We ought to all pay the same premiums, just like auto ins should be the same premiums for everybody! Why penalize drivers who have alot of tickets, accidents and DWI’s, it’s not all their fault. And people who’s credit is bad, why should they have to lay in the bed they made for themselves being irresponsible? It was probably just a passing whim. We’re all in this together, after all. Health problems shouldn’t matter.
Elegantly tongue in cheek. Please don’t compare driving a car to health insurance.
Driving a car is a priviledge, having credit is a priviledge. Both have to be earned.
Healthcare is and should be a right, not something available only to those who can afford it.
Call it a stretch, but the declaration of independence does afford us the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Let us agree on that simple principle and then we can haggle out how to make it work equitably for all parties concerned.
There are no easy solutions, but we have to believe that people have the right to healthcare.
To believe otherwise is to support darwinism agaist our fellow man.
Where do you stand?
In auto insurance, probably 100% of applicants are turned down when they have an accident and then try to buy insurance to cover the accident. So, why is it a bad business practice to decline coverage to a female who is already pregnant and looking to buy insurance to pay for the pregnancy costs?
Who are you, the Head Quizmaster? The board moderator?
What is Darwinism (darwinism,as you spell it),is it some Liberal deameaning term you use?
Why is driving a car and having health insurance different?
How about haircuts, is everyone entitled to get them too? What about shoes, we all need them too.
We all know Liberals think everyone should have their own house weather they work for it or not.
I am one to confirm that this is true, I have an HSA with a $2,500 deductible and it went from $190 to $300 per year so it is even worse than reported. This is Blue Cross coverage and nation wide I can only emagine the bonus some are going to receive with this increase.
Yes, but I think you skipped over the “LIBERTY” part. Life is already taken care of… hospitals must provide care… it is against law to refuse care. The patient will just have to pay it off over a long period of time – which, using your logic could be taking away their “pursuit of happiness”. However I would be more happy to be alive than dead (except I’m a Christian, so maybe the other way around… but that’s a whole different discussion, lol).
Is it a right to take from someone else? If you can’t afford health insurance, is it your right that I pay for it, simply because I can and you can’t?
Sooner or later the gov’t (and those who live off the money made by others) will run out of other people’s money.
It’s a tough situation. More could be done with lowering the actual cost of health care. We will have to wait for the current administration to get the heck out of there first (they are too busy attacking the insurance companies and our freedoms to go after the real problems).
Everyone has a right to health care already. Some neglect to buy health insurance because of costs, they get sick or injured and walk into a hospital and they take of the person and the taxpayers foot the bill.
Even those in our country illegally do this. There was much testimony in front of the healthcare political committee regarding this problem for hospitals.
There’s a difference between being denied coverage and a carrier choosing not to provide coverage because the regulated rate for the exposure is inadequate or because of adverse selection.
I find it ironic that Reuters used the word “discriminate” in a pejorative context when “discrimination” is exactly what the principles of rate making are based upon. Was the “discrimination” fair? The article and the Democrats did not address that – just used a statistic to grab a headline to advocate a position.
OK, so hospitals must provide care. that made healthcare a right. They have responsibility to treat people, even if they can’t pay. The hospitals have the right to be compensated for their services. If the person getting the treatment can’t pay (bankrupt), where does the payment come from? Right now, it’s the people who CAN pay. Less and less people are in that group every day so the cost per payer goes up until there’s a change in the system. That’s why the current system isn’t working. The only viable option is to increase the percentage people who actually pay to decrease the average cost. You can either tax everyone for public healthcare(and no one likes that, right???) or you can force people to buy private healthcare. Seems like everyone’s whining about that, too. So who’s actually serious about fixin the problem…and who isn’t?
I partly agree with you Chris. Yes, we the tax payers are paying for others’ “free care”.
However, even with this bill, we will still be paying for others “free care” (illegals for instance). Now we will just have higher premiums on top of that (or higher taxes). This bill does nothing but shift costs. And at the end of the day we have lost some of our freedom.
It sets the precedence for future “universal rights” (like shoes, houses, vacations, and so on).
I am praying that liberty survives… people just need to wake up.
“257,100 could not get a plan compared with 172,400 in 2007, the committee said.”
With 250,000,000. people insured and written 257,000 represents 1% of policy holders denied coverage.
Lets stop it with the political posturing, spinning and twisting of facts. This is not a problem. The real problem is coming in 2014 when this monster that Obama created comes to life and kills mainstreet business. If you think that unemployment is a problem now, just wait until it becomes very painful for an employer to have more than 50 employees. These employers are going to be killed with fines and penalties and will create an incentive to let their employees go and farm work out overseas.
I agree on the pregnancy situation (sort of like closing the barndoor – or something else) after all the horses are out. But this article is talking about those that are trying to buy insurance on their own – not through a government-sponsored program. If they can’t get it, where are they to turn? Not all of these applicants were pregnant.
And this is nothing like auto insurance. If you have multiple DUIs you can still get insurance through the state pool. Where is that safety net in health insurance? Do most states even offer such a program?
I believe that almost if not all of the people being declined coverage has some sort of pre-existing condition. These insurance companies are in business to make money. Why would they take on a client who is going to pay $3,600 in premiums and get $100,000+ in benefits, knowingly? Can’t imagine the shareholder lawsuit that would develop from that business practice.
Wake up! We pay at least 30% more than other western countries for health care. Why, because we support this needless middleman called the health insurance industry. They provide no direct benefit to the delivery of medical services. They are just a costly hurdle in the middle of what should be a seemless delivery of medical services. A single payer plan, like Medicare for all, is the utimate answer. Everyone in (paying a actuarially based premium to ensure solvency), with the cost shared by all. Until we get there, we will always be getting screwed. Luckily for me, I start my Medicare coverage in 19 days.
Did you mean to say we pay 30% more for health insurance?
If that is the case, are you saying that the cost of health insurance is driving the cost of health care?
If so, that doesn’t make sense.
If you are actually referring to the cost of HEALTHCARE…
Yes, we pay more on average for health CARE. This is because…
a) we have the highest quality doctors on the planet
b) we have the largest % of obese citizens; more than any other country (this costs $100s of billions of dollars annually; $147 billion to be exact – and is rising, per CNN)
c) doctors run tons of uneeded tests on patients to cover their rear ends (in fear of the malpractice lawsuit brigade). Payouts are beyond huge!
In addition, you neglect the impact of the insurance industry on our economy. Are you going to be the one to tell the thousands of health insurance workers that they no longer have a job? You think unemployment is bad now.
Getting rid of this industry is impossible. Plus competition can do way more to reduce prices than a gov’t can. Yeah, Europe has their universal health care, but they also have a 40-50% income tax rate (on average).
It only shifts the cost my friend and in the end the majority suffers.
The pregnancy example is the Willie Horton of the issue.
For all of you railing against this: how about (not something I am wishing), you currently have health coverage through your employer. You contract a serious disease that will take years to treat. Your company downsizes, you lose your job (and health coverage). Hard worker that you are, you get another job that also provides health coverage. Oh but you have a pre-existing condition, so you will have health coverage, but not for the condition that makes health coverage a necessity for you.
What is your solution: putting on a teabag hat and voting for politicians who will force school prayer???
You worried about our liberties? Stop deciding I have to learn about some quack creationist theory, have to worship some god, and tell me my rape caused preganancy has to go to term.
Fred you are part of the problem. Let me guess you didnt ever own a company. You might even be a government employee or posibly even a union guy. Obviously you are a socialist at heart and enjoy others taking care of you.
Well I believe in personal responsibility and the fact that the US constitution actually provide protection not only against a large overbearing federal government but also against people who want someone else to take care of them. I am sorry that we have to take care of the medical expenses of people like you who did not prepare for themselves but would rather think they are entitled to everything. Next it will be new shoes, a free night out on the town or maybe even a vacation. There are givers and takers and you liberals are certainly the takers and the eventual demise of our great nation.
Tea baggers are going to kick your A*s in a few weeks. Heres a little education Karl.
Tea Partiers are not: (although they can be as anyone can, but not as a group)
Racist’s
Religious fanatics
Pro Life
Pro gun.
Tea Partiers are:
Constitutional conservatives.
Fiscal responsibility
Believe in a flat fair tax or a consumption tax but not both. No one should pay more than 20% of their income to the government!
Believe in a smaller federal government.
The elimination of the death tax.
Against bailouts of corporations.
Believe Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be desolved rather than kept afloat by our government. etc.
Thats not too hard to understand is it? What problem do you have with any of this?
Alot of Democrats and Independents are Tea Partiers.
Maybe you will understand in a few weeks, come November 2nd.
Darwinism is shoved down our throats. That’s okay, but creationism isn’t.
Stop telling me I have to learn about some quack evolutionist theory that I don’t believe in.
Way to take this discussion to a place we don’t need to go.
You are obviously a evolutionist supporter… life is unfair and some will die sooner than others (survival of the fittest). Thought you would get that… but I guess not.
It is my right to live forever… the gov’t needs to make that happen and you all have to pay for it. Give me a break
discussion went where don;t need to go by the poster who said the govenment in encroaching on our liberties.
Governments/nations are in place so through the collectivization, the group as a whole has a better chance at survival than the individual would otherwise. Making the nation as a whole stronger. If not that, what is the purpose of gov’t/nation?
You want to make it a survival of the fittest scenario? ok then, open up all the jails the crooks and murderers were stronger than someone, must be a liberal conspiracy that doesn’t allow them the benefits of their “stregnths”.
You want to take away the societal safeguards? Fine. When theft becomes the only way to survive, don’t cry when your are robbed.
Lets drop all gun laws and just shoot it out.
Where is your rebuttal to the prior condition scenario presented in my post?
Fred, go to another country and try their socialist medicine. You say it costs us here 30% more. I will say that you will pay 30% more in bribes to see the better doctors and to get appointments with doctors. Because over there the docs are paid by the gov’t and their is no motivation to grow and service clients.
Karl, employer sponsored medical programs do not have a pre-existing exclusion. Also, the employee could take COBRA from the lost job for up to 36 months. The pre-existing exclusion is for buying personal medical insurance on your own. And it for 12 months then it is no longer excluded.
What the heck are you talking about; releasing people out of prisons and it being a liberal conspiracy? How does that have any relevance lol? Someone can have bigger muscles than me, but if they are dumb, have unprotected sex, and gets AIDS, then die a few years later… and I am still here… Darwinism succeeds. The problem is… I have to pay for their care while they are dying.
Do you understand Darwinism/evolutionism? Over time, only the strongest species survive? They evolve and survive better than those before them.
I wasn’t sure if you were aware, but humans are mortal and we only live about 70-90 years on average. Some die sooner because of genetic illnesses, diseases obtained during their life time, obesity, drug abuse, and from injuries.
Is it fair that some will die before me and some after me… no. Will universal health care do anything to make it fair… no. All it will do is shift cost and eventually cost more for us, decreasing the quality of life we have (no matter how long or short our lifespan is).
Also… you think if gun laws were dropped everyone would be shooting it out in the streets?
Such ignorance… more guns would be probably be better.
What if every student at Virginia Tech had a gun when that maniac started shooting up people?
Would someone try to rob a bank if they knew that everyone else was packing? I don’t think so.
If someone wants to murder someone else, they will do it. Regardless of whether they have a gun or not.
Also universal health care and the prison system are two separate items. I don’t mind paying the gov’t to kill terrorists and lock up bad people. However, I do mind paying them the limit my freedom and make me pay for someone else. Medicare is fine. Social Security is pushing it (give me break, learn to save people!)… anything more is tyranny.
Just pushing the less gov’t argument to its extreme.
Your prior post about universal gun ownership also works with univeral gun bans. Personally, I am not a frightened little thing and don’t need to be packing.
You just need to amend the constitution since that is one of our fundamental freedoms as an American (as put forth by our fore-fathers).
That way only criminals will have guns. Us law abiding citizens will finally get a chance to use our baseball bats when an armed robber or murderer comes into our house. My Louisville Slugger needs some attention.
Maybe next they will ban vehicles. Vehicles kill 10 times more people than guns. I can’t wait… no more worries! But how will I get to my Tea Party rallies ever Tuesday night? darn
(Do you sense the sarcasm?)
Guns are not a right, they are a privilege. Commit a felony = no guns for you. Unfortunately, criminals will always have guns.
Here is what I would like to see; what exactly were the “pre existing” conditions that caused the denials? From what I already know, a lot of these denials will be arbitrary and based on idiocy.
That one does not expect a “profit making” organization to take those with pre existing conditions and be victimized with adverse selection is OK with me. Then allow the government to take care of those who cannot secure this insurance privately. But, oh no, you are all too cheap to allow for that since this abrogates your “constitutional” rights, and all those sick people caused their own illnesses by being obese, having unprotected sex, eating red meat, not running a marathon a week, etc., etc., etc. GET serious.
Will you PLEASE stop citing the consititution over this issue? You look like fools since there is ample precedent historically for such humanitarian activities of our government. You may want to cite costs, but facts would reveal that the govt delivers Medicare cheaper by a long shot than private health care carriers…and don’t bring up fraud…there is as much being dumped onto private insurors as on the govt. And DO NOT even start to bring up death panels…we have that now with the private insurers…isn’t the article describing “life and death” consequences for people with their coverage denials? and for all those who say that hospitals have to treat; they have to treat EMERGENCIES…not provide care for chronic illnesses, or cancer chemo, or radiation therapy, or physical therapy. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT before you throw people on the mercy of “the hospitals.”
This bill is an attempt to spread risk. it is an attempt to make all party to healthcare and preventative healthcare at that (since everyone will now see the costs of what their insuror is paying). It is an attempt to provide a vehicle for those who want insurance but cannot secure it (per article). It is an attempt to provide a basic safety net of healthcare for those that need it. It is an attempt to provide financial security to those that are felled by unexpected and unforeseeable healthcare costs. In short, it is in keeping with being caring fellow humans. if you opbject to these goals, leave and go to North Korea. Take your guns with you.
If you do not disagree, then what we need to debate is how we do this, fairly and cost effectively.
I am with Fred, single payor would drive down costs in a NY second. All the unemployed heathcare workers can work for the single payor (it doesn’t have to be the government, even). I am with the rightists that do not want to pay healthcare for illegals. I am for those that say that hospitals and doctors deserve payment for their services. But above all, I am with the “liberals” who can only scratch their heads and think of all the silly reasons and stupid cliches you come up with to dump on this notion that, yes, for some things, I “am my brother’s keeper” and that in this richest country in the world (so far)we cannot come up with ways to afford this. Since you would rather tell me I am a socialist and unpatriotic and that my liberties are being stolen rather than work with me on the details, I am sorry, but I have to relegate you to the ranks of cheesy, selfish, meanspirited, or maybe, just clueless.
Go brew some tea…and try putting some “milk of human kindness” in it. You just won’t ever get it, some of you.
It is interesting that this debate has mostly been civil in this thread. I wonder where all the nutjobs have been? C’mon, I’m itching for some baseless insults and Obama socialist comments. I’m in a trolling mood today and you guys are giving me nothing to work with. Where’s the hate?
So because there is a little bit of Socialism, we must have a lot of Socialism?
According to the United States Constitution, neither I, nor my government, have any obligation to house the homeless, feed the hungry or care for the infirmed. So there is no constitutional basis for this bill and no constitutional authority granted to the government to force me to buy any product or fine me for not doing so.
Come up with a different plan, like government run and funded clinics and hospitals open to everyone, with or without insurance. Exempting the docs from med mal suits and paying them a comparable wage to private practice doctors, forgiving student loan debts, etc, may be a way to start getting highly qualified and well trained doctors to enter the system. Build it off the VA Medical Center system that already exists and maybe our veterans would get better care as well.
Let’s make it a Healthcare issue rather than a Health Insurance issue.
The only social part of the Tea Party is personal responsibility. The ideological part of the Tea Party is Fiscal responsibility of our Government. That’s it. That’s all, and thats why the Tea Party is made up of Republicans, Democrats and Independents. But there is no room for Socialist or Communists. The Tea Party is a very big tent which does NOT push religion or a pro life agenda, which is what you far left liberals and far right wing whacko’s keep trying to state.
Unfortunately Socialist’s like yourself, Casandra and Youngin do not believe in either of the social and ideological agenda of the Tea Party. But the vast majority of working, tax payers in america do and you all will see the results of Tea Party movement on November 2nd.
Does the President of the United States and United States Congress take an oathe to uphold the Constitution in order to take office?
I know you left wing socialists and even the liberal appointed activists judges appointed dont like the US Constitution and maybe because it is the most important law in our great nation.
That’s better! Keep ’em coming! I particularly like it when you make wide ranging assumptions about my beliefs and motivations even though you don’t know me. After all, people who disagree with you must be crazy left wing socialists hell bent on destroying this great country.
We could sit here and bash each other all day… but it’s not going to get us anywhere.
Regardless of what you believe and regardless of who is to blame, this country is headed in the wrong direction.
The majority disliked Bush – he could have done better. Now (whether you like it or not Dems), the majority dislikes Obama and his congress.
While we are here arguing… they are destroying our great country.
Universal health care is bad for America – at least right now.
Bailing out banks and large companies is bad for America – period.
Increasing taxes is bad for America – at least right now.
Right now… we need to get people working. Whether that is through various incentives or tax decreases, whatever, that needs to happen first. Further unemployment is only going to make the cost of this health care bill go up.
The government is systematically creating more welfare. Don’t be fooled, there is an alternate agenda – to make you more dependent on the government.
Government fiscal responsibility – everyone supports this in an abstract sense, including me. The friction is caused by the fact that no one can agree on what should be cut. Both the right and left have sacred cows and no one is consistent with their stated principles. It is intellectually lazy to be “for small government” and “against taxes” without being willing to support specific proposals on how to reduce the size of government.
Personal responsibility – how, again, is this an argument AGAINST compulsory health insurance?
You are right on point youngin! Every politician, rep and dem, are inconsistant and rarely honor their promises.
I agree that it is lazy to say “lower taxes” and smaller gov’t without some sort of plan or proposal.
The problem is that our government spends so freaking much… both sides do. It’s crazy!!! It’s hard to come up with a way to make the gov’t smaller because doing so would cut benefits to so many.
Our politicians are afraid to say “no”! Obama said he would “cut the fat” but instead has spent more! I think Bush did the same thing.
We need to get some officials in office who will say no and start cutting the spending. I am a conservative, but right now, we need someone like Clinton who can go in there and get this economy going.
However, personally I believe, right now, the best way to do that is to put more money in the hands of the people. We need to get people working. Lower taxes across the board… this will give employers room to hire and expand. Keep credit accessable only to those who have earned it.
Most of us are not abstract in our support for fiscal responsibility of our Government, it is called a balanced budget amendment coupled with reductions and or repeal of most government welfare programs. I know this sounds unfamiliar to most liberals, but this is the land of oportunity not entitlement. Just think about that word, “Entitlement”. What does it mean? Are we really entitled to being taken care of by anyone or government. There is no such thing provided for in our US Constitution or Bill of Rights to make anyone “entitled” to anything except Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Personal responsibility means I am responsible for myself not you. Compulsory health insurance means I pay more because I make more than someone else. If they do not make enough money, they dont have to pay. That is the oposite of personal responsibility in my opinion.
Sarah, oh stop already with the personal responsibility. Just thank your lucky stars that you (apparently) have not had to use any government safety net designed to help bootstrap people up or back up.
Fiscal responsibility? How is it responsible to continue to give BIG OIL tax breaks? We see how much of those breaks have been spent on safety fail safes.
Liberals, too, want fiscal responsibility which we have NOT seen under either GOP or Dem controlled congresses. I agree totally with youngin’…now we need to decide where we are going to nbe fiscally responsible. but it appears that the end game for congressional reps is to get themselves reelected rather than actually move this country forward (or stay in place if deemed proper)for the good of the citizenry.
Our difference is ultimately of degree and priority rather than total disagreement. AGAIN, WELL SAID, YOUNGIN’.
But to keep delivering the one note pap you consistently blog, Sarah,is non productive for all.
And so, Miss Tea Bag, why don’t you respond to youngin’s question? WHAT would you do…specifically? What would you cut, specifically? Grandma’s social security? Walter Reed hospital budgets? Pell grants?
Come on, Sarah…you seem like a smart chick…dish up your solutions. We are listening to what the Tea Bag lady has to offer.
And as for the lame dude who talked about “hubris”…give me a break! It is you that may find yourself eating some portions of crow in November. That comment was so out in left field, it was OFF THE PLANET.
Yes, we ALL agree we need to get people back to work. But let me also indicate to you that the powers that be have let a lot of the jobs lost in the past decade or so go overseas…so those jobs are gone for good and may never come back despite some limited backsourcing now occurring.
We also have large companies sitting on tons of profits made in the last few recession years primarily precisely from cutting workers and getting the remaining employees to pick up the slack for perhaps, a measily 3% raise, if any. So who is the villain here? And who could turn the unemployment rate around on a dime if they really wanted to?
While you may talk about “uncertainty” due to Dem policies yada, yada, yada, I would beg to tell you that those issues may well affect the small business who lives much more hand to mouth. but the big boys? Get serious…they can afford to hire and pay benefits, don’t let anyone kid you. they chose not to…because they don’t have to…OR, alternatively, they can’t wait to either outsource more jobs or to whine about lack of qualified American workers so they can import more cheap Asians to do the work. What a Catch-22…By the way, the magnificent big bankers refuse to lend…and all that after they got their butts bailed us by the little guy taxpayers and small businessman…who they now continue to squeeze.
Or, another alternative, do you want to see the Americans revert to consume, consume, consume mode again? Didn’t you feel like the whole world economy depended upon us spending to buy Chinese junk? And putting ourselves into debt to do it?
Even if there are jobs in other locales, how could the worker who wants to relocate sell his house in this market…a house in which he is probably under water and can’t unload anyway?
So, instead of shrieking about JOBS, what would you do…and who would you have do it? Clearly, Big business and big financial is in no mood to “give back”…so what do we do?
What would I cut. First and foremost I would require all government agencies to reduce their workforce by 15 to 20%. Next I would eliminate most of the agencies that do nothing to provide us security or provide any enhansement to our lives. I would allow for an opt out of social security benifits and contributions for those under 45 in conjunction with a means test for recieving SS for those over 45 going forward and increase the retirement age to 68 for all. I would eliminate the department of education and empower the States to take control of there educational systems. I would impose a flat tax or a consumption tax (but not both as Obama is going to do this next year. I would also eliminate the IRS. I would put strict requirement on the length of time someone can collect unemployment and not just keep extending it as it is now. I would create term limits for congressmen and women so we do not have politicians beholden to special interest groups like now. I would also like to make it a requirement that you own or manage a business before you run for any executive office in government.
Ok now for you Casandra, Stop it with this BIG Oil crap… WHAT IS THAT? WHO CARES ANYMORE ABOUT BIG OIL… That was stupid and is totally irrelevent to any governmental argument that is current or for that matter past.
Liberals are too fiscal responsible? HA HA! responsible..LOLOLOLOLOLOL…. Too funny!
“Our difference is ultimately of degree and priority rather than total disagreement” LOL.. That means your wishy washy on everything and take no stand for anything.
I would so much more want to be a Tea bagger than a Bag lady like you Casandra. If we follow your chosen one we all will be Bag ladies like you.
Those sound like mostly reasonable proposals, except for the first one. Tell me, do you think all federal government agencies are equally overfunded by a uniform 15-20%?
Cassandra… so what would your solution be? Get rid of all all business – no more private sector? Who would then make the money and provide the jobs? The government? Yeah, how has that worked out in the past… I don’t see any more growth in communism, do you?
The private sector and these huge corporations you loathe provide the bulk of our gov’ts tax money. Do you really want to get rid of them? If you beat a corporation enough, it will die and then there will be even more people “laid off”. Don’t get me wrong, if a company is corrupt… it should be left out in the field to die. But if not corrupt… don’t beat it.
Businesses have been going oversees mainly because of government interference. Also because of unions. Instead of providing incentives for companies to keep employees here, the gov’t punishes them for doing what is best for their self interest.
You need to take an economics course. No incentive = no progression. Welfare breeds more welfare.
I would also eliminate the 20 year pension eligibility like they have done in the military. I would also like to require that any government employee make not more than the average worker in the private sector. When establishing a government workers salaries the government only takes into consideration what another government employee makes in another area or department. For example if you are a fireman they look at what other firemen make in different parts of the country. Why not make if simular to what someone in the private sector makes since that person is the one paying the salary. Before you say anything I know you would say apples and oranges, but why does someone who is a public SERVANT make more than a private citizen working in the private sector?
15% to 20% is very doable. I am positive. Just in the pension area alone.
Today the Olympic Committee has taken away the Gold medal won by American Lyndsey Vonn and have awarded it to Obama. “He deserves the medal as no one has gone down hill faster than Obama!”
You’re all idiots. Many of you need to learn your facts (and learn proper grammar and spelling while you’re at it) before you post such absurd opinions, groundless claims, and false statistics to try and prove your point. There are over 310 million people in the US; all 310 million think their way of running the country is the right way, the only way. Stop being control freaks!!
I’ve seen people like Yawn all my life, legends in their own minds.
Go Sarah!
Immediate Gov’t spending FREEZE. 5% reductions in budgets annually.
Do you know that BHO is going to get 3.5% of all house sales when his Healthcare goes into full gear? $7500 on a $200,000 home sale.
I bet Yawn has a poster of Bawny Fwank on his bedroom wall.
Oh I got it, Fiscal responsible Liberal Democrat is somewhat of an ozymoron, isnt it?
I know you are still trying to think of where you would cut. Let me help you out by letting you off the hook.
You do not have the faintest idea where to cut because Liberals cant stop spending. You remind me so much of my teenage daughter at the mall with a credit card.
You know I had to take it away from her and the country is about to take the credit card away from congress on November 2nd, So spend while you can liberals the time is coming when we shread your card.
Stop being such a momma grizzly, like that other (in)famous Sarah.
I am crafting a COGENT response to you so you cannot run around and dump on liberals, which you probably will anyway as you ALWAYS do. Surprise, I actually agreed with part of what you said…but then you went off into the stratosphere…
But I have work to do now, so you will have to wait…or not as you see fit.
They need a bail-out too!!!
We ought to all pay the same premiums, just like auto ins should be the same premiums for everybody! Why penalize drivers who have alot of tickets, accidents and DWI’s, it’s not all their fault. And people who’s credit is bad, why should they have to lay in the bed they made for themselves being irresponsible? It was probably just a passing whim. We’re all in this together, after all. Health problems shouldn’t matter.
Elegantly tongue in cheek. Please don’t compare driving a car to health insurance.
Driving a car is a priviledge, having credit is a priviledge. Both have to be earned.
Healthcare is and should be a right, not something available only to those who can afford it.
Call it a stretch, but the declaration of independence does afford us the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Let us agree on that simple principle and then we can haggle out how to make it work equitably for all parties concerned.
There are no easy solutions, but we have to believe that people have the right to healthcare.
To believe otherwise is to support darwinism agaist our fellow man.
Where do you stand?
In auto insurance, probably 100% of applicants are turned down when they have an accident and then try to buy insurance to cover the accident. So, why is it a bad business practice to decline coverage to a female who is already pregnant and looking to buy insurance to pay for the pregnancy costs?
Who are you, the Head Quizmaster? The board moderator?
What is Darwinism (darwinism,as you spell it),is it some Liberal deameaning term you use?
Why is driving a car and having health insurance different?
How about haircuts, is everyone entitled to get them too? What about shoes, we all need them too.
We all know Liberals think everyone should have their own house weather they work for it or not.
I am one to confirm that this is true, I have an HSA with a $2,500 deductible and it went from $190 to $300 per year so it is even worse than reported. This is Blue Cross coverage and nation wide I can only emagine the bonus some are going to receive with this increase.
Yes, but I think you skipped over the “LIBERTY” part. Life is already taken care of… hospitals must provide care… it is against law to refuse care. The patient will just have to pay it off over a long period of time – which, using your logic could be taking away their “pursuit of happiness”. However I would be more happy to be alive than dead (except I’m a Christian, so maybe the other way around… but that’s a whole different discussion, lol).
Is it a right to take from someone else? If you can’t afford health insurance, is it your right that I pay for it, simply because I can and you can’t?
Sooner or later the gov’t (and those who live off the money made by others) will run out of other people’s money.
It’s a tough situation. More could be done with lowering the actual cost of health care. We will have to wait for the current administration to get the heck out of there first (they are too busy attacking the insurance companies and our freedoms to go after the real problems).
funny how the realist is critical for someone using a lower case “d” when he/she can’t figure out which weather/whether to use…idiot.
Everyone has a right to health care already. Some neglect to buy health insurance because of costs, they get sick or injured and walk into a hospital and they take of the person and the taxpayers foot the bill.
Even those in our country illegally do this. There was much testimony in front of the healthcare political committee regarding this problem for hospitals.
There’s a difference between being denied coverage and a carrier choosing not to provide coverage because the regulated rate for the exposure is inadequate or because of adverse selection.
I find it ironic that Reuters used the word “discriminate” in a pejorative context when “discrimination” is exactly what the principles of rate making are based upon. Was the “discrimination” fair? The article and the Democrats did not address that – just used a statistic to grab a headline to advocate a position.
OK, so hospitals must provide care. that made healthcare a right. They have responsibility to treat people, even if they can’t pay. The hospitals have the right to be compensated for their services. If the person getting the treatment can’t pay (bankrupt), where does the payment come from? Right now, it’s the people who CAN pay. Less and less people are in that group every day so the cost per payer goes up until there’s a change in the system. That’s why the current system isn’t working. The only viable option is to increase the percentage people who actually pay to decrease the average cost. You can either tax everyone for public healthcare(and no one likes that, right???) or you can force people to buy private healthcare. Seems like everyone’s whining about that, too. So who’s actually serious about fixin the problem…and who isn’t?
I partly agree with you Chris. Yes, we the tax payers are paying for others’ “free care”.
However, even with this bill, we will still be paying for others “free care” (illegals for instance). Now we will just have higher premiums on top of that (or higher taxes). This bill does nothing but shift costs. And at the end of the day we have lost some of our freedom.
It sets the precedence for future “universal rights” (like shoes, houses, vacations, and so on).
I am praying that liberty survives… people just need to wake up.
“257,100 could not get a plan compared with 172,400 in 2007, the committee said.”
With 250,000,000. people insured and written 257,000 represents 1% of policy holders denied coverage.
Lets stop it with the political posturing, spinning and twisting of facts. This is not a problem. The real problem is coming in 2014 when this monster that Obama created comes to life and kills mainstreet business. If you think that unemployment is a problem now, just wait until it becomes very painful for an employer to have more than 50 employees. These employers are going to be killed with fines and penalties and will create an incentive to let their employees go and farm work out overseas.
I agree on the pregnancy situation (sort of like closing the barndoor – or something else) after all the horses are out. But this article is talking about those that are trying to buy insurance on their own – not through a government-sponsored program. If they can’t get it, where are they to turn? Not all of these applicants were pregnant.
And this is nothing like auto insurance. If you have multiple DUIs you can still get insurance through the state pool. Where is that safety net in health insurance? Do most states even offer such a program?
I believe that almost if not all of the people being declined coverage has some sort of pre-existing condition. These insurance companies are in business to make money. Why would they take on a client who is going to pay $3,600 in premiums and get $100,000+ in benefits, knowingly? Can’t imagine the shareholder lawsuit that would develop from that business practice.
Wake up! We pay at least 30% more than other western countries for health care. Why, because we support this needless middleman called the health insurance industry. They provide no direct benefit to the delivery of medical services. They are just a costly hurdle in the middle of what should be a seemless delivery of medical services. A single payer plan, like Medicare for all, is the utimate answer. Everyone in (paying a actuarially based premium to ensure solvency), with the cost shared by all. Until we get there, we will always be getting screwed. Luckily for me, I start my Medicare coverage in 19 days.
Did you mean to say we pay 30% more for health insurance?
If that is the case, are you saying that the cost of health insurance is driving the cost of health care?
If so, that doesn’t make sense.
If you are actually referring to the cost of HEALTHCARE…
Yes, we pay more on average for health CARE. This is because…
a) we have the highest quality doctors on the planet
b) we have the largest % of obese citizens; more than any other country (this costs $100s of billions of dollars annually; $147 billion to be exact – and is rising, per CNN)
c) doctors run tons of uneeded tests on patients to cover their rear ends (in fear of the malpractice lawsuit brigade). Payouts are beyond huge!
In addition, you neglect the impact of the insurance industry on our economy. Are you going to be the one to tell the thousands of health insurance workers that they no longer have a job? You think unemployment is bad now.
Getting rid of this industry is impossible. Plus competition can do way more to reduce prices than a gov’t can. Yeah, Europe has their universal health care, but they also have a 40-50% income tax rate (on average).
It only shifts the cost my friend and in the end the majority suffers.
The pregnancy example is the Willie Horton of the issue.
For all of you railing against this: how about (not something I am wishing), you currently have health coverage through your employer. You contract a serious disease that will take years to treat. Your company downsizes, you lose your job (and health coverage). Hard worker that you are, you get another job that also provides health coverage. Oh but you have a pre-existing condition, so you will have health coverage, but not for the condition that makes health coverage a necessity for you.
What is your solution: putting on a teabag hat and voting for politicians who will force school prayer???
You worried about our liberties? Stop deciding I have to learn about some quack creationist theory, have to worship some god, and tell me my rape caused preganancy has to go to term.
Fred you are part of the problem. Let me guess you didnt ever own a company. You might even be a government employee or posibly even a union guy. Obviously you are a socialist at heart and enjoy others taking care of you.
Well I believe in personal responsibility and the fact that the US constitution actually provide protection not only against a large overbearing federal government but also against people who want someone else to take care of them. I am sorry that we have to take care of the medical expenses of people like you who did not prepare for themselves but would rather think they are entitled to everything. Next it will be new shoes, a free night out on the town or maybe even a vacation. There are givers and takers and you liberals are certainly the takers and the eventual demise of our great nation.
Tea baggers are going to kick your A*s in a few weeks. Heres a little education Karl.
Tea Partiers are not: (although they can be as anyone can, but not as a group)
Racist’s
Religious fanatics
Pro Life
Pro gun.
Tea Partiers are:
Constitutional conservatives.
Fiscal responsibility
Believe in a flat fair tax or a consumption tax but not both. No one should pay more than 20% of their income to the government!
Believe in a smaller federal government.
The elimination of the death tax.
Against bailouts of corporations.
Believe Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be desolved rather than kept afloat by our government. etc.
Thats not too hard to understand is it? What problem do you have with any of this?
Alot of Democrats and Independents are Tea Partiers.
Maybe you will understand in a few weeks, come November 2nd.
Darwinism is shoved down our throats. That’s okay, but creationism isn’t.
Stop telling me I have to learn about some quack evolutionist theory that I don’t believe in.
Way to take this discussion to a place we don’t need to go.
You are obviously a evolutionist supporter… life is unfair and some will die sooner than others (survival of the fittest). Thought you would get that… but I guess not.
It is my right to live forever… the gov’t needs to make that happen and you all have to pay for it. Give me a break
discussion went where don;t need to go by the poster who said the govenment in encroaching on our liberties.
Governments/nations are in place so through the collectivization, the group as a whole has a better chance at survival than the individual would otherwise. Making the nation as a whole stronger. If not that, what is the purpose of gov’t/nation?
You want to make it a survival of the fittest scenario? ok then, open up all the jails the crooks and murderers were stronger than someone, must be a liberal conspiracy that doesn’t allow them the benefits of their “stregnths”.
You want to take away the societal safeguards? Fine. When theft becomes the only way to survive, don’t cry when your are robbed.
Lets drop all gun laws and just shoot it out.
Where is your rebuttal to the prior condition scenario presented in my post?
no one is kicking my *** in a few weeks. Hope they can win, no one will suffer more from it than their supporters.
Nothing wrong with the platform you laid out. Lets see it in practice.
Are you asserting that there isn’t a social agenda to the teapartiers? Their candidates will be surprised to hear that.
Fred, go to another country and try their socialist medicine. You say it costs us here 30% more. I will say that you will pay 30% more in bribes to see the better doctors and to get appointments with doctors. Because over there the docs are paid by the gov’t and their is no motivation to grow and service clients.
Karl, employer sponsored medical programs do not have a pre-existing exclusion. Also, the employee could take COBRA from the lost job for up to 36 months. The pre-existing exclusion is for buying personal medical insurance on your own. And it for 12 months then it is no longer excluded.
Have you priced out cobra. Also not sure when it was expanded to 36 months. Last time it was an issue for me max time was 18 months.
BY the way, why is COBRA mandatory – damn gov’t interference.
I recall the health plan where I work having a buyback for pre-existing condition where treatment was already begun.
So what happens to the person with the pre-existing condition out of work too long who finally has to get a personal plan?
What the heck are you talking about; releasing people out of prisons and it being a liberal conspiracy? How does that have any relevance lol? Someone can have bigger muscles than me, but if they are dumb, have unprotected sex, and gets AIDS, then die a few years later… and I am still here… Darwinism succeeds. The problem is… I have to pay for their care while they are dying.
Do you understand Darwinism/evolutionism? Over time, only the strongest species survive? They evolve and survive better than those before them.
I wasn’t sure if you were aware, but humans are mortal and we only live about 70-90 years on average. Some die sooner because of genetic illnesses, diseases obtained during their life time, obesity, drug abuse, and from injuries.
Is it fair that some will die before me and some after me… no. Will universal health care do anything to make it fair… no. All it will do is shift cost and eventually cost more for us, decreasing the quality of life we have (no matter how long or short our lifespan is).
OH, OK. So what species are the creatures that are pulling for universal health care?
Why not dismantle all governments and just let us have a free for all with the fittest surviving
OH, OK. So what species are the creatures that are pulling for universal health care?
Why not dismantle all governments and just let us have a free for all with the fittest surviving
Also… you think if gun laws were dropped everyone would be shooting it out in the streets?
Such ignorance… more guns would be probably be better.
What if every student at Virginia Tech had a gun when that maniac started shooting up people?
Would someone try to rob a bank if they knew that everyone else was packing? I don’t think so.
If someone wants to murder someone else, they will do it. Regardless of whether they have a gun or not.
Also universal health care and the prison system are two separate items. I don’t mind paying the gov’t to kill terrorists and lock up bad people. However, I do mind paying them the limit my freedom and make me pay for someone else. Medicare is fine. Social Security is pushing it (give me break, learn to save people!)… anything more is tyranny.
You have no logic, just leftist BS.
Why do you speak in absolutes and extremes? You sound like some of those bozos in Washington.
Again, what are you talking about? Who is saying we need to dismantle the government?
We just want our existing freedoms to stay intact.
America was created in response to tyranny and of a lack of freedom.
Just pushing the less gov’t argument to its extreme.
Your prior post about universal gun ownership also works with univeral gun bans. Personally, I am not a frightened little thing and don’t need to be packing.
Universal gun bans… go for it.
You just need to amend the constitution since that is one of our fundamental freedoms as an American (as put forth by our fore-fathers).
That way only criminals will have guns. Us law abiding citizens will finally get a chance to use our baseball bats when an armed robber or murderer comes into our house. My Louisville Slugger needs some attention.
Maybe next they will ban vehicles. Vehicles kill 10 times more people than guns. I can’t wait… no more worries! But how will I get to my Tea Party rallies ever Tuesday night? darn
(Do you sense the sarcasm?)
Guns are not a right, they are a privilege. Commit a felony = no guns for you. Unfortunately, criminals will always have guns.
Some support for Karl, Fred, Scottsdale Slim…….
Here is what I would like to see; what exactly were the “pre existing” conditions that caused the denials? From what I already know, a lot of these denials will be arbitrary and based on idiocy.
That one does not expect a “profit making” organization to take those with pre existing conditions and be victimized with adverse selection is OK with me. Then allow the government to take care of those who cannot secure this insurance privately. But, oh no, you are all too cheap to allow for that since this abrogates your “constitutional” rights, and all those sick people caused their own illnesses by being obese, having unprotected sex, eating red meat, not running a marathon a week, etc., etc., etc. GET serious.
Will you PLEASE stop citing the consititution over this issue? You look like fools since there is ample precedent historically for such humanitarian activities of our government. You may want to cite costs, but facts would reveal that the govt delivers Medicare cheaper by a long shot than private health care carriers…and don’t bring up fraud…there is as much being dumped onto private insurors as on the govt. And DO NOT even start to bring up death panels…we have that now with the private insurers…isn’t the article describing “life and death” consequences for people with their coverage denials? and for all those who say that hospitals have to treat; they have to treat EMERGENCIES…not provide care for chronic illnesses, or cancer chemo, or radiation therapy, or physical therapy. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT before you throw people on the mercy of “the hospitals.”
This bill is an attempt to spread risk. it is an attempt to make all party to healthcare and preventative healthcare at that (since everyone will now see the costs of what their insuror is paying). It is an attempt to provide a vehicle for those who want insurance but cannot secure it (per article). It is an attempt to provide a basic safety net of healthcare for those that need it. It is an attempt to provide financial security to those that are felled by unexpected and unforeseeable healthcare costs. In short, it is in keeping with being caring fellow humans. if you opbject to these goals, leave and go to North Korea. Take your guns with you.
If you do not disagree, then what we need to debate is how we do this, fairly and cost effectively.
I am with Fred, single payor would drive down costs in a NY second. All the unemployed heathcare workers can work for the single payor (it doesn’t have to be the government, even). I am with the rightists that do not want to pay healthcare for illegals. I am for those that say that hospitals and doctors deserve payment for their services. But above all, I am with the “liberals” who can only scratch their heads and think of all the silly reasons and stupid cliches you come up with to dump on this notion that, yes, for some things, I “am my brother’s keeper” and that in this richest country in the world (so far)we cannot come up with ways to afford this. Since you would rather tell me I am a socialist and unpatriotic and that my liberties are being stolen rather than work with me on the details, I am sorry, but I have to relegate you to the ranks of cheesy, selfish, meanspirited, or maybe, just clueless.
Go brew some tea…and try putting some “milk of human kindness” in it. You just won’t ever get it, some of you.
It is interesting that this debate has mostly been civil in this thread. I wonder where all the nutjobs have been? C’mon, I’m itching for some baseless insults and Obama socialist comments. I’m in a trolling mood today and you guys are giving me nothing to work with. Where’s the hate?
So because there is a little bit of Socialism, we must have a lot of Socialism?
According to the United States Constitution, neither I, nor my government, have any obligation to house the homeless, feed the hungry or care for the infirmed. So there is no constitutional basis for this bill and no constitutional authority granted to the government to force me to buy any product or fine me for not doing so.
Come up with a different plan, like government run and funded clinics and hospitals open to everyone, with or without insurance. Exempting the docs from med mal suits and paying them a comparable wage to private practice doctors, forgiving student loan debts, etc, may be a way to start getting highly qualified and well trained doctors to enter the system. Build it off the VA Medical Center system that already exists and maybe our veterans would get better care as well.
Let’s make it a Healthcare issue rather than a Health Insurance issue.
Your Karl Marx, not Rove.
The only social part of the Tea Party is personal responsibility. The ideological part of the Tea Party is Fiscal responsibility of our Government. That’s it. That’s all, and thats why the Tea Party is made up of Republicans, Democrats and Independents. But there is no room for Socialist or Communists. The Tea Party is a very big tent which does NOT push religion or a pro life agenda, which is what you far left liberals and far right wing whacko’s keep trying to state.
Unfortunately Socialist’s like yourself, Casandra and Youngin do not believe in either of the social and ideological agenda of the Tea Party. But the vast majority of working, tax payers in america do and you all will see the results of Tea Party movement on November 2nd.
Does the President of the United States and United States Congress take an oathe to uphold the Constitution in order to take office?
I know you left wing socialists and even the liberal appointed activists judges appointed dont like the US Constitution and maybe because it is the most important law in our great nation.
Maybe you should move to France.
That’s better! Keep ’em coming! I particularly like it when you make wide ranging assumptions about my beliefs and motivations even though you don’t know me. After all, people who disagree with you must be crazy left wing socialists hell bent on destroying this great country.
Pretty much Youngin,
Left wing socialist or Right wing wacko’s.
How about displaying just a little belief in personal and government fiscal responsibility.
We could sit here and bash each other all day… but it’s not going to get us anywhere.
Regardless of what you believe and regardless of who is to blame, this country is headed in the wrong direction.
The majority disliked Bush – he could have done better. Now (whether you like it or not Dems), the majority dislikes Obama and his congress.
While we are here arguing… they are destroying our great country.
Universal health care is bad for America – at least right now.
Bailing out banks and large companies is bad for America – period.
Increasing taxes is bad for America – at least right now.
Right now… we need to get people working. Whether that is through various incentives or tax decreases, whatever, that needs to happen first. Further unemployment is only going to make the cost of this health care bill go up.
The government is systematically creating more welfare. Don’t be fooled, there is an alternate agenda – to make you more dependent on the government.
Government fiscal responsibility – everyone supports this in an abstract sense, including me. The friction is caused by the fact that no one can agree on what should be cut. Both the right and left have sacred cows and no one is consistent with their stated principles. It is intellectually lazy to be “for small government” and “against taxes” without being willing to support specific proposals on how to reduce the size of government.
Personal responsibility – how, again, is this an argument AGAINST compulsory health insurance?
You are right on point youngin! Every politician, rep and dem, are inconsistant and rarely honor their promises.
I agree that it is lazy to say “lower taxes” and smaller gov’t without some sort of plan or proposal.
The problem is that our government spends so freaking much… both sides do. It’s crazy!!! It’s hard to come up with a way to make the gov’t smaller because doing so would cut benefits to so many.
Our politicians are afraid to say “no”! Obama said he would “cut the fat” but instead has spent more! I think Bush did the same thing.
We need to get some officials in office who will say no and start cutting the spending. I am a conservative, but right now, we need someone like Clinton who can go in there and get this economy going.
However, personally I believe, right now, the best way to do that is to put more money in the hands of the people. We need to get people working. Lower taxes across the board… this will give employers room to hire and expand. Keep credit accessable only to those who have earned it.
Youngin,
Most of us are not abstract in our support for fiscal responsibility of our Government, it is called a balanced budget amendment coupled with reductions and or repeal of most government welfare programs. I know this sounds unfamiliar to most liberals, but this is the land of oportunity not entitlement. Just think about that word, “Entitlement”. What does it mean? Are we really entitled to being taken care of by anyone or government. There is no such thing provided for in our US Constitution or Bill of Rights to make anyone “entitled” to anything except Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Personal responsibility means I am responsible for myself not you. Compulsory health insurance means I pay more because I make more than someone else. If they do not make enough money, they dont have to pay. That is the oposite of personal responsibility in my opinion.
Sarah, oh stop already with the personal responsibility. Just thank your lucky stars that you (apparently) have not had to use any government safety net designed to help bootstrap people up or back up.
Fiscal responsibility? How is it responsible to continue to give BIG OIL tax breaks? We see how much of those breaks have been spent on safety fail safes.
Liberals, too, want fiscal responsibility which we have NOT seen under either GOP or Dem controlled congresses. I agree totally with youngin’…now we need to decide where we are going to nbe fiscally responsible. but it appears that the end game for congressional reps is to get themselves reelected rather than actually move this country forward (or stay in place if deemed proper)for the good of the citizenry.
Our difference is ultimately of degree and priority rather than total disagreement. AGAIN, WELL SAID, YOUNGIN’.
But to keep delivering the one note pap you consistently blog, Sarah,is non productive for all.
And so, Miss Tea Bag, why don’t you respond to youngin’s question? WHAT would you do…specifically? What would you cut, specifically? Grandma’s social security? Walter Reed hospital budgets? Pell grants?
Come on, Sarah…you seem like a smart chick…dish up your solutions. We are listening to what the Tea Bag lady has to offer.
And as for the lame dude who talked about “hubris”…give me a break! It is you that may find yourself eating some portions of crow in November. That comment was so out in left field, it was OFF THE PLANET.
Yes, we ALL agree we need to get people back to work. But let me also indicate to you that the powers that be have let a lot of the jobs lost in the past decade or so go overseas…so those jobs are gone for good and may never come back despite some limited backsourcing now occurring.
We also have large companies sitting on tons of profits made in the last few recession years primarily precisely from cutting workers and getting the remaining employees to pick up the slack for perhaps, a measily 3% raise, if any. So who is the villain here? And who could turn the unemployment rate around on a dime if they really wanted to?
While you may talk about “uncertainty” due to Dem policies yada, yada, yada, I would beg to tell you that those issues may well affect the small business who lives much more hand to mouth. but the big boys? Get serious…they can afford to hire and pay benefits, don’t let anyone kid you. they chose not to…because they don’t have to…OR, alternatively, they can’t wait to either outsource more jobs or to whine about lack of qualified American workers so they can import more cheap Asians to do the work. What a Catch-22…By the way, the magnificent big bankers refuse to lend…and all that after they got their butts bailed us by the little guy taxpayers and small businessman…who they now continue to squeeze.
Or, another alternative, do you want to see the Americans revert to consume, consume, consume mode again? Didn’t you feel like the whole world economy depended upon us spending to buy Chinese junk? And putting ourselves into debt to do it?
Even if there are jobs in other locales, how could the worker who wants to relocate sell his house in this market…a house in which he is probably under water and can’t unload anyway?
So, instead of shrieking about JOBS, what would you do…and who would you have do it? Clearly, Big business and big financial is in no mood to “give back”…so what do we do?
Casandra, or should I say Casandra and Youngin.
What would I cut. First and foremost I would require all government agencies to reduce their workforce by 15 to 20%. Next I would eliminate most of the agencies that do nothing to provide us security or provide any enhansement to our lives. I would allow for an opt out of social security benifits and contributions for those under 45 in conjunction with a means test for recieving SS for those over 45 going forward and increase the retirement age to 68 for all. I would eliminate the department of education and empower the States to take control of there educational systems. I would impose a flat tax or a consumption tax (but not both as Obama is going to do this next year. I would also eliminate the IRS. I would put strict requirement on the length of time someone can collect unemployment and not just keep extending it as it is now. I would create term limits for congressmen and women so we do not have politicians beholden to special interest groups like now. I would also like to make it a requirement that you own or manage a business before you run for any executive office in government.
Ok now for you Casandra, Stop it with this BIG Oil crap… WHAT IS THAT? WHO CARES ANYMORE ABOUT BIG OIL… That was stupid and is totally irrelevent to any governmental argument that is current or for that matter past.
Liberals are too fiscal responsible? HA HA! responsible..LOLOLOLOLOLOL…. Too funny!
“Our difference is ultimately of degree and priority rather than total disagreement” LOL.. That means your wishy washy on everything and take no stand for anything.
I would so much more want to be a Tea bagger than a Bag lady like you Casandra. If we follow your chosen one we all will be Bag ladies like you.
I told you what I would cut. (by the way I could just keep goiing)
You stated that Liberals are fiscal responsible, WHAT PROGRAM WOULD YOU CUT?
Those sound like mostly reasonable proposals, except for the first one. Tell me, do you think all federal government agencies are equally overfunded by a uniform 15-20%?
Cassandra… so what would your solution be? Get rid of all all business – no more private sector? Who would then make the money and provide the jobs? The government? Yeah, how has that worked out in the past… I don’t see any more growth in communism, do you?
The private sector and these huge corporations you loathe provide the bulk of our gov’ts tax money. Do you really want to get rid of them? If you beat a corporation enough, it will die and then there will be even more people “laid off”. Don’t get me wrong, if a company is corrupt… it should be left out in the field to die. But if not corrupt… don’t beat it.
Businesses have been going oversees mainly because of government interference. Also because of unions. Instead of providing incentives for companies to keep employees here, the gov’t punishes them for doing what is best for their self interest.
You need to take an economics course. No incentive = no progression. Welfare breeds more welfare.
Probably 30 to 40%
I would also eliminate the 20 year pension eligibility like they have done in the military. I would also like to require that any government employee make not more than the average worker in the private sector. When establishing a government workers salaries the government only takes into consideration what another government employee makes in another area or department. For example if you are a fireman they look at what other firemen make in different parts of the country. Why not make if simular to what someone in the private sector makes since that person is the one paying the salary. Before you say anything I know you would say apples and oranges, but why does someone who is a public SERVANT make more than a private citizen working in the private sector?
15% to 20% is very doable. I am positive. Just in the pension area alone.
Why does the
Today the Olympic Committee has taken away the Gold medal won by American Lyndsey Vonn and have awarded it to Obama. “He deserves the medal as no one has gone down hill faster than Obama!”
Lol!! I have seen that email (someone with a suit and obama mask on skiing down a hill).
Look at this clip… http://www.spike.com/video/i-want-your-money/3453055
Pretty cool
You’re all idiots. Many of you need to learn your facts (and learn proper grammar and spelling while you’re at it) before you post such absurd opinions, groundless claims, and false statistics to try and prove your point. There are over 310 million people in the US; all 310 million think their way of running the country is the right way, the only way. Stop being control freaks!!
Someone needs a hug. Give yawn a hug… stat!
(you wine and bash others but contibute nothing yourself) – you will fit in nice here!
What spending cuts to social programs “entitlements” would a liberal make?
chrp…. chrp…..chrp….
You are a fiscal responsible person, right?
Right – and all your contributions have been so scholarly? LMAO – stop, peeing my pants.
While I may need a hug – you need to get out of your trailer and go back to school. It’s “whine” not “wine.”
Please list the items I have posted that you think are unscholarly and explain why they are flaud.
I will then get you the facts you seek.
Then, people here will take you seriously.
If you don’t respond, you are basically the same as those you criticize (just worse because you make personal attacks for no reason).
By the way… I can gaurantee my trailer is about 5 times larger than yours lol, judging by the way you speak.
I’ve seen people like Yawn all my life, legends in their own minds.
Go Sarah!
Immediate Gov’t spending FREEZE. 5% reductions in budgets annually.
Do you know that BHO is going to get 3.5% of all house sales when his Healthcare goes into full gear? $7500 on a $200,000 home sale.
I bet Yawn has a poster of Bawny Fwank on his bedroom wall.
Oh I got it, Fiscal responsible Liberal Democrat is somewhat of an ozymoron, isnt it?
I know you are still trying to think of where you would cut. Let me help you out by letting you off the hook.
You do not have the faintest idea where to cut because Liberals cant stop spending. You remind me so much of my teenage daughter at the mall with a credit card.
You know I had to take it away from her and the country is about to take the credit card away from congress on November 2nd, So spend while you can liberals the time is coming when we shread your card.
Sarah
Stop being such a momma grizzly, like that other (in)famous Sarah.
I am crafting a COGENT response to you so you cannot run around and dump on liberals, which you probably will anyway as you ALWAYS do. Surprise, I actually agreed with part of what you said…but then you went off into the stratosphere…
But I have work to do now, so you will have to wait…or not as you see fit.