Comments on: Health Care ‘Change’ You Shouldn’t Believe In

By: discount watches

discount watches — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:00:53 +0000

Blogs ou should be reading…

[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……

By: garment daily business reports

garment daily business reports — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:31:44 +0000

Websites worth visiting…

[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……

By: Chuck

Chuck — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:53:27 +0000

What in the world is a "forced abortion"???

Abortion is legal. How can we have a concern about rationing health care then refuse to have it cover a legal procedure? How do we raise a fear that this legislation will put Washington between the patient and their doctor then not want it to fund a legal medical procedure?

I am against abortion but I believe this is the wrong venue to fight this battle. The end product if we add abortion to this legislation could later mean a section of the population may decide we won't cover black lung decease, sickle cell anemia because it primarily impacts blacks, HIV treatment since it primarily impacts the gay community, lung disease if you smoke.

This legislation is about providing medical converge and abortion should be debated through its own legislation. As long as abortion is legal, there is no lawful reason any health care policy shouldn't cover it.

I understand many of us are pro-life but we what we need is for congress to make it illegal so that it will be illegal to pay for with public monies. We had a conservative congress for 6 of the last 8 years and they failed to act. We had our chance and our guys let us down.

By: DallasE

DallasE — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:28:41 +0000

Of course, what we've both forgotten to mention is the fact that SS is also being given to people who never paid anything in to it. You have babies being born disabled who are put on SS disability, kids getting injured (accident) who are put on SS disability. The list goes on. I just don't think SS would be in as bad a shape as it is had the monies not been taken for unintended uses.

By: Thebutlerdidit

Thebutlerdidit — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:51:42 +0000

Thanks Kadaka. Now I know. Just got to remember to continue asking Qs,, and I might learn something.

By: JB1000

JB1000 — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:13:52 +0000

I haven't convinced you and you haven't convinced me. If this Health Care gets passed, I guess time will tell.

By: kadaka

kadaka — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:06:45 +0000

Just as minorities cannot be racists, liberals cannot be agents of discrimination, therefore no "discriminated minority" cards are playable. Any "ACLU-type" lawyer who would take this on would have to be practically suicidal and resigned to a life of bankruptcy and working as a door greeter at Wal-Mart, if it cannot attract a Sharpton or even a Jackson they would not touch it. Plus there would be the backlash against "preferential treatment" as "everyone else" is getting denied.

In any case, likely the person would be dead before they worked though the do-nothing obstructionist appeals. It is hard to push through a case on an emergency basis before running through the system like "everyone else." They would need lots of loud and continuous PR to get any headway, if even possible, which would then raise the likelihood of one or more "generous benefactors" putting up the money thus negating the issue. Smart money says there will be a "shut them up before they ruin it for everyone" component to that.

As the Democrats are hoping for political gains from the "jobs saved," that they gave health care to anyone will be counted as a victory deserving votes. They already get votes by supplying assorted welfare programs without doing a dang thing to actually create jobs and get people out of poverty, another give-away on the books, no matter how disastrous it eventually turns out, to their minds can do nothing but good. They are seeking political entrenchment, short-term gains are long-term gains to their mindset.

By: Growltiger

Growltiger — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:56:38 +0000

When SS was instituted, the elderly started collecting it at 65 which was far beyond the life span of most Americans. In my opinion, what turned out to be Roosevelt's Ponzi scheme didn't start out as a Ponzi scheme but rather a scam. People paid into SS thinking when they were too old to work, the SS would be there for them. Roosevelt and company were betting they'd kick off before they ever collected.

Now with "national health care", we're seeing the same bet. The only way to give everyone health care is to ration care. The sick old people will die before their turn in the queue.

But you're right about Congress spending the SS collections and replacing them with IOU's, so SS took a double whammy.

By: Growltiger

Growltiger — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:56:03 +0000

When SS was instituted, the elderly started collecting it at 65 which was far beyond the life span of most Americans. In my opinion, what turned out to be Roosevelt's Ponzi scheme wasn't that at all, but rather a scam. People paid into SS thinking when they were too old to work, the SS would be there for them. Roosevelt and company were betting they'd kick off before they ever collected.

Now with "national health care", we're seeing the same bet. The only way to give everyone health care is to ration care. The sick old people will die before their turn in the queue.

But you're right about Congress spending the SS collections and replacing them with IOU's, so SS took a double whammy.

By: DallasE

DallasE — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:48:00 +0000

Well said except for the part about SS. It's not going broke JUST because of people living longer. It's going broke because Congress raided/raises the funds.