The Rush to Vote on the Healthcare Bill

Still good info!

"The Dems are pressing for a vote in the House on the nationalization of the healthcare that will bankrupt this nation."

Nonsense propaganda! Every advanced country in the world (except us) has national health care, and they're not bankrupt. In fact, many, if not most, of them are in better financial shape then we are.

I'd like to know which countries you are speaking of Robert. Can You name some of them? And, which ones are in better financial shape than we are.

We just need to make sure that they don't mess with Medicare, don't increase taxes other than the rich, and for God's sake, don't give it to the illegal aliens.

Medicare is going to be messed with. And, the illegals will get coverage as they will then give them amnesty.

"Medicare is going to be messed with. And, the illegals will get coverage as they will then give them amnesty."

Even is the bill is enacted without the SAVE provision which would require eligibilty verification, which 83% of the American people favor (Rasmussen Reports), the people can still pressure the Democrats in Congress to add the SAVE provisions. With such an overwheming majority, the Democrats would be hard-pressed to not add the SAVE provisions, if only the American people would get their heads out of their you-know-whats and get involved. This isn't 1850. We have telephones, people. They're not hard to use.
Actually the 83% figure that Rasmussen polled, is probably really even higher (maybe 90 %). Since it's not possible to determine if many of those polled were illegal aliens, and maybe many were, that could have wrongly lowered the percentage.
As for Medicare being messed with, is that in the bill ?

Reductions in Medicare are already being implemented. That fact translates into rationed care for our seniors. It will get worse. Doctors are leaving the Medicare system and that leaves fewer doctors for our seniors to be treated by and that also hurts the system. Are you planning on growing old and being cared for under Medicare at some point? Or are you already there? This is just another example of how the bill will continue to hurt our seniors and the care they receive.

Also, have you looked at the new census for 2010? Did you know that the question, "Are you a legal citizen?" is left out of the questionaire. In that, the illegals will be counted and they will be taken in to our population with all that it has to offer them.

The Geneva-based World Economic Forum ranks 55 countries on the sophistication and stability of their financial systems and markets. More than 120 criteria are used in their ranking assessments.
The latest report shows the USA as 3rd, behind the UK and Australia. An article in "Business Week" referring to the USA, in the WEF's index, mentions "While the country is still by far the world's wealthiest, financial instability and a noticeably weakened banking sector pulled down its scores."
It's also hard for me to conceive that the US is somehow viewed as more financially stable than Canada (the WEF is one way of looking at it, but not the only one), which for centuries, has done a great job of limiting its population, with a points score immigration system, while we in the US, insanely continue to plod along with our ludicrious chain migration, based on extended family ties.
So what results from this ? Canada, with a size and resource base about equivalent to ours in the US, has 30 million people to service, with those resources. We have 10 times that amount of population.
Result of that ? Here's an example using one of our primary resources. Canada has a surplus of oil, and sells off her surplus (exports) to gain more national treasury. We, in the US, are importing about 2/3 of our oil, including from guess who ? Canada.
BTW, all the countries I mentioned are on a national health insurance (public option) system.

You are right about Canada's overall population. However, 25% of Canadians do not get prompt medical care and have to wait for months to get their care. I would not put them up as a good example of single payer insurance. If you extrapolate that 25% of the population to our population should we be forced into national health insurance, that would be more than those who have no health coverage now. It's a bad spend.

It's also hard to imagine that China (whom we owe the moon to), could be considered to be less well-off financially than us. Our trade deficits speak loudly. On the US west coast,
there's such a glut of shipping containers (from items exported from China), that some
creative entreprenaurs have been turning them into housing units.

And, the people in China earn a pittance compared to our salaries overall. Another bad example for who you would want us to emulate.

"Reductions in Medicare are already being implemented."

If that's the case, then those reduction are not part of the healthcare bill which hasn't even been put into law. The question remains. Is cutting Medicare included in the healthcare bill ?

"25% of Canadians do not get prompt medical care and have to wait for months to get their care."

I've heard this many times from people who oppose national health care. I happen to live in Florida, however, which has a large population of seniors who live both in Canada and the USA. They (known as "snowbirds") spend their summers up north, and have also a house down here, where they live during the winter.
They tell me they do have some "long" waits for care in Canada (but not months), but they often experience long waits here too. And how about those with no coverage at all (it could be any of us, at any time) ? What are they, chopped liver ?
I recall calling some doctors, here in Florida, for prostate treatment, and being given an appointment for a month and a half away. I also remember not being able to get an appointment at all. Most primary care doctors offices told me they were not taking any new patients. It was actually hard to find one that was.

Does Florida have TORT reform? Texas does. Waits to see a specialist in most cases in this state is around two weeks unles the specialty is not in very high deman and there are fewer doctors in that specialty. I can call a my gastroenterologist here and have an appointment the next day with blood work done before having the appointment and it's ready within an hour from the time the blood was drawn. Americans need TORT reform, it works very well for Texans.

"And, the people in China earn a pittance compared to our salaries overall. Another bad example for who you would want us to emulate."

I didn't say we should emulate them, you said that. We were talking about "financial shape" of the nation, not their distribution of wealth or lack of minimum wage laws. Regarding financial shape, we owe the Chinese big bucks. They owe us nothing financially.

But, China is undoubtedly Communist. How would that work for you?

And what do mean by "another" bad example ? Do you have a problem with the examples of the UK and Australia, or the findings of the WEF ? If so, let's hear it .
They are another GOOD example of nations with national healthcare, not only not going "bankrupt", are are doing well enough to top the USA financially, and rank #s 1 and 2 in the WEF index.

Care delayed is care denied in my opinion, and Canada has care delayed by months in some of the areas in that country. In fact, there is one where it has been documented they have a box in the city management's care where they put in the names of residents who need medical treatment, they draw these names monthly so they can get in to see a doctor. It's a health lottery so to speak. That is not what I would like to see here in our nation. Also, there are many doctors who have withdrawn from the government run healthcare system and opened up their own clinics, but you have to be pretty wealthy to use them. You could call those doctors and get in the next day, but it costs thousands of dollars. Worth it? Maybe, but who could afford to do that? It hasn't fixed their problem there, so why should we think it could fixt it here? And, if someone doesn't want to have health insurance here, where is it in our Constitution that the government has the right to force them to? It's an infringement upon personal liberty.

"Care delayed is care denied in my opinion, and Canada has care delayed by months in some of the areas in that country."

This is more propaganda so often spouted off by national healthcare opponents, that they accept it as true, because they hear it so often. I'll go with the testimony of my American/Canadian friends who use both systems, and KNOW what they're talking about,
and who say they isn't much difference between the two.

"...if someone doesn't want to have health insurance here, where is it in our Constitution that the government has the right to force them to?"

I don't think that there should be any laws (including auto insurance) that require people to spend money (lots of people don't have much money).
Overall though, the bill is a good thing. Sadly, it's now being blocked in the Senate by Joe Lieberman who says he fears it could break America, and send us into a recession worse than the one we're in now.
Hey Joe, that's why the House bill provides funding by taxing the rich (Senate bill doesn't). Maybe if you would do your job, and propose this idea into the Senate bill you wouldn't have to worry about a costly entitlement program, huh ?

"Hey Joe, that's why the House bill provides funding by taxing the rich..."

So, it's ok with you that the government takes one's property that they have worked for and earned to give that property to another who hasn't either through choice or other reasons. Hmmm. I don't want to take anyone's property for any reason. If they earn it, they deserve to keep it. If I earn it, I deserve to keep it. It will bring about more job losses since the small business people will have to fire or lay off workers since they won't afford the mandate placed upon them. We will have basically more people on the government take and fewer people contributing to the government through taxation. It will break our nation. That's the plan if you haven't figured it out yet. I am against this bill in any shape form or fashion and will celebrate the day it is killed in the Senate. Reform needs to be dealt with, but not with this bill. It's a bad bill!

LOL. There's so many inaccuraccies in this 11:21 post Barbara, I'm almost stumped at where to begin, to shred it.

1. Laying off workers is typical right wing scare talk, any time the subject of taxation, raise in minimum wage, govt. regulation, etc. shows up. Truth is, laying off workers is NOT AN OPTION. Just like raising prices (and passing the cost on to the consumer) this is just scare talk. Businesses aren't able to do these things. Problem with both of these falsehoods is that they both result in the business losing money.
Example : My ex-wife owned a boutique and had 10 workers. Why 10 ? Why not 9 ?
Because she's a philanthropist and wants to give somebody a job ? No, it's because she made more money with 10 than with 9 (or with 11). AKA 'bell-shaped curve" So if she lays a worker off, she LOSES money.
Simple Microeconomics 101 (course I taught in college 35 years ago). I experienced it firsthand when I owned my own business during the 80s.
P.S. don't get thrown by the 35 years. The bell-shaped curve graph of prices vs. business income has been around for thousands of years.

2. "If they earn it, they deserve to keep it."

Yeah ? And who earns it ? The guys who sticks his face into a hot oven retrieving pizzas all day, or the guy who owns the company and spends his time out on the water fishing for sailfish and tuna, interspered with an occaissional cell phone call to the store's manager ??????? Interesting word > "earn" is.
Or how about hedge fund manager John Howard with his $1.5 Billion/year income "earned" by manipulating money, and directing it his way, while firefighters, coal miners
and military troops risk (and sometimes lose) their lives making a tiny fraction of what scam artist Howard rakes in. Want to talk about "earning" ? Sure. Check out my April 14, 2009 article > "...and Justice for ALL ? Hmmmm" Find it at : http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977656077.

P.S. If we raised John Howard's income tax to 99.99%, he'd still have 15 million/year left over to play with. "Only" 15 million, huh ? Poor baby. Don't you coal miners and construction workers just feel for the poor guy. Think of the rash on his fingers he must have, tapping on that keyboard and cell phone each day (about 2 hours/day).

Hey Barbara. Did you ever stop to think what might happen if, without national health insurance (public option if you like), you had to rely entirely on your private insurance company (who's entire goal is making money, not seeing to it that you're OK) ?
Well, that's about how it is right now, no ? (unless you have VA coverage or Medicare).
If you are are at the mercy of a private insurer (or your younger relatives), here's what happens if/whenever you incur a serious, lifelong illness or injury, requiring a lifetime of medical care, including medications, surgeries, therapies, etc.
Your insurance company DROPS YOU like a hot potato (or more like a cost liability adverse to profit). Try to find another company ? As they say in New York, fogetaboutit !
Pre-existing conditions need not apply.
Bottom line is you MAY NEED this government coverage someday, and it could be at any time. Any of us could get into a car accident and become paralyzed. Or pick up Multiple Sclerosis, or get shot, or snakebit, or accidental partial drowning, etc. etc.

"But, China is undoubtedly Communist. How would that work for you?"

Communist are they ? Well, I would say based on my dreadful required readings of Marx and Lenin, they must be turning in their graves to hear China being referred to as "Communist". One of the things called for in the "Communist Manifesto" and "Das Kapital" both written by Marx, is redistribution of wealth to a reasonable degree of income equality.
I wouldn't exactly call the dollar a day or so that Chinese workers get, to be the result of a redistribution of wealth to a reasonable degree of income equality. When Chinese workers occupy an economic class equivalent to members of the Chinese hiearchy, then they maybe could be called "Communist". Right now, it looks like just another plutocracy, similar to the United States, and most other countries.

It's obvious you don't know your freedoms and understand the U.S. Constitution and the limitations of power that were given to Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. And, if you in fact, did teach a course in economics, you would be on a totally different page than the one you are on.

After this last comment, I don't know what you're talking about, and I couldn't care less.
Suffice it to say if you incur one of those horrible lifelong aliments I mentioned, you'll very quickly come to understand how necessary national health insurance is.
As for what I choose to go to, that's my choice, and no one tells me me where to be or not be, except that you could delete everything I've said, if you were that deep in denial.

Anyone who would be supportive of this huge (over 2000 pages) bill, is either a moron or totally trusting of those who would put them into slavery. I guess either way, they must be a moron. And, yes, I have a condition that will never have to be untreated, as does my husband, and we like our private medical insurance. The plan the Democrats have come up with will destroy our lives. If you don't have medical insurance, I'm sorry, but don't screw up millions of Americans who do have medical insurance to save your butt. That's just UN-AMERICAN!

And I can hear the crying and name-calling coming at me telling me that we are screwing up your lives. Well, the majority of Americans are perfectly happy with their insurance companies and last I checked, majority still ruled in this country.