Comments on: Senate Democratic Leadership Will Pass Health Care Reform “By Any Legislative Means Necessary”

By: Cesar Tueros

Cesar Tueros — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:52:07 +0000

I love when some on this blog speak for all Americans by writing thing like “Americans want or need” as if they represent a group or have some kind of a following but since it seems to be ok let me remind them or you that Americans voted for Obama and his change and that people that don’t agree with his healthcare bill are the same people that did not vote for him in the first place “us” supporters of Obama who voted him into office without “your” votes expect him to get the bill passed you or your Americans will have a chance in 3 more years good luck with Shara or whoever you pic

By: JoelS

JoelS — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:14:44 +0000

Just wanted to let everyone know that Bill Moyers will be covering a cool documentary on his PBS show tonight called, “Money Driven Medicine”. It should be really interesting!

By: DBC

DBC — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:30:42 +0000

Go ahead, ram it down America’s throats. Go for it President Obama. Go for it Congressional minions. Our country has survived other one term Presidents. And it provides a good opportunity to expunge those in Congress who have forgotten who they work for. Kamikazes were not successful in 1945 and they will not be successful in 2009. In the mean time, I look forward to the 2010 congressional elections and a new President in 3 years that represents all the people. But blame no-one but yourselves for the result. Remember the Summer of 09 when you are gazing in the mirror in a couple years wondering where all the Democrats in Washington have gone.

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:42:16 +0000

Why spend billions when you can spend trillions?
$9,000,000,000,000.00 in debt over ten years.
Change you can believe in.
By any means necessary.
Selfish waste gift wrapped by Obama.

By: N Waff

N Waff — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:32:17 +0000

==========================
Obama is NOT on a mission to better healtcare in America – but to save face.
==========================
Obama sold the panacea of his universal government-run healthcare solution before he had any concept of the costs and details of such a program. Now the details are surfacing: the failures of all other government-run healthcare systems (include our own state programs); the astronomical costs; and the universal reduction and denial of services. So, instead of Obama pursuing what’s best for the nation, he is now on a mission to save face.

By: SECREG_756

SECREG_756 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:55:40 +0000

it’s time to put politics aside.
Why do you argue about individual politicians? They are not looking out for your best iterests.
Those baaaing for one side or the other are wasting sound space.
L:ook at the final plan. Don’t kill something because a clown like Grassly says so.
Please, this could finally be the time WWE THE PEOPLE bring balance back to our great country.
For the good of our nation, read, get educated on the issues, then come to a decision.
So many are against abortion.Some consider early term abortion murder. Why abort a plan that has not yet been written?
Ya’ll need to become thinkers.
SECREG_756

By: SECREG_756

SECREG_756 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:50:35 +0000

today I saw a TV ad in which people were warned once S.A.G.H.C.plan goes into effect you will be dealing with government buereacratsand red tape.
aren’t we dealing with INSURANCE COMPANY bureaucrats and their red tape?
After waiting 25 years getting something done to improve our health care system today is not rushing headlong into an issue.
Why the great love for companies who take .35% of everty dollar they take in
and use it for everything except healthcare.
WE THE PEOPLE deserve more than being spit on by CORPORATE CEO’S.
We will never get our budget fixed if we do not get good health care reform done now.
AMERICANS cann be the most selfish people on the face of the earth.
GRASSLY, BOEHNER, CANTOR, BAUCUS, will ya’ll drop the healthcare you have now for the healthcare WE THE PEOPLE are going to forced down our throats?
Of course they wouldn’t. Write to them and ask. Ask the naysayers to answer this question, ” can we have what you have, and if not why not.”
we pay the elected cons their salarys and we pay for their benefits. The cons are owned by the GIANT M.I.C.
CEO’S.
When did “WE THE PEOPLE” turn into “WE THE CEO’S?”
SECREG_756

By: SECREG_756

SECREG_756 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:27:38 +0000

OK , it’s apparent ya’ll have no interest in your own self intrest.
Maybe this will help.anyone over 65 is already involved in medicare, a form
of socialized medicine. Read on
If ya’ll continue to baaa loudly and vote against G.S.A. H.C. You deserve what you get.
One of the mantras of the opposition to meaningful health reform has been a fear of a government takeover of the health care sector. This fear is expressed virtually nonstop on talk radio, the right wing blogosphere, Fox News and at town hall meetings across the country. As we know, for better or for worse, the Obama administration is not proposing a government takeover of the entire health care system, but overstatement and exaggeration is unavoidable in these kinds of debates.
The image of government takeover of health care is meant to strike fear into good market oriented Americans who believe the government can do nothing right, particularly in an area as difficult, personal and important as health care. The fear of government involvement in any aspect of our life is a deeply held American value which allows us to continue to believe in the myth of small government. It is any easy fear to exploit even when speaking to people who have good jobs because they studied at public universities, know their parents have enough to eat because of social security, drive to work on federally funded highways and generally live in the 21st century industrialized world.
Nonetheless, opponents of health care reform believe fear of government involvement in health care to be something shared by all Americans. Before we collectively start quaking in fear of a government takeover of health care it might make sense to slow down and consider that a fair amount of our health care system already has strong government involvement.
Old people, some poor people and veterans already have government supported health care through Medicare, Medicaid and various veterans benefits. These programs are, of course, far from perfect, but they are pretty good. While many seniors would like to see Medicare reformed, it is rare to see senior citizens, or organizations of senior citizens call for abolishing Medicare. Similarly, many veterans, some who served decades ago rely on veteran’s hospitals for an important part of their health care. My father is a veteran who voices more than the occasional criticism of the US government, but I have never heard him say that he wishes veterans didn’t get any health care or that the government should close the veterans hospitals.
Senior citizens and veterans are both well organized and powerful interest groups, representing tens of millions of Americans, but government involvement in the health care sector has hardly caused any pubic outrage among these two key constituent groups. On the contrary, both usually push very hard for the expansion of Medicare and veterans benefits. If the American people really wanted government out of the health care industry, or if the government was unable to play a useful and positive role in the delivery of health care, it is pretty likely that these groups would have made a lot of noise about this issue years ago, but they have not.
Medicaid recipients are not as well organized as either veterans or senior citizens, but recipients of Medicaid very rarely argue for weaker Medicaid programs or less involvement by the government in providing health care services. Again, the opposite is true. Recipients of Medicaid have often shown a preference for bigger programs with more government involvement.
Medicare, Medicaid and veterans’ benefits have become an indispensible part of our health care system providing valuable services and benefits to people, many of whom would have very few health care options were it not for these government programs. This is something which should be kept in mind when scare tactics about government takeover of health care are used. These programs also demonstrate the inaccuracy, or perhaps nuttiness, of some of the more outlandish claims about Obama’s proposed programs. For example, if the government were really going to ration health care or set up “death panels” as part of government health care programs, wouldn’t the government have started by doing these things to the poor, the elderly or disabled veterans-precisely the people who rely on the government for health care today.
The Obama administration, of course, is not proposing a full government takeover of the health care system, but they are proposing increased government involvement in health care. An incremental change of this kind, while likely to make a tremendous difference in the lives of some, although unfortunately probably not all, of those currently uninsured, is simply not a radical measure. It does not represent a new way of paying for health care services in the US, but a readjustment to the relative balance of the public and private sectors in health care and a way to leave fewer people with no health care at all, which is what most Americans really fear.,
Health Care

By: RhiannonHR

RhiannonHR — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:05:18 +0000

What I find funny is that people think if something is “good” for them, it is “good” for EVERYONE. Who determines what is “good” and “bad”? Example: Dark chocolate is “good” in MY book. My best friend thinks dark chocolate is “bad”. It is a matter of personal opinion.
It is the same for this bill; out of 100 people, what may be “good” for 30 of them may be “bad” for the other 70.
The idea is to find a COMMON ground for ALL people. That means making concessions and compromises on BOTH sides of the fence. It is NOT a PERFECT solution, but it will be better than what we have now. Taking away personal freedoms, privacy, and giving a tax exemption to “non citizens” is not
the right way to go about it.
If this bill is going to be for EVERYONE, then EVERYONE should have to pay into it. If our Government wants to make it’s citizens use this bill, why should THEY be exempt? Who better to test it out than the very people who are writing the bill? Why does this bill have to be pushed thru “right now”? Why can’t they make it a major project to work on and take time to get it “right” for everyone? This way NEITHER side has to deal with the backlash if this bill fails because of lack of forethought and planning. The people it is supposed to help won’t suffer needlessly because the Government refused to take the time to get it right. Isn’t that the BEST way to resolve issues? Mediation, honest communication, and the willingness to WORK TOGETHER to come to a satisfactory solution. Neither side gets it all thier own way, neither side will be COMPLETELY happy with the result, but it will be BETTER for the People of America than what they have now. If we take the time to work out the entire issue, then we have made REAL progress and it will be a bill EVERYONE can LIVE with even if they did not get it 100% “all my way”.
We have spent the past several decades in the state we are in with Healthcare, what is another 1-2 years to get it RIGHT for EVERYONE? Especially when it will mean REAL progress and a program that might actually WORK.

By: WWW

WWW — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:47:17 +0000

“So are you implying that any ‘major change’ (which is what Obama is pushing) is ‘good’ change?”
I’m not implying anything other than Rob Clayton’s “80% happy” assertion is way off the mark.