Congressional "Free" Lifetime Health Care...

Thanks for sharing

You're welcome, Nancy. But, from the responses below, I have to say that almost EVERYONE has missed the point. We're so dam' used to squabbling about the idea of a National Health Plan that we don't do any fact-checking. I saw that "free-for-life" statement once too often, and Googled it out of curiosity.

Unfortunately, what I found doesn't really interest most folks. They've just turned this into another National Health Plan argument (and points for me, of course), but...

$60,000 retirement not bad, I don't know any working citizen that is paid anywhere that kind of retirement through the S.S. system.

Why should congress or the president have access to military hospitals? They are all included the president civilian leaders not troops. Our own troops cannot even rely on treatment from military facilities without going through some kind of scam. I have VA benefits as long as I am willing to wait 6-8 month for an appointment.

I have been self employed all my life and have paid my own insurance since I was old enough to be taken off my parents insurance as well as paying huge insurance costs for the few people I have employed over the years. I have always had to pay worker compensation insurance even in times when I did not have any employees as well as paying this insurance on myself and not even being able to use it. Its the same with unemployment insurance, I pay it on myself but cannot collect any if my business should fail.

What these political hacks pay is a token payment to satisfy the public and the real tab is paid by the working public that gets the same nothing in return.

Americans desperately need health care and it has to come in the form of a government controled program or through revamping the insurance industry to make health care affordable to every citizen know matter what their status is in the working world.

Want to make health care affordable start ragging on congress to stop funding their military terrorism campaigns and we will have money left over.

Their is no empathy in congress because the scam has been going on so long that its become standard politics to over look the suffering of the public that made what they have possible.

The last House raise was stuck like pork in the second Obama bank bailout so Pelosi could get the votes she needed.

Oh yeah... they've taken care of themselves VERY well. No doubt about it.
I'm just trying to correct a lot of nonsense I see here on Gather every day. I think we need to argue from a position of honesty.

I most often agree with you, Jack, but I agree with the positions of a lot of folks on this issue, and too often one of the bases for their posts is this business of Congress' "free" lifetime health care.

I prefer to KNOW.

I know that they did, at one time, receive free lifetime healthcare. I remember not only learning it in school, but hearing it from "the horse's mouth" when we celebrated the 200th anniversary of constitution(?) (Something important and governmental and when Regan was in office)
We had a school assembly, we saw the president on TV, we had a representative come and speak and tell us why we should ALL aspire to be a politician, and that was one of his points. Not that it meant much to us at 5th or 6th grade. The we went and formed a "flag" out of ourselves, wearing different colored hats on the football field, and released balloons(back when you could do that) and the principal went in a hot air balloon and took an airial photo. Mom probably still has the photo in a box somewhere...
If that's not true anymore, then I'm glad, but still think we should all have the same options.

Well, apparently, it's no longer true, but what the do have is awfully good.

I knew they had their own retirement system, but did not know they are now required to pay into SS as well.

The Obama healthcare plan includes an 8% increase in taxes for the employer. Add to that, higher wages paid here, mandatory minimum wage, sick (lost days) and poor health. Obama solution is little more than a new tax on sickness and disease.

Hear that sucking sound of more jobs exported? Massive amount of businesses will close too.

40% of the cost of today's costs is caused by paper shuffling that goes on between governments, private insurers, patients, malpractice attorneys and health care providers.

30% to the monopoly profits of drug companies who routinely engage in price fixing fraud as a way to extract more money from state and national governments.

20% is lost because Americans pursue dietary habits that directly cause cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other expensive-to-treat diseases.

No nation can economically survive if the people are not healthy. It affects every aspect of our lives. Additives in our water supply, genetically modified foods/grains, highly processed & fast foods, poisons in our vaccines (which are cumulative), treatments that never leave you well but broke.

Vice President Joe Biden said this week, "We have to spend more money to keep from going broke!"

Pay one trillion for a healthcare system to cause more illness, control treatment (require pre-authorization), line the pockets of big pharma (thus our legislators), drive small businesses and corporations out of business. What more could we ask of Obama?

Linda, I've seen numbers spread all over the map for the "cost of paper shuffling," the cost of obscene drug company profits," "the cost of bad diets," and on and on and on - all to say that we could, if we only would, cut health care costs by 70,80, or (most recently) 90 percent. I think you guys just make 'em up, and if you don't, you just copy each other. We're not gonna cut health care costs by ANY of those numbers, no matter WHAT we do.

But, if we could, the problem with a national health care plan would be...?

BTW, Linda, the POINT of the post was to foster honesty in debate over this issue, not necessarily to reiterate old arguments.

I think you have a lost cause here Chuck but nice try. I think if Linda was given a free ride on a golden platter she would continue to bash the people that give it to her.

I am not in favor of most of what Obama is doing but I know he is right to fight for health care for all American citizens. Their are many ways we can save money to pay for health care and all the public has to do is wake up to the reality of what elected officials are wasting money on.

How many jobs would be SAVED or even opened up if an employer no longer had to provide insurance to their employees?

Personally, I don't understand WHY health care is tied to employment in the first place.

My guess would be that unions tied it. Otherwise, their members had none.

Chuck - while working within the healthcare industry, they tried to keep their "administrative" costs at about 12% - if that helps. Then, we had contracts with Big Pharma for their "brand" drugs and thus included them in our formulary - after all, the druggies DID want our network providers to prescribe them.

Then, you have the "drug pushers" (reps) going to doc offices pushing THEIR particular drug, thus giving kickbacks to and for the docs doing so, and was a HUGE bonus if reps met their monthly requirements. Some got $5-10k per mo.

Then, WE pushed the docs to prescribe generics as much as possible, thus increasing our profit margin. When a drug comes off the patent, the decimal point, for the same drug, moves to the right. ($40. would then become 4. or 400. = 40.) Now, if you were a doc, and a young, big pharma trained, blonde, in a short skirt came to your office with bribes - would you listen to them or the carrier? Drug pushers had a budget, they had to spend for these visits.

99% of the people don't know this, Jack. CURRENT govt. interference and mandates are a huge part of the current problem. I've said this before, THEY started the HMO/PPO's as a way to capture control of the healthcare industry.

Govt. mandates in paperwork, reimbursements to docs, privacy (HIPPA), employers providing ins. to full time workers, credentialing standards (NCQA), claims history, protocol, pre-authorization which mandated the docs provide health records to support their nuclear/radiology test requests.

They passed and funded the opportunity around to their friends to form corporations (to become corporatists) and allowed huge profits. Highmark BC/BC profits were so obnoxious, law suit was filed and they had to figure out how to give it back within the areas they stole it from. Thus you will see huge donations to civic and healthcare related events.
Our bicycle club got $1k as a co-sponsor to a bike race. Makes them look like the "good" guys, huh? and that's just ONE event! (I didn't tell fellow board members the REAL reason for their generosity)

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?grpId=36591746972
55792&articleId=281474977742366&nav=Groupspace

What is interesting, and has been on ANY articles offered as an alternative to the Obama scheme, links produce an "error" when you want to view them.

How is Taiwan able to provide first-world health care to its entire population at such affordable rates? Its government does not kow-tow to the pharmaceutical crooks that dominate American medicine.

Links to details of this plan are included in the link I posted above ^^^.

You could ask the same question about Cuba which has the best health care service in the world.

Drug pushers are going to the doctors now and getting those drugs for free. Majority of them are on public aid, some go to the emergency room where they get so many pills free in the emergency room. They have them added to the bill then don't pay it. As well Linda they are buying them from people who can get the pills. I think throwing in here drug pushers isn't the point here. So us that can't afford insurance is suppose to be on 2nd burner because someone may do an illegal act that they presently do already?

I think she meant the guys who "push" certain drugs to the Doctors, Renee. But you're right. We have a prescription drug problem that is fueled, at least in part, by lax med control in hospitals and Drs' offices.

Emergency room doctors have no access to free drugs, as far as I've ever seen. They give prescriptions, not pills. Wish they WOULD give out pills. Maybe I go to the wrong hospitals and urgent care centers.

You get insurance for a similar price -- you are lucky. Your employer pays the rest -- you are lucky. Most of us either pay much more, or are not covered. Most of us are not guaranteed coverage for life. Most of us are penalized (by premium or limits) or denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.

More and more employers are decreasing coverage, increasing employee contribution, or dropping coverage. The number of claims paid that are later recoup'd by insurance companies that become patient responsibility grows. You are lucky with your healthcare, Chuck.

If healthcare is not a priority, those who "count" on plans will begin to know what the rest of us have already found out.

Absolutely - I am VERY fortunate. My insurance premiums are about $12,000.00 a year, of which I pay a little more than $3,000.00. In addition, I pay a $4,000.00 family ($2,300.00/person) stop-loss, which includes deductibles. I have an HSA into which I pay $2,400.00 a year, and my employer pays $1,200.00. This covers MOST of the stop-loss. The good news is, I make enough today to afford this. When I retire? Not so much. My wife has many chronic and complex health issues. I'm 67 (next week), but I don't see me retiring in the near future, do you?

The bad news is, most of the people I work with make substantially less than I do, and they can in no way afford this insurance, chronic and complex health issues or no. What are THEY supposed to do?

I think the lucky ones need to look at other company insurance plans offered that take your share of payments and offer almost nothing when medical treatment is needed.

The healthcare carrier I worked for for several years had a cutback in '06 and I took my time, looking for something that interested me (part time), and that happened Jan. of this year.
Then yesterday, I got an email from someone on Facebook that was looking for a Provider Relations Rep/Contract Specialist, and my name came up for her - thus the email.

Well, it turn out it is the PPO I used to work for over several years ago, here in my local community, and they are looking for PR/Contract Spec. for all of NE U.S.

Ultimately, we linked friendships, chatted on Facebook IM, and she is sending me the job description. I already asked her if they were doing - *this n that*, which they weren't - so have already shown my capabilities. Current CEO is the same. I didn't go there for a job because I didn't want full time, and wanted a break from healthcare industry.
If things go well, I may consider it for a three year contract. However, I love my current boss- financial planner and owner of an Allstate Ins. Agency. Just last Thursday, he offered me a sizable raise and more hours. Told him the raise was fine but would have to think about the hrs. lol

BTW, who says there isn't work out there? This fin planner had just purchased this book of Allstate business from a retiring agent - had a "help wanted" sign in the window. Stopped in, discussed what he was looking for? - another broker. I told him I did not want to learn another profession, but when he found the right person, I would come in and do customer service and support which would allow them to concentrate on selling ins. (gave him an OLD copy of my resume w/job description and duties) He did - he called me - he recognized my customer support talents - the rest is history.

My thoughts on this are - 1) I wasn't desperate for ANY job but wanted the right fit for this point in my life and a win-win for us both. 2) didn't try to convince him of my skills - my resume and work history spoke for itself and definitely over qualified, but he understood what we both wanted 3) totally works my schedule the way I want it and has witnessed my handling of customers (consumers can be difficult at times)

I remember ten years ago when I REALLY wanted a job, it didn't happen. So, I found a good company, went in and sold them on using me part time (just to get my foot in the door) Knuckled down and learned everything I could and then...
Provider Relations was growing, boom was mine. They wanted credentialing person - boom, took it, learned it, and it was mine. Then they added on contracting - it ALL fit together perfectly and ended in a ten year career - in an industry I knew very little about. The most important thing I did, was this: If I didn't know the answer to their question, I told them so, found the answer and ALWAYS called them back. That's REAL customer service.

You would not know it from here, but it was my people skills and winning personality which got my food in both doors. lol

Oh, my original thought, was this, Chuck, a HSA is the way to go and is the wave of the future (if if if???). People can shop for services thus creating competition, etc. Amish do it all the time -"have this much cash for this service". Hosp. always like payment - up front.
Unlike monthly premiums, which are gone forever, you can accumulate and pick and choose wisely - for services.

HSAs are ok for people who have money available to save ... for those who are hand-to-mouth, they can't afford to put money into HSAs. This is one of the issues the Congressional committees who developed these didn't think of. They can be helpful, don't get me wrong .... and having the money remain rather than go away (as in cafeteria plans) is great. It is, however, a case of needing to have money to save money to have money.

Meanwhile, there's me. Real life. Once we knew what we faced, there was NO WAY that ANY DIY plan was gonna work. Don't you understand, Linda? IT WILL NOT WORK FOR ME. IT WOULD EXCEED MY ANNUAL SALARY to try. I swear, woman, when you get an idea in your head, it turns into a blinder! Don't you understand? The HSA is a requirement of my insurance plan, but it's gone in the first month - ALL #3,600.00 OF IT! It's useless, except for the $1,200.00 extra employer dollars it provides. We live on the edge of disaster EVERY FREAKIN' DAY! If we paid NO insurance, the amount I pay in premiums in a year would be gone in less than a quarter.

"Cheer up," he said, "things could be worse."
So I cheered up.
Sure enough... things got worse.

Those who are willfully ignorant will REMAIN ignorant.

And, HSAs SUCK!

If you have a good job with a good insurance package and you leave that job every insurance company will allow you to keep the insurance. All you have to do is pay the premiums. The congressional package is the same and not All legislators even sign up for that insurance plan.

As far as having access to the VA system; The're welcome to it. I don't think I'll do it. VA hospitals are noted for MRSA and other conditions contacted in hospital.

All true, Col. Absolutely.

However, "...every insurance company will allow you to keep the insurance. All you have to do is pay the premiums." ALL? What part of $1,000.00 per month d'you reckon most folks can pay on their own?

I hope I never have to depend on the VA hospital system as I've read it's presently constituted. But, as I've shown above, not everything I've read (and even quoted) is actually true.

Right Chuck, George how many people do you know that have good job at this time? Or a better question is how many people do you know that have a secure job good or bad?

Chuck, then I guess it is up to you to decide if that $1,000 for insurance is worth it.

Jack, A lot of people in both categories.

I'm one of the few on the "secure job" front, as well. But it wouldn't surprise me to find that my company discovers somewhere down the road that it just CAN'T keep that commitment. I'll give 'em this - they're tryin' their darndest, and it's workin' so far.

That's cold Colonel. If I were forced to retire today, "worth it" wouldn't be in the picture. Through actions of my own, as well as the present economic disaster, my retirement would barely be half pay. I still have a mortgage, and the apartment option wouldn't be a LOT cheaper, and that $12,000.00 a year is actually $16,0000.00 (plus insurance inflation), because of the stop-loss and loss of the HSA (the HSA would no longer be partially funded by the company either).

The key words there are "Through actions of my own" What right do you have to expect the government to take care of your own problems.

The ones I create? I don't think you OR the government are responsible for those. I thought it was fair to pay a surcharge for insurance when I smoked, too.

But the Luvly Laura? What did SHE ever do? Rheumatic Fever in the early '50s was common, unavoidable and nearly incurable. MS isn't something one can 'cause.' Some idiot driver running into a tree with her in the front seat and breaking her neck? Hardly her fault (no, she didn't get into a car with a drunk). A dimwit showing off against the rules in a skating rink and causing her two ruptured discs and a multi-fractured wrist? Not her fault either. I won't bore you with the rest of the list.

Still, the government, and you, are not responsible... any more than everyone else in my insurance 'pool' that covers her are responsible. But their premiums DO help pay for her treatments and care. And mine help pay for theirs (well, truth to tell, I am, and will forever be, upside down in this one). What we're asking is that such a 'pool' be established for folks who can't get in one now, and who may never be able to... and the only entity likely to be able to do that is the government.

What will happen to your company, Chuck, with the extra 8% tax for your healthcare ins.? Can they handle that additional expense and still keep all the workers? Or will they outsource and/or hire illegals for a lot less pay. That 8% will have to come directly off their profits, and what if their profit margin is only 5% or less? or whatever?
Big corporations cannot handle this either, without downshizing - don't ya think?
Then WHO is going to pat the $TRILLION?

Chuck, the dirty nasty, money hungry, crooked, liars, cheats etc that run the nation's health insurance industry are better qualified to come up with an all enclusive health insurance plan that is cheap and covers everything including prescriptions.

It has been done but not here. They are the experts. We don't need a government take-over of the industry. We need to get the providers together and give them the outline of a plan. Then put them to work on the verbage, cost, etc. Once there are plans presented they could be scrutinized and accepted or rejected. The government could collect the premiums and pay each insurer. That would be the extent of government involvement. The rest would be out of government control. It works.
and would be available to whoever wanted to subscribe. Such a plan woud have to have provisions for the poor and would replace Medicaid. It could have provisions for a reduced premium for the eldery and eliminate Medicare. Of course it would have to be worded so any doctor or hospital would get paid.

THAT is a Single Payer Plan, which both Chuck L and I are proponents of, however, we also understand that a toe in the door is better than a foot in the butt.

Therein is the problem, Obama has his foot in the door and keeps pushing his plan without considering the options. His is not even close to a single payer plan except if the government does the paying and the running of everything.

When a salesman gets his foot in my door he loses a sale and has a sore foot.

Amen.

Chuck most of the hype about the lucrative health insurance for congressional members is just that. It is designed to cause envy and "I want that" to push Obama's government take-over of the health industry and Insurance companies.

The point of my post, exactly... right up to "...Obama's take-over of the health industry and Insurance companies."

That part's just scare-mongering designed to push the insurance companies' agenda to maintain their dishonestly high costs, and murderous 'prior condition' policies.

The stories abou the congressional health plan have been planted by your own left wing Socialist party Chuck.

You didn't disapoint me. You are so enamored by that liar that you can't see his agenda for the shine of his smile and the lies he tells. It is his actions that count and he is 100% unamerican in his actions.

How many different ways can you be told. The Government is Not our daddy and the government does not owe us a living or health care. Those things are up to us.

The stories about "Obama's government take-over of the health industry and Insurance companies." have been planted by the insurance companies and given wide distribution by Right-Wingnut commentators.

"You are so enamored by that liar that you can't see his agenda for the shine of his smile and the lies he tells. It is his actions that count and he is 100% unamerican in his actions." Well, you're right about one thing... I DO think President Obama is heading in the right direction. He is NOT "100% Unamerican." That overblown fear-mongering is wearing more than a little thin, George. We liberals are NOT the enemies of America, and we're not YOUR enemies. As for 'wanting to take over America." We already did, George. We VOTED our party a majority and the Presidence, and we didn't do it alone. We convinced an awful lot of centrists and neo-cons to vote with us.

"The Government is Not our daddy and the government does not owe us a living or health care. Those things are up to us." The government DOES owe us a way to keep the insurance companies from murdering thousands of us every year and sanctimoniously claiming that a 'trip-'n-fall' forty years ago has something to do with today's diabetic ulcers. And the only real way to do that is to compete directly with 'em.

George who ever brainwashed you into thinking government is created to dictate to the public that owns the government?

For once I'm going to opt out of joining this discussion. You guys go at it and I'll just observe--maybe I'll learn something new!

OH OH, I lied, I just can't keep out much as I tried.

The following is from: Ask the Advisor-http://www.tscl.org/NewContent/101421.asp

Members of Congress enjoy excellent health benefits under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). They can choose from 11 different health care plans under FEHBP. All plans offer prescription drug benefits. All plans offer prescription drug benefits.

The government (meaning taxpayers like you and me) pays 72% of the average premium but not more than 75%. Your Congressman saw the remaining 25% deducted from his $12,500 monthly paycheck (also paid for by you and me).

I'll try harder to stay out of this, I promise.

Please don't Mary. 11 different health plans? Wow.

Also in two of my three links. It's all true, George, but it IS a little disingenuous of Mary to point out that we pay the salaries of those who take one of those plans. It's irrelevant. Because we pay them, should they have NO health insurance?

BTW - I believe my choices were limited this last 'acceptance period' to six plans, with only two dental and one vision plan. That's not too bad, but it doesn't equal theirs.

My Son-in-Law was offered ONE PLAN, and once Chrysler took his employer's franchise away, that went away, and they were offered ONE REPLACEMENT plan. My son and Daughter-in-Law have to have separate policies, they got NO choices, and the policies they do have are minimal.

We also lost our dental coverage as of June 1st.

Yeah - forgot about that in this thread. But I AM still lookin'.

Chuck, I apologize for mentioning that we pay their salaries. You are absolutely right, I just copied and pasted from the article. Mea culpa!

The people that are in government should be treated just like the rest of us . They work they get paid they need to pay like every one else.

Tammy, They do.

Yep, they do. They just get a few 'Xtras' that they sort of pay for as well. Then again, unless I had their "front of th' line clout" I doubt I'd voluntarily go into Walter Reed for much of anything.

Mary... (Rubs left forefinger with right forefinger in general direction of Mary) Tch... tch... tch... *G*

Gingrich was there and knows what they get. And yet he insists that if Congress wants Americans to have socialized medicine, Congress should give up their excellent coverage and fall back to whatever crap they design for average Americans.

Well, much as I despise the Ol' Salamander, he's right on this one. Note to Congress: "Give us what YOU have, or accept equal to what you give us."

If america has socalized medicine Congess would be under it as well as everyone else.

That is one reason why I think they are making a show of bickering about it, but none of them plan to actually, honestly do anything.

See, Chuck, we can agree on some things. :) I don't think Americans should accept anything that Congress is not willing to have for themselves.

Yes we must reform health care.
Yes we must get off oil.
Yes we must rebuild the middle class and American industry.

Will the true owners of congress (big business/insurance companies/wall street/banks/oil companies) allow it?

I seriously doubt it.

Health care has been crap forever and obscene profits and tax cuts must be maintained at all costs.

OMG, I agree with Marilyn again. (This is getting a bit scary.)
The only way we'll get to one plan in this country, having things square across the board is to go with One Plan for all of it's citizens. Everybody gets the same plan.
That's what you said, right?
Wilka

From your fingertips to Marilyn's eyes. But... I don' thin' so-o-o-o...

Chuck, I read all three links and learned much.

Health care for all is a must.

I learned much as well. Thus... this post.

'We liberals are NOT the enemies of America, and we're not YOUR enemies.''
You could have fooled me Chuck. Anyone who is Socialist is an enemy of a Republic. It is simple as that.

Your are right both sides of the Health Care debate are lieing to us. We the people are being sold a pig in a poke from both sides. Sometimes it is better to back off and do it right than to rush in and do it wrong. It takes a lot more time and money to straighten out a mistake than to do it right the first time.

There is too much of a rush being pushed. I don't trust high pressure sales at all and never buy when that aproach is used. I'm not buying Obama's health plan for that reason. He is pushing too hard and too fast on about everything.

I'm not a Socialist. I'm a Democrat. So is President Obama. So are the MAJORITY of Senators and Representatives in Congress. We're NOT your enemy. We're Americans who believe America should and can care for '..the least of these.'

If I believed in a god, I'd add... Jesus would be a LIBERAL!

George do you use liberal socialist programs like Social Security and Medicare? If you do you need to stop talking like a hypocrite and start remembering what liberal party give them to you.

Nice try Chuck, see ya around the water cooler.

Chuck, Liberal left Democrat is just a fancy way to say Socialist. Only a Socialist would think it is the governemnts responsability to take care of everyone.

Social Security and Medicare are insurance Jack, not much different from any other insurance. Damn right I use both. I paid for them and I am entitled to collect just as you or anyone else who paid for anything. Do you buy a TV and then leave it in the store?

Just as I thought George, like I said both are democratic programs started by a democratic president and congress.

Its to bad you GOP party hacks can't see the forest for the trees. Your comments are very hypocritical.

Exactly when did I say I was a Repub. Jack?

I'm actually not against a universal health care plan for the US but I am not for a government run one. A good single payer plan similar to what they have in Israel would probably be more than acceptable. There the only government involvement is in collecting the premiums and paying the various insurance companies who offer the plan the government set forth. The government is not ivolved in any way with the care or charges for treatment.

Col. George., th' Libertarian? Anarchist? Theocratist? Technocratist?

No Chuck but I do think. I also do not like anyone, especially the government to panic and pass on something that takes some thought and planning. It would be best to do it right the first time.

i want higher taxes and government health care, oh, and make sure we put congressional control on prices too -- that will encourage future improvements in health care since most companies will have a great incentive to earn little in the way of profits. Can't wait.

Your parenthetical name bespeaks your opinion. You don't need to actually post to let us know what you think. Just put an asterisk in the text box and hit Submit.

We could all say the same about you Chuck. We know what your are going to say because anything you endorce is another of Obama's hurry up ideas.

If you need a public option in order to be able to have health insurance, this is not a hurry up idea. If you were around when Clinton was first elected, you know this is not a hurry up idea.

Let's not forget that better health care for Americans has just about been Ted Kennedy's life's work. Sadly he's not able to participate in the negotiations in Congress now due to his health.

"Your parenthetical name bespeaks your opinion. You don't need to actually post to let us know what you think. Just put an asterisk in the text box and hit Submit."

Ha ha ha... now that was funny.

I should add, I agree it's obvious that I would be against most liberal plans, but it's not so obvious as to why. You should read my comments so at least you get an opposing view for consideration. Never hurts to have an open mind.

Did you even bother to read the controversial items in the health care bill? Did you watch C-Span this morning when democrat and republican governors came our strongly against the Obama plan? It passes on much of the cost to states -- see NYT's today for more on that. At least I'm not ignorant on the subject, and I fully understand that the fed plans to kill private insurance asap as well as put controls on prices. You want to stifle competition and innovation, just keep pushing the socialist agenda and you'll be there soon enough.

EM, It is still a hurryup idea since it is the same idea. Clinton's wife had. Still no research or thinking.

Chuck L says:
If I believed in a god, I'd add... Jesus would be a LIBERAL!

Thank goodness they crucified him, I knew there had to be a good reason for that other than what the scriptures stated.....

Didn't really want to get into this but, hey, what the hell.....

Too avoid being redundant and having to type alot of shit that I don't feel like typing I'm just gonna cut and paste a part of an article that I wrote the other day, and then leave it up to you all as where we/you stand on this issue....Cause personally I think this Health Care program sucks beyond belief....Why or what makes them any better than yourself/ son/daughter...etc..etc.....So you wanna vote for health care reform huh??? Check this out...

The director of the Congressional Budget Office issued a warning to Democrats Thursday that their health care proposals would raise costs, not lower them.

One day after a Senate panel approved its version of the health care reform plan, the first committee to do so, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf gave a dose of bad medicine to a separate committee.

Asked by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., whether costs would be lowered -- also known as "bending the curve" -- Elmendorf responded: "The curve is being raised."

Subsidies to help uninsured people would raise federal health care spending, which is already growing at an unsustainable rate, Elmendorf explained at the hearing. The Medicare and Medicaid cuts that lawmakers have offered to pay for the coverage expansion aren't big enough to offset the cost trend, particularly in the long term, he said.

House Republican Leader John Boehner seized on the comments, calling on Democrats to scrap their plans in light of the assessment.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell called it a "wake up call" for Democrats.

"The director of the Congressional Budget Office confirmed today what we have been saying for weeks -- the health care spending plan that some are trying to rush through Congress would actually make things worse," McConnell said.

CBO's numbers come at an inopportune time for Democratic leaders who are trying push through and merge several different health care reform plans in the coming weeks, on orders from President Obama.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voiced frustration with Elmendorf, who in recent months has set back health care efforts with his office's cost analyses of the plans being floated.

"What he should do is run for Congress," Reid said, suggesting he found the CBO estimate to be partisan in its results.

Elmendorf endorsed taxing health benefits as a way of paying for reform, though Obama has spoken out against that idea.

How to pay for the plan is generating a big problem for Congress. The Senate Finance Committee, which is hammering out what could be the only bipartisan bill remaining, is struggling to come up with about $320 billion in revenue to pay for the reforms. Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., was clearly frustrated Thursday and criticized Obama for opposing a tax on employer-provided benefits.

"The president is not helping us," he said.

Meanwhile, House Democrats on Thursday pushed ahead with legislation that would deliver on Obama's promise to remake the health care system and cover some 50 million uninsured, despite concerns from their own party's moderate and conservative lawmakers that the $1.5 trillion plan costs too much.

On the heels of the Senate health committee's approval Wednesday of a plan to revamp U.S. health care, three House committees with jurisdiction over the issue shifted into action.

The Education and Labor Committee passed an amendment to speed up the bill's guarantee of access to health insurance for people with pre-existing medical conditions. The bill as written would have stopped insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions, beginning in 2012. The panel agreed Thursday to move up the implementation date for group plans to six months after the bill takes effect.

It was one of about 50 amendments before the committee, which planned to meet throughout the day to complete work on its portion of the bill by day's end.

The tax-writing Ways and Means Committee also was working on its portion of the overall legislation, which seeks to provide coverage to nearly all Americans by subsidizing the poor and penalizing individuals and employers who don't purchase health insurance.

A third House committee, Energy and Commerce, also was considering the measure Thursday, but the road was expected to be rougher there. A group of fiscally conservative House Democrats called the Blue Dogs holds more than a half dozen seats on the committee -- enough to block approval -- and is opposing the bill over costs and other issues.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who chairs the Blue Dogs' health care task force, said the group would need to see significant changes to protect small businesses and rural providers and contain costs before it could sign on. "We cannot support the current bill," he said.

The Energy and Commerce Committee's Blue Dogs met Wednesday to consider what amendments they would offer, and the panel scheduled vote sessions daily through next Wednesday in what promised to be an arduous process to reach consensus.

Obama was doing all he could to encourage Congress to act. He scheduled White House meetings Thursday morning with two potential Senate swing votes, Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. On Wednesday, he met with a group of Senate Republicans in the White House in search of a bipartisan compromise and appeared in the Rose Garden for the latest in a daily series of public appeals to Congress to move legislation this summer.

Obama also pushed his message in network television interviews, and his political organization launched a series of 30-second television ads on health care.

The Senate health panel's $615 billion measure would require individuals to get health insurance and employers to contribute to the cost. The bill calls for the government to provide financial assistance with premiums for individuals and families making up to four times the federal poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four, a broad cross-section of the middle class.

But the 13-10 party-line vote on the bill signaled a rift in Congress -- including between Democrats. Some liberal-leaning Senate Democrats are eager to move forward with or without Republican support, while some moderates want to hold out for a bipartisan deal.

The bill would be paired with one from the Senate Finance Committee.

But a core group on Finance -- which, unlike the health committee, must come up with a payment mechanism for the bill -- continued to labor toward bipartisan agreement. Because it might be difficult to secure support from all Democrats, Baucus insisted after daylong meetings Wednesday that a bipartisan bill was needed.

Well, here's a little cut-'n-paste from a post by Carla G., entitled: Former Insurance Executive Shares the Tactics of Republicans on Health Care Reform (Part Two)
Part Two back-links to Part One.

Former Insurance Executive, Wendell Potter, says similar tactics are being used this time around. In the spring, a memo by Republican strategist Frank Luntz outlined the script for opponents of health care reform. Luntz argued that a politician had to first pretend to support it, but should then use phrases like "government takeover," "delayed care is denied care," "consequences of rationing," and "bureaucrats, not doctors prescribing medicine." That jargon is now routinely heard by Republicans arguing against reform.

Republican consultant Alex Castellanos recently authored a memo that urged conservatives to co-opt the cause of "bringing down health care cost[s]" in an effort to "slow this sausage-making process down" and "defeat" it. Potter told Bill Moyers in an interview last Friday that conservative politicians "want to believe that the free market system can and should work in this country, like it does in other industries. ... They parrot those comments, without really realizing what the real situation is."

Potter is an admited liar for money. He lied for the insurance companies and now there is no reason he is not lieing for his new employer.

Good post, Todd.

Thanks for educating us with those links, Chunk. Tis best to rant intelligently when ranting. ;-)

Obama gives Baxter legal immunity in advance for any injury and death caused by H1N1 vaccine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhXahpeMdUc

Oh, f'r th' luvva... Of COURSE Baxter got immunity. If it hadn't, they wouldn't even CONSIDER manufacturing for the USA. Don't you understand (stupid question, I know)? This is a "do it now" scenario. There is no TIME for the kind of long term development most other flu vaccines get, because this one has no recent evolutionary forbears. It's a one-off, and it's NOW! If somehow they screw the pooch and their vaccine isn't effective (which is the primary reason for the immunity), having the whole damn USA sue 'em isn't an attractive prospect.

Never gonna get through that thick blinder...

Chuck this is not the first breakout of Swine Flu. They used the same shot for it last time with disastrous results. Why use it again?

There was another swine flu outbreak long before the shot... in 1918/19. That one was the real disaster. Thousands died from the flu. Many died after it looked like the worst was over, when the second wave hit without warning. That pandemic started out looking just like what is happening now, with the first wave hitting well before flu's normal season, starting outside the US, then hitting here later.

an aside... one of the real problems we have with health care in America is that employers are the primary source of insurance plan providers. It should be individuals buying their own insurance.

You ever buy a plane ticket where your company pays for it? It's always a fortune. Corporations do a lousy job of negotiating these types of things. Lets bring the insurance companies back to dealing with individuals, competing for business. Get the government out of it.

You've got that right, Don. We have only to look at the incredibly inefficient government programs already in existence to see how well the would run health care.

It was the govt interference which mandated employers provide healthcare. They set the size of the company which had to acquiesce.

Thanks for posting to Fugitives from Ignorance, Conformity, and Peer Pressure

Free lifetime health care can be achieved if we change to a system that makes sense instead of continuing to try to make this one work. Read more about what we propose here.

Chuck, free health care for everybody sounds great but it is not realistic. We cannot afford it. We have been spending at an unsustainable rate and we have a debt crisis headed our way already.

thanks!

Good-bye... and Thanx for all th' Points. ;-)

Anytime Chuck

It was hard to read the comments, especially the very long ones, while the amounts of $300 and $600 a year premiums kept whirling in my head. I get insurance quotes of more per month than a Senator pays in a year. Even the provider discount programs cost me more a year than a Congressman pays. A Congressman is paid about $174,000 in salary and pays $25 to $50 a month for health insurance. Sheesh.

You misunderstood, Elizabeth. Their premiums for insurance are pretty standard... say $1,000.00/mo, of which they pay roughly $250.00. The $600 & $300 fees are for the Super-clinic in the Capital.

They pay $300 & $600 for it, and we pay $2,000,000.00 to pick up the slack.

As with many things, politicians won't fight for what they don't see directly. I liked your last point about "compassion". It is so rarely seen these days. I mean, we will give money and energy to keep someone just up to the poverty line and barely alive... but that is not compassion, it's pity. Any human being would do that. A civilized person is able to see that we are all one brotherhood (or one economy, in less romantic tems) and that we are all hurt when "even the least of us" is unable to meet his or her potential.

I truly have no comment.
Seriously, my mind went blank.
Politics give me the willies sometimes.

Wow. O_O

A major problem I have with Congress is their entire compensation package. I never have understood how they feel entitled to retirement for less than 20 years. How they can use military facilities (unless they are vets or family), and all the cushy perks like those AF birds to shuttle them around, great meals for a song, franking of mail etc.

Now their actual pay if fine. They have great responsibilities (that they seldom live up to) and I'd like to see decent pay for those who really do their jobs according to the Constitution. Somehow I doubt that many live up to that particular requirement either.

Chuck, they still have really good insurance for the rest of their lives.