Facing Bad Poll Numbers on Health Care, White House Asks “Who Do You Trust?”

Who do you trust certainly not you who keep changing the costs as stated, and not you who want to tax us for four years before the bill even takes affect. Sounds like what was done with the Social Security funds,[borrowed but never paid back}. S.S. is still owed over 1 trillion in unpaid withdrawals from the fund.

“By 53-40, most Americans disapprove of the President’s handling of health care policy”
The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The people ARE speaking. The White House and Congress is not listening to the majority of us.
We do NOT consent.
I know Joey B thinks he is speaking for the doctors but most doctors I’ve talked to think health care reform is going to be one gigantic governmental cluster….

Earl, the VP has a history of saying the funniest things, doesn’t he?

Actually, right now, I think I trust the “special interests” crowd over the administration. At least the private market will have a say as to how they fare.

Actually, right now, I think I trust the “special interests” crowd over the administration. At least the private market will have a say as to how they fare.
___________________________________
Oh for sure, the oil industry should be deciding if global warming is real, and the insurance corporations should be deciding the health care insurance laws . .. perfect.

Who do I trust?
Ain’t the government, that’s for sure. They lie with the ease of snake oil salesmen, and their products are worth less.
What a joke, trusting this government to do anything but bend us all over. And they seem so surprised when we’re not asking, “Please, sir, may I have some more?”

I trust no one who with no plan whatsoever to resolve the current debt would double it in just ten years.
If the current level of debt is unsustainable, what would doubling it to $24 trillion be called?
Look at what government fiscal policy has given us: S&L bust, .com bust, housing bust and auto mfg bust. So what’s next, dollar bust and asset bust?

“I am here from the government and I am here to help.”
Scary words. I trust my wallet which can convey my sentiment to my healthcare providers but will only be picked by the US government. I trust my personal doctor who does not support this abomination (aka, obamanation) of our health care system. Finally, I trust my own brain and common sense. I know when I am beig lied to, I know when someone is trying to control and manipulate me, and I know better than to trust the government completely.

You want a government run health care system that won’t work for anyone. Your the President, your job is to run the country and try to make it better. You want the governent to run this country.
So much for our Freedom. This is the wrong direction to go! BIG MISTAKE!
Every business no matter how big or how small needs to offer health insurance this should be a law then every American will be covered.

Why are right-wingers so afraid of government programs? Their tremendous popularity might be the answer. Ask any Republican on Medicare.

I think congress & this so called president we have should be focused on the economy rather than insurance reform

I wouldn’t trust this corrupt band of criminal incompetents to run a lemonade stand properly.
We threw a trillion dollars down a rat hole laughingly referred to as a “stimulus” which has done nothing but fatten the wallets of Democrat insiders.
“Trust us”? I trust the Obama “administration” to always do the wrong thing for the American people.

“We all have a problem when popularity meets looming financial catastrophe”
That popularity tells me there is consensus that we need Medicare, that it’s a successful program, even though you probably would have to hook all the right-wingers on Medicare up to a lie detector triggered 10,000 volts to get them to admit it. It’s time to stop arguing about the future of these large social programs and start figuring out how to pay for them. Healthcare costs are going to skyrocket either way.

That popularity tells me there is consensus that we need Medicare, that it’s a successful program tells me there is consensus that we need Medicare, that it’s a successful program…It’s time to stop arguing about the future of these large social programs and start figuring out how to pay for them. Healthcare costs are going to skyrocket either way.
=========
Are we arguing about the future of Medicare? It seems to me we are arguing about a)how to pay for it and b)how to expand social programs and pay for them when we can’t pay for the obligations we have.
Making a program popular with the people who are being subsidized is the easy part.

Ask your Doctor whether he thinks this plan is a good idea or not. Just because the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Nurses Association have sold out doesn’t mean that their membership agrees with them. It is very clear that the American Medical Association and AARP do not have their member’s best interests in mind when they endorsed Obamacare. I trust my common sense that tells me that government cannot run anything efficently more than Ole Joe.

To those who say they don’t trust the government…why were you all begging them to do something about the cost of health care for years? As long as I can remember, people have been asking the government to get after the insurance companies and why didn’t we have a health care plan? I don’t get it. Now, that finally, someone is doing something about it, we don’t trust them? You can’t have it both ways. No one else even gave a darn about your health care or the fact that you were being dropped or over charged by the insurance companies. They (the insurance companies) are in control of your health and what they will pay not your doctor. Unless you have had personal experiences with them as hundreds of people have, you have no idea what they get away with. Why should anyone have to sell the home they have lived in for years because they are ill? Why should older people have to eat dogfood because they need their money for medicine? We desperately need health care and we need it now. The insurance companies only care about making money and have been making it all during the recession. You…on the other hand have been fearing getting seriously ill or perhaps having to sell your home to get the care you need. NO country could have this problem. We are spending three times more than any other country and we have nothing to show for it. Let’s get real people…the government is the one to get this done …and President Obama is the only president to take the risk on his popularity to see that the people finally have what they deserve. It may not be perfect but believe me all of you who are complaining now will be the first to sign up for it.

“Are we arguing about the future of Medicare?”
I guess I thought we were. When you say we can’t afford Medicare it sounds to me like elimination is being considered as an option, which is practically impossible now. It would be political suicide for anybody to try and kick millions of people off Medicare. That’s why I think it is particularly two-faced of some Republicans to campaign against this legislation because there might be some cuts in Medicare when in reality they would like to cut Medicare completely.

I don’t trust the government because those in the government have proven themselves untrustworthy.

So they now are attempting to lure the argument away from actual details and towards emotions? This practice is sure to breed further trust for the President…in dog year’s. When I voted for Obama, I expected a guy that would speak honestly, forthright and call his opponents out when their arguments hold absolutely no water. However, he just tries to tell us what we want, how we want it and why, just like every other corrupt Washington insider of yesteryear. Go figure, he’s just like the rest of them…maybe we should have seen that fact when he raised and spent $1.1 billion to get elected. Because that’s what representatives of the people do, and not criminals and racketeers seeking to buy votes and influence rather than even once earning it. After this video, they recieve no support from myself, for any measure they propose…they are liars and thieves with an alterior motive for this legislation which is yet to find’s itself on the surface of the debate.

Maybe if the government quit screwing the taxpayers, maybe their would be trust. Cutting the cost of living increase for senior citizens and raising medicare premium, while continuing to allow wall street and financial institution get their big compensation packages,is one reason the taxpayers can not trust the entire government system. The government have their own healthcare and pension system that is entirely provided by the taxpayers 100% guarantee, but when it comes to the taxpayers—- maybe and maybe not, which means screw you.
TRUST!!!!!! What is the government’s meaning of the word TRUST ????

Government wonders why we don’t trust them, yet in the Senate version just 1 page pays off a 100 million dollar bribe. How many others are there? Where is tort reform? The stimulus bill had payoffs for every liberal supporter possible. In private businesses, these people would be in prison. But our government gloats about them. It is NOT THE WAY WE WANT OUR MONEY SPENT!
Talmag – I think most people agree health care REFORM is needed. But these bills don’t reform it, they just give government more control. There are many options they could try, beginning with letting people buy across state lines. Did you know that our government officials have blocked this? Ever wonder why?

Just the fact that health insurance companies invest piles of money to figure out ways to terminate costly polices [translation: ditch their paying customers when they really need them] should be evidence enough for anybody that we can’t trust the private health insurance industry to protect our citizens once they become sick. Those who vilify the government would like us to overlook that the government has had to battle big business in the public’s best interests for decades.

“But Obama is against both because he wants the Federal Government and his Democrats in charge of health care, so he can put us in a position of begging for our care and being dependent on them for everything up to and including band-aids.”
Posted by: Brian | Nov 30, 2009 11:04:08 AM
Boilerplate Democrat campaign theme of 2010:
WE gave you healthcare.
Now Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and those evil racist Republicans want to take it away from you so they can give tax breaks to Halliburton, Enron, Blackwater, and Exxon.

Of course I “TRUST” old Joe. Trying to keep a straight face here.

Let’s look at where we are, and where we are “Proposed” to go —
If health care passes in its present form — A tax increase for all. Est increase will be 1%, additional withholding in you present income tax level.
Cap & Trade –
A monster tax increase —
At least a $12.00 tax per tank of fuel.
300.00 – 400.00 increase for power and heat.
50,000.00 – 80,000.00 to retro fit a home for sale, or no permit.
This is just what we know about.
Question? So how can we affort to pay all of these costs, with a sick – sick job market, if you have one -
Retirees are toast. Most of the money will be sucked up and used to re distribute the wealth, i.e. Cap & Trade.
How are we to prosper in this atmosphere? Why are we being kicked while we qare down?

“Pretending that we can afford Medicare + a new entitlement program without either cutting popular programs or charging a lot of people a lot of money isn’t going to work”
I myself wouldn’t bother to pretend. We can charge people a lot of money but it wouldn’t have to be a lot of people. There’s a particular 1% who’ve had it pretty easy the last two terms that could help out a lot.

Great idea, let’s tax the producers even more, in order to subsidize the 50% of the population who don’t produce enough to pay any taxes.
Eventually, fewer people will be willing to shoulder the burden, while more will grow content with living life on the dole.
What could possibly go wrong with this plan? Democrats will continue to get elected and that’s all that really matters, isn’t it?

“There’s a particular 1% who’ve had it pretty easy the last two terms that could help out a lot.”
The top 1% have the resources to simply leave the country (along with their companies and thousands of jobs). Then where will our economy be, Skippy? Think.

WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND TELL THEM THAT FOR CHANGE WE CAN REALLY BELIVE IN TO SUPPORT PROPOSED SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT COE09E33. You can Google COE09E33 to read the simple TWO page bill which is written in simple to understand plain English.

Joe Biden asks “Who do you trust?”
Stand up Chuck and tell ‘em.

“The top 1% have the resources to simply leave the country (along with their companies and thousands of jobs)”
Just because of a few bad apples like Mitt[job-killer]Romney who’ve been shipping companies and jobs out of here for years doesn’t mean we should fear that the entire top 1% would be that unpatriotic.

What I notice about Republicans, conservatives and those who parrot their talking points
Posted by: Cara A | Nov 30, 2009 12:42:39 PM
Steve Benen, Ezra Klein… what no Jon Gruber?

“SSI is not popular”
Oh really? I dare any candidate to run on a platform of abolishing Social Security and see how far they get.

Skip – I don’t call a program you are FORCED to participate in as popular. If people were given the chance and the facts, most would opt out.

Cara A – Other people’s opinions does not equal data.

“Ultimately, however, it just isn’t tolerable, morally or economically, for a wealthy nation to continue having close to 50 million uninsured people. that some of you think it is strikes me as disturbing.”
Even the “administration” doesn’t use 50 million.
Because this Bill isn’t going to insure most of them.
Should we insure illegal immigrants who have no business being here in the first place?
How about people who can well afford to pay for their own health care, but choose not to? Are they ensured because I have personally failed them, or because they would rather pay for cable TV, iPhones, flashy clothes and luxury cars, than for health care insurance?
How about the people who qualify for existing programs, but who don’t bother to sign up for them? Is that a failing of mine?
When you get down to it, there are perhaps 8 million American citizens who are legitimately uninsured, which is a relatively small percentage of the population. Real “reform” will not occur as long as the Democrats insist on lying about the scope of the problem.

Skip – I don’t call a program you are FORCED to participate in as popular. If people were given the chance and the facts, most would opt out.
Posted by: Joe Eckhardt | Nov 30, 2009 1:19:31 PM
Not most, but quite a few do:
“Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters say working Americans should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and provide for their own retirement planning.
“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% disagree and do not believe Americans should be able to opt out of Social Security. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure.
“A majority of voters under 50 say workers should be allowed to opt out. A plurality of those over 50 disagree.” -Rasmussen 8/21/09
That last paragraph is pretty telling. As I previously stated, retirees want to get back out what they paid in. Retirees know it’s unsustainable but most need it to live on each month. It has nothing to do with popularity.

Ultimately, however, it just isn’t tolerable, morally or economically, for a wealthy nation to continue having close to 50 million uninsured people. that some of you think it is strikes me as disturbing.
Posted by: Cara A | Nov 30, 2009 1:32:19 PM
Not sure if there are any recent studies, but according to a CBO article in 2003, 45 percent of uninsured are uninsured for less than four months; only 16 percent are uninsured for more than 18 months. And the percentages of people who choose not to be insured?

“We can’t insure all of them– some are illegal immigrants.”
Don’t worry, this disaster of a Bill will eventually insure 20 million illegal immigrants as well as American citizens who have the means to pay for their own insurance but prefer that other people pick up the tab.
I find that “intolerable”, but that’s just me.

If you think 1% of the population can pay for the health care for tens of millions of uninsured people, you are severely delusional.
The middle class will get the majority of the bill for this.
As a bonus, they’ll get to stand in line behind the formerly “uninsured” who have plenty of time to sit around doctor’s offices, while people with actual jobs, do not.

Do you actually have a point, btw? You don’t find it intolerable, I take it … so basically you’re not someone I can remotely relate to.For most normal, educated, compassionate and practical people, it’s intolerable. Or maybe I hit the nail on the head with the attention thing.
Posted by: Cara A | Nov 30, 2009 2:08:20 PM
And I’M the one looking for attention?

“”Even for folks who are weathering this economic storm, and have health care right now,” President Obama said at this month’s White House health care summit, “all it takes is one stroke of bad luck — an accident or an illness, a divorce, a lost job — to become one of the nearly 46 million uninsured…”
…
“In reality, a person who goes without coverage for a few months while between jobs is in a completely different boat from somebody who is permanently without insurance. But the broad citation of the headline figure would have you believe that there are literally 46 million people who never, ever, have coverage.” – American Spectator 3/20/09

I see Cara, what else do you find personally “intolerable”?
Because I’m sure we can create another multi-trillion dollar entitlement program to make you feel better.
I find it “intolerable” that we’ve been shouldering the west’s defense for 50+ years, while the euros spent all of their money on goodies like free health care.

“I find it “intolerable” that we’ve been shouldering the west’s defense for 50+ years, while the euros spent all of their money on goodies like free health care.”
- Cut defense spending to fund healthcare? Be careful posting things like this Brian, somebody might mistake you for a liberal.

“Once it is implemented (over a full 10-year window from years 2014 to 2023), the giant House health bill carries a price tag of $2.4 trillion, or as much as $2.6 trillion with the “doc fix.””
Brian – Very valid points, however, even the $2.6 trillion the estimate is understated. Not included in the analysis you cite are the hundreds of billions in additional (non-tax) costs incurred as individuals are forced to purchase health insurance or in increased health insurance premiums. One study I read places total (tax and non-tax) ten-year costs at $6+ trillion.
That’s $6 trillion less over a 10 year period available for individuals to pump into the economy.

From Wiki: “Gruber was called the Democratic Party’s “most influential health-care expert” by the Washington Post and was a key architect of the sweeping health insurance reforms that Massachusetts enacted in 2006. Gruber currently sits on the board of the state’s “Connector,” which helps oversee the implementation of those reforms.”
So how do the fine citizens of Massachusetts view their socialized healthchare? Recent survey:
- 32% of the state’s voters consider that reform a success
- 36% consider the plan a failure
- 32% are not sure.
- 20% say that the state’s reform effort has made health care more affordable
- 31% say the effort has made health care less affordable
- 39% believe it’s had no impact on prices
- 11% are not sure
Sounds like a great system that should be emulated nationwide…./sarc

The Senate Bill will need to be reconciled with the House Bill and the House Bill will explode costs.
It’s irrelevant what’s in either bill until they are reconciled and you can be sure that will be when the worst elements of both bills will be merged together.
Then we’ll be told that it must be passed by “X” date (in all of its craptacular suckitude), because “history can’t wait”.
Then if it passes, we’ll be chronically ailed by it for all eternity.
Defeating this Bill will free the American people and will toss the Obama “administration” into the ash bin of history.

“Who Do You Trust?” As if they really want to know the answer. I do NOT trust you, Mr. Obama. You are doing everything to bankrupt our country. You have not been responsive to the needs of the people. Where are the jobs you were going to create? Why did you sign a bill full of pork when you promised you wouldn’t? You promised it would not be politics as usual but you filled your administratiaon full of lobbyists. You make a mockery of our constitution. You blame everything on Bush, despite there being a democratic congress the past two years. Now the CBO has released a new report stating your health care bill is going to raise the cost of insurance premiums for everyone. Stop the insanity!!!

Has anyone noticed that whenever the government has a significant involvement in activies that would be best handled at an individual level, higher prices seem to ensue? Examples:
- Healthcare (government controls 50%+ of spend)
- Education/Tuition (as availability of subsidized loans and grants increased, tuition costs increased)
- Housing (forced lending by banks to unqualified borrowers)
- etc.
Coincidence? Don’t think so. If government takes over healthcare (which it will eventually if this bill passes) expect today’s increases in healthcare costs to be fond memories in the years ahead.

Pretty sleazy tjp . . .. editing out the references to the work Gruber has done with Republicans, and to the fact the Massachusetts health insurance reform was done under Republican Governor Mitt Romney.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 30, 2009 4:07:42 PM
Almost as sleazy as Cara leaving out the fact that Gruber was the Mass. HC “architect” and that it’s “the day of reckoning” for his great work, as described in the NY Times, March of this year:
“The day of reckoning has arrived. Threatened first by rapid early enrollment in its new subsidized insurance program and now by a withering economy, the state’s pioneering overhaul has entered a second, more challenging phase.
“Thanks to new taxes and fees imposed last year, the health plan’s jittery finances have stabilized for the moment. But government and industry officials agree that the plan will not be sustainable over the next 5 to 10 years if they do not take significant steps to arrest the growth of health spending.” – NY Times 3/09
And from The Boston Globe:
“The state’s major health insurers plan to raise premiums by about 10 percent next year, prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers.
“Increases will range from 7 to 12 percent, capping a decade of consecutive double-digit premium increases, according to a Globe survey of the state’s top health insurers. Actual rates for 2010 will depend on the size of the employer and the type of coverage, with small businesses and individuals expected to be hit hardest. Overall, premiums are more than twice as high as they were 10 years ago.” – The Boston Globe, 9/16/09

“Pretty sleazy tjp . . .. editing out the references to the work Gruber has done with Republicans, and to the fact the Massachusetts health insurance reform was done under Republican Governor Mitt Romney.”
Tierra,
a.) That Gruber worked with Romney on this legislature is irrelevant – He is considered a “key architect” of what is generally acknowledged as a failed experiment
b.) You make (as usual) the assumption that those of us who oppose Obama do so for purely partisan and ideological reasons. If Romney were president and tried passing along a similar crap sandwich to those of us outside of Massachusetts there would be many of us screaming just as loudly in opposition.
Please find another of your cut-and-paste responses that might be more appropriate.

“MIT professor Jonathan Gruber has released a study stating that the Senate Democrats’ health care reform bill makes “market reforms which will make health insurance much more affordable for individuals facing purchase in the non-group market.”"
Not according to the CBO numbers. It will cost them between $1,800 – $2,000 more per year.
It’s all bogus anyway, collect taxes, fees, vat for 10 years and pay benefits for 6.

“MIT professor Jonathan Gruber has released a study”
I’m sure his data is every bit as sound as that used to perpetrate the global climate change fraud.
PT Barnum had it right. We used to have a media who questioned these hucksters, now they just pass on whatever it is the Democrats want them to as fact.

Any attempt of the government to sell health care or compete with privet health care insurance companies would mean the end to privet insurance companies.All they need to do is give away the insurance for almost nothing and that will be the end of privet insurance companies.That is what they want.The government can negotiate rates to cover uninsured and subsidized accordingly. Eligibility should be on case by case bassis.But no matter what the country can not afford any thing now.This is the U.S.A. there is no place for socialism our founding fathers and the people of the time payed a hi price for freedom.NOTHING IS FREE SOME ONE PAYS.There are better ways to reduce health care costs.

Jim – You said “Any politician that does not support a public option should be forced to immediately give up THEIR government funded health insurance.”
I love folks who appear to not have a clue and make incorrect comments. Contrary to what many believe Congressmen do not have FREE health insurance. Their employer is the federal government and like many employers, through FEHB it provides him and all federal employees with access to an insurance plan from a private insurance company (AETNA, Blue Cross, Health Net, Kaiser, etc). The federal government pays approximately 2/3 of the premium and the Congressman is responsible for the remaining portion of the premium. This is in line with many private companies who offer health insurance to their employees as part of their benefit program. Congressmen have been required to get their health insurance in this manner since passage of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1983. The Congressman is responsible for any co-pays or deductable payments when service is provided by a healthcare provider.
The Congressman is also susceptible to the limits within the plan he chooses, none of the plans cover 100% of the costs the insured eventually reaches a point where he has to dig into his own pockets. The governments only other involvement with the FEHB is to negotiate rates and benefits for each plan once a year. If you want to view the plans and their limits, deductibles, and co-pays just Google “FEHB” and go to the site and see what the different plans are. The FEHB health plans are either nationwide (plan available anywhere within the country) or regional (plan available only in one state or a portion of a state).
FEHB allows the Congressman to change between plans once a year during what is referred to as an open season and he can switch with no lapse in coverage due to pre-existing conditions and if he changes jobs within the Federal Government he can take his current plan with him if the plan is available (he moved from one region to another) at his new position, if not he can switch with no problems. One of the differences in the plan costs is the level of benefits provided and the amount the patient pays (co-pays or deductable) when receiving healthcare.
Now for Social Security for Congressmen. You probably are of 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 matter when they were first elected are required to participate in Social Security. These same people also participate in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) unless they were elected prior to 1984 in which case they use the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) 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.
Additionally they have an additional sum withheld which goes into the FERS retirement fund and if he chooses he can have an additional sum withheld and placed in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), The TSP operates similar to a 401k and has several 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 retirement 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 achieve 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).
The starting retirement of a Congressman can be no greater than 80% of his salary at retirement and the level is increased relative to the CPI so it would take years to reach an amount equal to his final pay. In order for a Congressman to participation in the FEHB program when he leaves office he must first meet the requirement to retire which means age and service time come into play. According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.
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. Hope this has educated you on what you appear to believe. 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 and most of them would not be eligible to continue in the FEHB program.
Hope this has educated you on what you appear to believe.

I do not trust the Pelosi congress to do what is in the best interest of the country. However, the GOP Tea Party crowd does not instill great confidence either. One promises more freedom in personal matters, but want to control the fruits of your labor. The other wants you to keep all the fruits of your labor, but control the fruit of your loins and other deeply personal matters.
One wishes to put government in place to make decisions for your financial future and hwo you work, while the other wishes to control how you live and love. The end result is more government control. PERIOD.
Both the Pelosi Liberals and the Palin Tea Party crowd mean less freedom for all Americans to control their lives.
Independents and moderates need to call out both the left and the right for what they really promote… government governing in their image.

LIAR!

=============================
After the Whitehoue booted the outed radical communist Van Jones, we found out Obama is still getting counsel from this nut, job.
=============================
It’s clear the Obama Administration can’t be trusted because they keep seeked the radical extremists
=============================
White House still listening to Van Jones ‘green’ advice – Communist-group founder on team influencing environmental policies

Sergio -”I don’t see why people think we can’t afford this bill. I would rather pay a affordable price for health care than than BS that I’m paying now. The people of this country would be saving billions each year on health care, and so would the companies that offer it.” —–
WOW — normally anyone who posts on here has comments that contain at least some facts.. Not in this case.
Under this “reform” – existing healthcare premiums are expected to rise by a minimum of 10%. Add to that, the fact that 40% of private employer sponsored health care plans would become taxable income (40% of what ever your employers pays becomes income for the purposes of the taxes you pay at the end of the year). The “affordable price” you long for which I assume is what you think a public option will give you. Is a reduced rate premium that will pay for a reduced level of coverage. As more people fall into the public option (when their employers realize its easier to pay $750 a year in fines per employee than it is to pay $7,000 per employee to provide them with a private plan) the system will become more bloated and have to cut back on more services.
I suppose we could be saving billions – but we would be doing so by watering down the available healthcare that we have. It’s entirely incorect to believe that we can keep the same level of care AND save money.. As far as the companies who offer the care and insurance.. its slow death at the hands of the government.