33 PM
________________________________
Yea, let’s see Gibbs or Obama get in front of the press and explain that one. Maybe Gibbs could giggle while he’s explaining it.
“Uh, well I know I’m taxing you for all those other things, but hey I gave you 288 billion dollars! That’s like, what, $13 a paycheck! It’s a net win, isn’t it? Now go one out there and sell it to the public for me!”
Yea, that’ll work in unicorn land.

Posted by: danita | Jul 8, 2009 11:02:43 PM
Why thank you. I’ll take that as a compliment.
And my favorite puppet is Achmed the Dead Terrorist.

And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again -I wanted to answer your post by noting that we pay more for health care than any other country, yet it is not accessible to many of our citizens. And we also have the most medical errors to contend with even though we pay the most. To top it off the greatest cause of bankruptcy the U.S is medical bills. There is something wrong with this. Being sick should not make anyone bankrupt. I have a good friend right now who has Health Insurance and has had two back surgeries which required putting a lot of metal in her back. The surgeries have healed but she is still having a lot of pain daily because they now say she is alergic to the metal. Now they want to take the metal out which requires another surgery. Even with insurance the surgery would cost her at least $6,000 out of pocket. She is a single mom raising two kids and still struggling to stay afloat financially and pay off her other surgeries. She said she has decided not to have the surgery simply because of the cost even though she is in constant pain. She also has to have a biopsy on her back which the insurance will pay nothing towards because she has not met her deductible this year. Again, she is not having the biopsy done because she said there is no way she can pay for it. Emmanuel is right about competition in the system. The government running a system does not scare me half as much as the insurance and drug companies who now dictate our health care. Recently my doctor changed my medicine – my insurance says get generic when you can to save money. I have to pay $45 for a normal prescription and only $25 for generic. I have to pay $45 for the new drug because, (get this), the generic brand of the drug is not under their plan. This is a small thing but the way they second guess the doctor for every single prescription and test is obscene. People complain about Medicare does not do that and is really a good system. I am a senior and was afraid to go on Medicare but I have to say that it is a lot less of a problem than the regular insurance I had.

Why not start with making all our health care expenses deductable from the income on which we pay taxes? If healthcare is a “right”, why must we may taxes on the money spent to acquire that right? Of course, this would take control of this important “right” away from the politicians, not divert it to them. Let’s hear it, folks ! Speak up for your own control of your health care, not DC’s.

Sandcrab1612 SAID- “Where in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights is healthcare spelled out as a “right”? Where in the US Constitution is the Legislative or the Executive branch of the Federal Government given the power to provide healthcare to all?”
—————————————-
Your question points out a fundamental difference in thinking between ultra conservatives and moderate and liberal thinking. Just because it is not spelled out in there does not mean it should not be done. Our forefathers knew nothing about what the future would hold and, in my opinion, made the Cdocuments vague enough, yet firm enough to cover any future Contingencies. The Constitution is magnificent because it is still relevant today…If it had been written to reflect the time it written, spelling out only the problems of that time in history, it would not be relevant at all to us. It is a living, breathing document, flexible enough to cover any contingencies. You say there is nothing in it supporting heatlh care reform – I say there is nothing in it against it either.

You’re right Olivia — most moderates and conservatives recognize that the constitution was written specifically to LIMIT the power and expansion of government. Whereas many liberals believe its a ‘living’ document, to be flaunted at the whims of whatever the current day politicians want.
You said: “Just because it is not spelled out in there does not mean it should not be done. ” Actually, that’s
EXACTLY what it means. That’s why they provided for changes, when it was both really needed AND most of the nation wanted it — that’s what amendments are for.
Unfortunately, ever since the New Deal, the Constitution has been pretty abused. If you follow the ‘living document’ logic, you’d have to basically allow virtually any change to our form of government that anyone wanted. I think its pretty clear that’s EXACTLY what the founders were trying to avoid in their design of the Constitution. They abhorred government encroachment on personal freedom that taxes and regulations embody, and did their best to KEEP GOVERNMENT TO THE SMALLEST SIZE POSSIBLE, while allowing it only those powers enumerated in the Constitution.
If you really think that its reasonable for the federal government to drastically expand its size and scope, taking that much more in taxes from all of us, to cover things like health care and cap and trade — then GET AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION FIRST.

And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again SAID- “…If you really think that its reasonable for the federal government to drastically expand its size and scope, taking that much more in taxes from all of us, to cover things like health care and cap and trade — then GET AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION FIRST.”
—————————————-
Following your logic, we would have to get an amendment to the Constitution for practically every bill passed. That is why the Constitution established a Supreme Court. I always find it interesting that generally Conservatives use the Constitution to defend things they don’t like but find it difficult to accept the Constitution when it comes to Separation of Church and State issues. I’m referring to the folks who declare “America is a Christian country”, and try to impose their moral values and belief system on everyone else. I am a Christian but still can clearly see that is MY choice and everyone, else deserves the same choice.

Hi Gretchenmom,
I’ve had some real problems with insurance myself. I could go for adding a very few ‘top level’ rules to eliminate some of the biggest problems, if possible. But NOT a massive new gov. bureaucracy that adds a fortune in administrative costs alone. Not micromanagement either, where they take YEARS before adding new drugs or treatments to the approved list.
————
Gretchenmom wrote: “that we pay more for health care than any other country,…”
————
I’ve heard that a lot also, but I wonder if its really true? Especially if the huge differences in gov. taxes from one nation to another are taken into account? Plus, we may pay more in terms of absolute dollars per person, but are we getting more and better services than the countries we’re compared to?
For us to even begin to discuss the pro’s and con’s of issues like this, we’ve got to be able to start with accurate information. That’s difficult enough to ferret out, let alone when even the President goes around making grossly inaccurate statements (worst recession since the Great Depression NOT – although they may wind up causing it to become that bad the rate they’re going!)
So many people talk as if they think whatever comes from the government is free… ‘we’ll get free health care from the gov’ But gov services are anything BUT free. The government doesn’t have any money, they have to take it from the private sector, from each of us – so its not just a cost we have to pay, but a drain on the productivity of the entire society, which hurts us all also.
Those taxes have to not only to pay for the service, but also to pay for the government employees and facilities etc required to collect those taxes and administer the programs that provide the services. Gov is a HUGE, expensive, and inefficient middle man.

Hi Gretchenmom, are you still here by chance? Sorry I didn’t get back sooner.