Comments on: MoveOn Pulls the “Trigger” on Rahm

By: Hilary Smith

Hilary Smith — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:11:53 +0000

If we have enough money for wars and bailouts, we definitely have enough money for health care.

By: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again

And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:58:45 +0000

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

By: Gretchenmom

Gretchenmom — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:52:46 +0000

And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again- Thank you for your answer. I’s always nice to hold a real discussion without name calling, etc. I checked out all the claims on cost, etc from more than one source on the internet, but you may be correct that figures and percentages can be manipulated to meet anyone’s purposes. With that in mind I don’t believe a lot I have heard about Obama’s health care proposals and many of what I would describe as scare tactics used to keep the status quo.
—————————————-
I would like to see us move away from a system paid for in large part by employers. Costs are crippling many companies and leading them to purchase cheaper and cheaper coverage for their employees or, in many jobs, offer no insurance at all.
My friend is an example of the former. They have changed her insurance at work several times in the last few years. The cost went up $125.00 a month for her this year while the deductible was raised and there is less coverage offered on many items. As an example, her out of pocket prescription costs were raised, her insurance use to cover a few sessions of counselling. This is no longer part of the plan at all. They have expanded what is considered “pre-existing” conditions on new enrolees. My friend said she was glad that she was established and not new or they would not cover anything for her back at all.
—————————————
I certainly don’t believe that what comes from the government is free like you stated. And the current system really is not that accessible to people without insurance.
But I don’t think people understand that the current system is already costing us a fortune. Go to any emergency room in this country and you will see it full of people with no insurance there for things that could be handled by an office visit. The hospital has no choice but to treat them at a lot higher cost than a visit to a regular doctor. Since many of these people will simply not pay the bill, the costs are then put back on us all.
The hospital does a “emergency” visit which will include a lot of tests, perhaps a prescription and telling the patient to follow up with his own physician. Therefore, there is no follow up for many of these patients.
These people could, of course, go to a regular doctor but many doctors demand payment up front from patients without insurance and many uninsurad simply don’t have the money. In my oppinion none of the above can be described as “assessible” health coverage. Or are we saying that only those who can afford insurance deserve health care?
—————————————
Your suggestion that my friend should apply for medicare, etc. is part of the current problem as well. Why should she have to go on disability when, with the proper treatment, she can work? Actually, she does work now. So in lieu of health care should we encourage people to simply go on medicare or medicaid as a solution?
—————————————
As far as taxes go, I think we will actually save money in most instances. First of all Obama is not talking about mandated coverage for everyone. He is talking about coverage for the uninsuraed or underinsured. If you like your insurance – keep it.
—————————————-
My complaint with the past administraton is that he cut taxes three times and, in essence, “charged” the war. The Medicaid Part D plan should not been started without a plan to pay for it. These two things are where a large amount of our deficit originated.
—————————————
Obama is looking for ways to pay for the program from the start. We have needed health care reform for a long, long time. He is engaging all aspects of the health care fields, doctors, drug compainies, insurance companies, etc to help. He is asking for people like you and me to voice their opinions and give input. If you feel strongly do it – I already did.

By: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again

And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:04:56 +0000

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.

By: Sandcrab1612

Sandcrab1612 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:52:52 +0000

Olivia – You said “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.”
That is exactly the problem the federal courts are unelected offices and have become involved in legislating from the bench. The framers of the Constitution place Article 5 in the Constitution as they recognized things would change and provided a method by which the people (through their state legislatures) would have a voice on changes. If something needs to be changed than lets use the method provided instead of the judicial branch.
If legislation needs to be passed it is the duty of the legislative branch to pass the law not the judicial branch. That is why the legislative branch is elected so that they can answer to the will of the people (at the polls). The judicial branch answers to no one and acts like gods. If the people in vote on an amendment and overwhelmingly passes it then the judicial has no right to change the amendment but the legislative branch can pass legislation to make the change and then answer to the people.
There are several actions being undertaken by this current administration which would have a hard time passing Constitutional muster besides healthcare. The first order of business for this administration should be to get our countries financial debt under control. There is no way that you can continually spend more than you have in revenue. Each year the federal government passes a budget for the years operational costs, a large part of the annual budget is the interest on the federal government debt (the interest MUST be paid each year to keep from defaulting on the debt) and it is rapidly growing with each expenditure that this administration is making. You don’t spend more than you make every year in your personnel life or you would have to declare bankruptcy, why should the federal government not operate in the same responsible way?

By: Olivia

Olivia — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:01:15 +0000

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.

By: Sandcrab1612

Sandcrab1612 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:44:48 +0000

And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again – Couldn’t have said it better, Olivia and the rest on the left need to get educated on the Constitution, particulary Article 5 and the 10th Ammendment.

By: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again

And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:20:37 +0000

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.

By: Olivia

Olivia — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:36:42 +0000

Posted by: sifto77 | Jul 8, 2009 10:04:54 AM- SAID “Obama has always voted “present”. what makes people think he will change?…”
———————————-
I had to laugh when I read your post it made me think about Palin and the fact she can’t claim to be “present” at all.
LOL

By: Olivia

Olivia — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:31:32 +0000

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.