Senator Feingold Admits Ultimate Goal of Healthcare Reform (Video)
Morgen on May 13, 2009 at 11:13 am
Here we go again. Yet another Member of Congress, while speaking to a receptive, far-left audience, manages to let the truth slip out in terms of the ultimate goal of the healthcare reform legislation. This is Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) speaking to the liberal media group Democracy Now! on May 5, 2009:
(Video clip courtesy of DemocracyNow.org. Full transcript and video of the Senator’s interview available here.)
There you have it. Just to clarify, it’s not news that Rep. Feingold supports a single-payer healthcare system. Many other liberal Democrats do as well. But the Obama Administration and the Democratic leadership have known for a long time that they have no chance of passing single-payer legislation. And so they have devised another strategy for getting there – the so called “public plan option”. All the while vigorously denying that the real agenda is to ultimately end up with a single-payer system. Let’s at least give Sen. Feingold (and Rep. Schakowsky) credit for being honest…that’s more than can be said for White House officials and most other liberal proponents of healthcare reform.
Category: Health & Education, Politics |
I’ve linked to your post with a quotation from Jeremiah Films’ section on congress
May 13, 2009 @ 2:15 pmInsurance premiums are a form of privatized taxation anyway. So if I’m going to get taxed, I’d rather be taxed by my elected officials and not by a bunch of parasites who profit off of human suffering.
GOOOO DEMOCRATS!!!!
Healthcare is a civil right.
May 13, 2009 @ 3:40 pmPaul, I’ll remember that when Republicans gain back control in 2010/2012. If healthcare is a civil right, than surely the right to life for the unborn is a civil right. Or is society only obligated to care for the health of human beings who aren’t dependent on their mothers for life?
May 13, 2009 @ 4:18 pmMorgen,
You forgot that Paul hasn’t taken a position on abortion. He’s studiously un-curious about it.
May 13, 2009 @ 4:21 pmBoys, for the record, what would each of your guys’ idea of a good health care system be, one that is honestly attainable, not pie-in-the-sky stuff?
What we currently have, doesn’t work completely.
What Europe has, doesn’t work completely.
Proposed changes seem faulty, frightening, and yet some parts are good.
I know you have all been commenting about this in so many different places, but I don’t have the time to search it all down and catch up. If you don’t want to re-write/cut-n-paste, I understand.
Am just looking to see what everyone thinks is the best plan. We all seem to know what isn’t.
I have a lot of experience as a consumer in the health care system. I can not afford to have it stay the way it is, yet I also can not afford to lose my specialists and trips to the Mayo Clinic. It does not feel right to have others pay my way, yet my monthly out of pocket (for just me) would astound all of you (except for John, and that’s because he already knows).
Brief history:
Mysterious illness onset 2005
Medical team across the globe team researching me
Lost my teaching job of 13 years because of it
Permanently disability since 2005
Disblty. income <30% of my final year's teacher salary
Lost benefits from school district
Pay COBRA $700/mos. just for me (PPO)
Husband+Kids covered under hubby’s plan (HMO)
Family monthly Ins. cost $1,200+
Still pay 20-30% of all services rendered
In hospital/dr’s office weekly, which increases my out-of-pocket
Cannot get other insurance due to pre-existing condition
COBRA set to end in 15 mos.
2010: Will have no insurance and yet be in dire need
How does someone like me survive this?
Correction UPDATE: (I incorrectly stated “Disability Income <6% above", it's actually less than 30% of my last year’s annual salary.
May 14, 2009 @ 11:48 amCindy, that is a very fair question, especially with all the criticizing we’ve been doing of the Democrats’ plans for a single-payer system. Keep in mind that our focus with this has been to try to make a difference in the national debate in opposition to this specifically. Frankly, the fact that we have been able to draw some attention to this on a national level has been a surprise, even to us. But given that the Democrats are running the show, I think it would be virtually impossible for us to influence the debate in terms of alternative solutions to the problems in the healthcare system
Now that said, I am personally in favor of expanding the use of individual insurance policies (as opposed to employer-based) in our existing market system. I think a big part of the reason that costs have spun out of control is that in general there is a growing disconnect between the health services we want and need and what we actually expect to pay for them. A reliance on direct individual policies increases awareness of the underlying costs, which is something I have experienced personally over the last 10 years.
Along with this, I would be in favor of regulation which would prevent the insurance companies from dropping coverage for anyone based on health conditions. And there also needs to be a way for people with pre-existing conditions to obtain coverage.
On the cost side of the equation some of the things the Administration is looking at may in fact be good ideas…for example providing leadership related to the use of technology, standardized medical records, etc. They are not the exclusive owners of these ideas, and this is an area that Congress and the industry could work through on a genuine bi-partisan basis.
In your specific case, I believe the HIPAA legislation from a few years ago already mandates the portability of your policy to another direct insurance plan by the carrier. I’ve had to help an employee on the East Coast work through this issue recently. I know this does not help with the cost side of the equation but it should provide some peace of mind in terms of having access to coverage. (Let me know if you would like some additional info on this).
May 14, 2009 @ 12:20 pmCindy,
This is something I’ve been wrestling with. It is in fact easier to criticize than to propose.
I’ll start with the one thing I’m certain of: More government is not the answer. As someone who worked in a huge government bureaucracy for 11 years (Soc. Sec.) my distaste for bureaucrats is permanently stuck on 11.
Apart from the personal, it’s also clear that the Medicare program the government currently runs for seniors is a looming economic disaster. Yesterday a report on the Medicare “Trust Fund” (which doesn’t really exist) said it would be insolvent in 2017. According to Kaiser’s fact sheet, Medicare costs have risen faster than private insurance and will continue to do so. Medicare added a net liability of over 2 trillion in 2007. That’s obviously not sustainable and shouldn’t be expanded. Medicare like programs in California for instance, may be wasting (by some accounts) nearly half their annual budget to fraud. It’s a terrible system.
Okay, now what we should do. I agree with Morgen that a good start would be to get away from employee based care. It doesn’t work in a world where people change jobs a dozen times in 40 years. Individualize the marketplace.
In addition, I think one of the problems keeping costs up is that insurers mostly compete within states because of all the mandates each state forces on them. Think of gasoline. It’s most efficient to deliver gas if every station in the US has the same stuff. But in fact, states like CA and others have special blends which are only produced at certain refineries. So if CA has a shortage, other refineries can’t ship gas our way without altering production, which costs money.
So I think in principle that nationalizing the market would reduce cost. A government run “insurance exchange” might be a good idea so long as a Medicare like “public option” is not part of it. I don’t think a government option can ever fairly compete in such a marketplace. It’s like the GSEs that almost collapsed last year (Fannie and Freddie). Once they get going, the government will always step in to bail them out.
Another place to start controlling costs is with tort reform. One of the reasons costs are so high is that so many lawyers have their hands in the system. This forces doctors to carry exorbitant insurance to protect themselves. In some specialties, such as obstetrics, the cost of insurance has actually driven many doctors out of business. Limit doctors liability and you will do much to control costs in the system. Oddly, you don’t hear anyone in the Administration talking about this. That’s because trial lawyers are one of the top funders of Democratic politicians.
Ultimately, there is no cure for the marketplace. Insurance merely spreads the pain around. But on a macro level I think it’s good for the system that costs fall heavier on those who use the system more. Otherwise there is no incentive to moderate use. To use your personal example, how many more tests and trips to Mayo could you have racked up by now if it were free? What would the dollar total be? Obviously if everyone who is ill does that, we can all go broke very quickly. Medicine, like everything else, is a limited resource. If people don’t self-limit their use, someone or something else will have to. In most single-payer systems this means long lines and benefit limits per year.
I realize this isn’t a complete answer, but I’m still thinking about it. It’s a huge mess here but also just about everywhere else you look. Though it pains me to say it, I’ve heard the French system may be one of the best. I’d like to look into that more.
May 14, 2009 @ 1:10 pmI have heard the same about the French system, they were discussing it on the radio this morning.
I think requiring employers to provide the insurance is silly, for the exact reason you and Morgen mentioned before. People have too many jobs in a lifetime to warrant it. Used to be that people kept the same job and could depend upon that employer to provide benefits into retirement and beyond. So why not go public, we all shop for what we need and costs can be relative to those needs.
Here’s the deal with the Mayo Clinic, it is actually just a clinic (albeit staffed with world renowned doctors), and run almost identical to Kaiser. The significant cost to me is the air travel and hotel since I have to travel from CA to MN. Others, for instance, drive in and see their GP at the Mayo for their routine check-ups. There is no more cost incurred for them than there is for me to drive to my GP here. If I lived in MN instead of here, I would be getting my labs, Scans, MRI’s, xrays, check-ups, everything done in that one facility, like one-stop-shopping. Completely opposite of the rabbit trail I currently have to make throughout Orange County. More cost efficient and effective, and with everything done in-house and maintained and accessed on a internal data base, each doctor has access to the last physician’s/labs/radiologist’s notes and comments instantaneously.
We need more places like that.
What I see is the insurance premiums need to be controlled.
For instance, when I worked for the school district, I paid $32/mos. and my employer paid the other $27.50 for full-family PPO. Now, I still have the exact same insurance, didn’t change carriers at all, or level of service, yet pay $700/mos. for just me (family coverage wasn’t an option). So I am being raped and pillaged basically. The powers-that-be know I need it, and since I am pigeon-holed and cannot get it elsewhere, they can charge me whatever they want to. It’s my catch-22.
May 14, 2009 @ 2:00 pmYou would get exactly the opposite in a Canadian-style system. Here we have too many specialists and a dearth of GP’s. There they have many GP’s and long lines and waits to see specialists. It is also difficult to get tests and treatment locally as the systems saves money by centralizing equipment. A good case was made that this is the reason Natasha Richardson died. It took far too long to get her to a proper hospital, in part because everything is centralized and in part because the government funds no emergency airlifts.
That does suck. I don’t see why individuals shouldn’t be able to buy at the wholesale rate. Make plans national and personal and providers will compete for business. Competition will drive down costs.
May 14, 2009 @ 2:27 pmMy sister worked with two people who died due to red tape at an inefficient clinic typed HMO facility here in the US. Those people couldn’t get the treatment they needed because everyone kept making them wait longer and longer, basically until they died.
I meant more places like Mayo, literally, Mayo-cloned.
Yes, competition would drive down costs, and yet the demands per individual would increase their own personal cost, fairly and appropriately.
The latter paragraph you wrote is my ideal health-care system. Doubt I’ll ever see it though.
May 14, 2009 @ 2:39 pmMorgen & John,
I appreciate you thoroughness in answering me. I agree completely and I fail to see why this isn’t the system we already have in place. All I can see is corruption at its finest.
Please keep talking about this. You have indeed drawn coverage, and I see this as promising and hopeful (I am a glass-1/2-full kind of gal).
And yes Morgen, I would appreciate any additional HIPPA information you could share with me. Thanks a ton for offering.
May 14, 2009 @ 4:15 pmNot true. I’m pro-choice. I’ve said that clearly in the past.
But your barb cuts both ways doesn’t it?
If you believe in the “right to life” then it follows that you must also believe in the right to the resources needed to live. Resources like food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and legal representation. These must be “rights” as well.
A common complaint of the left is that the conservatives believe in the “right to life” until you come out of the womb. After that you are free to suffer and starve and die in poverty and degradation. If you make it to the age of 18, you can join the military and kill brown people for the benefit of rich white guys.
but that would just be cynical wouldn’t it?
It does raise the question though – how far does the “right to life” go?
May 15, 2009 @ 9:01 amWhy do you assume that corporate bureaucrats are better than government bureaucrats?
I mean is it really worse to have a government bureaucrat who is answerable to an elected official, than it is to have a corporate bureaucrat who is answerable to a person who is out to make a buck off of your medical condition?
Not only that, but what about the corrupting effect that huge corporate profits have on our democracy? Do you really think that you and I as tax-payers have anywhere near as much pull in Washington as the corporate insurance giants? Their buckets of money buy representation that you and I cannot afford.
The insurance industry is a parasitic institution that profits off of human suffering, and that has a legal mandate to deny as much care as possible under the law. How is this a good thing?
Get Wall Street out of our hospital beds!
One last thing – we all need medical care. Every last one of us. Insurance is effectively a form of taxation for this service. Isn’t tax what you pay to government?
Insurance companies ARE a form of government. They tell us what we can and can’t do. They increase our taxes if we smoke or are overweight or if we even just want to work in a small business.
If you look at it this way – we are going to be governed by SOMEONE on healthcare. This form of corporate taxation is taxation without representation.
May 15, 2009 @ 9:14 amSusac, my recommendation for you is heavy medication. You don’t justify killing an unborm child because some of them may face a tough life. If that were the case, why not go through all of our inner cities and start “offing” all of kids who have no future.
May 15, 2009 @ 9:58 amI would like to see a basic level of healthcare for everyone that is essentially basic comprehensive coverage. This would allow the poor and the self-employed to pay a basic premium (a tax) that would help to cover low-cost and maintenance healthcare like minor breaks, flu shots, birth control etc.
This coverage should also include catastrophic coverage for ER visits and brief hospital stays.
Where healthcare gets expensive is end of life care – most people use 80% of their healthcare dollars in the process of dying in this country.
This is where you need to save money. Helping an old person who is going to die in 1 month live another 3 months in pain and suffering is both inhumane and stupid, yet it happens all the time. This is where a huge chunk of our healthcare money goes – to end of life care. This needs to be looked at by trained professionals who are skilled in medical ethics and who can make well reasoned decisions about how and when to let people die.
The main trouble area that this approach doesn’t cover is chronic medical problems. These can be minor (low-grade asthma) or disabling (someone like Cindy for instance). We have a disability system, but it’s highly limited in what it allows.
Cindy, you seem to be getting world-class care. While I’m glad to hear it, I don’t think it’s realistic or reasonable to expect everyone to have your level of access. I think that the way you handle this is you have a system where a basic level of medical care is allowed for everyone with chronic issues, but that if you want/need to exceed this level, you need to purchase supplemental insurance.
THIS is where market forces should be allowed to come in – chronic health issues need to be insured. If you want to pay extra to buy into a chronic health insurance policy, then that’s your choice. If you don’t that’s your risk. This would allow the insurance industry to sell policies, but ONLY to cover people who want coverage of chronic issues. This means that there will be an incentive to market to healthy people early in life, so they can pay into the system for a long time before they get sick. If you pay in early, your premiums are cheap. If you pay in late, expect higher premiums (just like life insurance). If you are already sick, well, you might as well pay out of pocket and cut out the middle man.
Now I’m sure there are LOTS of reasons this plan won’t work – I’m no expert. But it seems to me that this would be sane and humane. It would allow private insurance to exist, but we would all have a basic level of comprehensive care provided by bureaucrats who are accountable to elected officials and not wall-street cronies.
May 15, 2009 @ 9:59 amJim, I don’t want to derail this thread on the abortion issue. Not only that, but you have shown me that you are incapable of rational discussion about this issue.
So let’s just not go there.
May 15, 2009 @ 10:01 amRational discussion? LOL That’s your excuse for not wanting to deal with killing children. Let’s see??? Conception – what is it? An alligator? A rhino? A baby seal? Wrong again pal. It’s a developing human!! What a concept. But let’s kill it and we’ll call it euphemistically a pro-choice decision. Whose being irrational here?
May 15, 2009 @ 12:41 pmWhat’s your point Jim?
May 15, 2009 @ 1:17 pmPaul,
Thanks for responding. Your comment:
reminded me about the health care system I experienced while living in Germany in the 80′s. An aspect of their health Insurance (they called it “Life” Insurance, as it had to do with everything that you encounter while alive, including illnesses, etc.) was the way you described. While you were young and healthy, you paid low cost premiums. The increase in cost was incremental and slight as you aged each year. If you did not use the monies that you paid throughout the years, then that money was “banked” in your name incurring interest for a later time, in case you got really sick, hospitalized, or chronically ill. Since a fair amount of people find themselves in at least one of those categories at some point in life, it was a fail-safe system. You paid and paid, used on an as-needed basis, and if you were rarely sick, then you’d be able to save up a large chunk. If you ended up living a long, healthy life, you could actually cash-out the money you had paid into it, and enjoy the latter years of life traveling or whatever. At that point it was considered yours free to use however you chose.
This part of the system seems fair and equitable. I lived an incredibly healthy life until recently, and would have had a lot stored up for this random “season of life” had something like that been in place here.
I would agree. Those who use more, should pay more. Just like gasoline. If I choose to drive a huge SUV, my cost at the fuel pump will be more. If I end up with a brain eating amoeba (not that being ill is a choice, I am relating it to the cost & consumption), and I have to get brain MRIs each month, I should have higher costs associated with the useage of that machine. Joe Schmoe shouldn’t pay more monthly because I am ill, and he also shouldn’t have to pay more each month for a machine he may never lay eyes on. That additional cost should come from those using it.
And, yes, you’re right, I am receiving incredible care. Part of it is where I live, Orange County, CA. Part of it is the egos of the doctors that want to research me in order be the “one” who solved the riddle and named the illness after me. So, for that reason I get a lot of attention (doctors I would not normally see are making appointments to see me instead of the other way around). Yet, due to this insane place I find myself I am at the utter mercy of the system.
My sister had breast cancer last year. She used the same hospital (for scans, MRIs, etc.) as I. But because she was employed at the time, her cost never increased. She continued to pay $42/mos. and received the same incredibly wonderful care that I am blessed to receive. However, her total bill for Mammograms, bi-lateral MRIs, double mastectomy, oncology care, and reconstructive surgery was less than I pay in two months of just premiums alone, without me even visiting a doctor.
This entire situation is shameless and leaves me dumbfounded. I would bet the average person doesn’t have the slightest clue that my story could be theirs in the blink of an eye.
I went jetskiing for a weekend, and literally within 72 hours my entire life changed…
May 15, 2009 @ 1:24 pmI wrote:
Which indeed it already does. I pay 20% out of pocket every time I see a doctor or get any service rendered. Bills from Radiologists, Hospitals, Anesthesiologists, Neurologists, etc. arrive in my mailbox daily. And all of that is not an issue as I see it. I use it, I pay for it.
The monthly premiums when disabled or out of work are the real heart of the issue for me.
May 15, 2009 @ 1:54 pmThis is naive. The reason that insurance companies charge individuals humongous rates is because they don’t WANT individuals buying their insurance. They want healthy employed people. Ideally they want people in their 20′s who don’t smoke, who exercise regularly and who are incapable of having babies.
They even have a name for such people – they are called “indestructibles.” Insurance companies make money by denying care. The LAST thing they want is for an individual to buy health insurance, because they know that the only individuals who will buy health insurance on their own are people with medical concerns – i.e. SICK PEOPLE.
My Girlfriend works for an insurance company. A small one. The upper management wears finer clothes and jewelry, and drives nicer cars than any doctor I have ever met (and I’ve met a few). The last thing insurance companies want is to serve a bunch of sick people. It limits the number of Armani Suits one’ can afford you see.
On top of all of this, insurance companies are required by law to hold huge buckets of money in order to guarantee that they can pay their claims. These funds are invested, and the investments are a huge source of profit for the company. These dividends are then used as payola to fund political campaigns for both republican and democratic candidates in order to get laws favorable to the industry. The whole thing is a well-oiled system designed to obtain money and political clout through denying healthcare to the needy. It is inherently immoral in the way it is set up.
Why do you think they keep talking about “political will?” This is just a code for “we’ll cut off your campaign funds if you cross us bitch!”
Don’t even get me STARTED about the drug companies!
May 15, 2009 @ 2:08 pmCome on Paul, let’s hear it about the drug companies. I, as you can well imagine, have quite the pharmaceutical cabinet at home.
May 15, 2009 @ 2:50 pmYou also said:
Which statement were we to believe?
Yes. Clearly you’ve never been part of a government bureaucracy. Bureaucrats answer to no one. Their unions protect even the most slothful slobs from facing any responsibility for their actions. Corporations at least have shareholders and bosses who are concerned about productivity and the bottom line. They have a motive to get things done and to do them efficiently. Bureaucrats have no such motive. The motive to “make a buck” is needed in health care to insure someone is always watching where the money goes. This is why medicare (and in CA Medical) is so rife with fraud. No one cares.
There’s an old analysis. You can spend your money or someone else’s. You can spend it on yourself or someone else. People are most careful when spending their money on others. Less so spending on themselves. They are least careful spending other’s money on themselves and only slightly better spending other’s money on others. Bureaucracies spend other people’s money on others. Private insurers spend their money on others. One is inherently going to be more efficient than the other.
May 15, 2009 @ 3:43 pmThe free market has always been more efficient and productive than a political bureaucracy. The point isn’t even worth debating. Susac, take a remedial course in economics at the local community college. While there, take another course in embryology. This way you can have an educated opinion on both subjects (economics and the beginning of human life). After all, it must get “old” always being on the wrong side of an argument.
May 15, 2009 @ 6:25 pmYou know what? I see your point. I guess the place where I disagree is that I don’t believe that insurance companies are spending THEIR money. They are spendng OUR money. They just have mangaged to legally tax us through a private entity.
But I do see your point.
May 18, 2009 @ 11:20 amOK, now this is a great example of the dishonest scholarship practice called “cherry-picking.”
In the first quote, I am clearly stating my position on the issue of abortion. On the second quote, I am clearly stating my position up to that point on a specific arguement that we were having about a specific policy decision that Obama made about abortion.
What you have done is taken me out of context to make it look like I am lying, or changing my position. This is dishonest of you John.
This is actually a very common tactic that I have seen Christain apologists do all the time (yes, I know lots of other people do it too). It is one of the more popular ways that Christians lie for Jesus.
Don’t cherry-pick John. You are better than that.
May 18, 2009 @ 11:26 amJust how do you think another government takeover of anything can be good for us??? Please explain that to me. This so called healthcare reform is a joke. Who’s getting paid behind the scenes. If pharmaceutical companies and other parties pushing for this are willing to kick in funds to fund this thing now, then why hasn’t this been the case before. This doesn’t smell so good to me. We’re broke now. This country is too great to fail. The only thing I see isn’t too big to fail is re-elections. I pray that we the people have the sense to see what’s happening here and will vote accordingly. Enough is enough.
July 28, 2009 @ 8:40 am[...] And though the president claims this is not the result he wants, in the past he explicitly said the opposite, and so have many other Democratic lawmakers. [...]
August 12, 2009 @ 8:28 amAdmittedly, I am no authority of the health care industry…I have however been abused by the system since the day I turned 18 and was responsible for my own health care.
My thoughts on reforms…
1. Offer to “grant” educational monies to M.D.’s in return for “donated time” upon licensure. Don’t they do something like that for teachers in innercities???
2. TORT REFORM. Enough said.
4. Make our system about PREVENTATIVE care and not DEFENSIVE medicine.
3. FORCE insurance companies to actually be accountable…PUBLICLY, for their mis-deeds.
4. Insurance companies make MASSIVE profits annually…take the BUSINESS out of health insurance and make it actually ABOUT proper medical care and treatment.
5. STOP paying for illegals to have unlimited access to medicaid/medicare. You don’t pay taxes, you pay your own way just like the rest of us.
There are soooo many other options, but I would think that the first order of business for congress and the people should be to speak to the M.D.s and nurses to figure out how to fix a broken system that they are an integral part of. And I don’t mean the lobyists that are already corrupted by the Washington mind-set, I mean send a group of intelligent college kids out to qestion Dr.s and nurses in the US. Start a web-page that they can log on to and make suggestions directly to the people that are writting these reforms.
October 9, 2009 @ 4:34 pmJust some thoughts. Thanks for the forum.
I can’t figure out a way to not pay for people that don’t have health insurance. The only way to escape paying for illegals, indigents, etc. would be to turn them away at the door and let them die in the street. That’s it. Society has to pay for it somehow, because the hospitals shouldn’t have to (society is the one who doesn’t let them turn people away, or else they would) because they’d go out of business and we’d all suffer. It would be nice to have this debt set aside and clearly funded by public means; citizens would know exactly how much of their taxes went to the fund. Local hospitals should pass the cost on to the local community, perhaps? Incentive for the community to take better care of their neighbors?
October 10, 2009 @ 12:19 am[...] [...]
October 13, 2009 @ 8:48 pmI don’t understand how people in our society believe they aren’t responsible for their own health and welfare. So many believe that it’s right and moral to take money from others (in the form of taxes)in order to fulfil what they believe they are entitled to. What ever happened to responsibility for self not to mention my freedom to work, earn a paycheck and raise my family the way I see fit so long as it doesn’t violate the laws that this once great nation has in place. Freedom…(sadly shaking my head) seems like people are so willing to take that from others to secure their wants. The governments job was meant to provide security for the citizens of this country to pursue their dreams. Life doesn’t gaurantee those dreams will be reached and neither should the government.
October 20, 2009 @ 7:53 pmI am continually amazed by how many of us desperately seek to attain one single goal, in this case affordable (free) Health Care for everyone, regardless of the real cost. The cost I’m referring to is the Constitution. Is what our Federal Government is attempting to do allowed by the Constitution? Have we considered “States Rights?” Is the plan actually another step down the road to Socialism? Do we remember how closely tied socialism is to Communism, Marxism, and Nazism?
Lastly, after six decades of life in this world I have become very skeptical of politicians because they continually say one thing and do another. Congress has a penchant for misrepresenting the situation as they seek policies designed to their mutual goal of reelection. Reelection equals power. Power equals influence and wealth. Why do we watch these disingenuous public servants pillage the coffers of America with impunity and then head to the voting booth and vote them back into office?
This isn’t just about health care…
March 10, 2010 @ 5:59 amAmy,
You make valid points. However, each individual State governs insurance through the State Insurance Commissioner. Perhaps the State Legislature should look to make reforms, but the Federal Government has no business in this area. It is Unconstitutional. There are limits to what our Federal nitwits can inflict upon the American public. We now see the wisdom of the authors of the Constitution in a clear light. However, we have to want to see what is going on. Many of us do not understand that the White House and Congress can not just whatever they want, or whatever we want.
In a Capitalist Society like the USA has been since inception businesses exist to create wealth for the share-holders and owners. In a Communist country the government runs industry and business. Are we ready for Communism in America? The word Socialism has been sanitized in the last 30 years or so. My generation’s parents bled and died to oppose Socialists like Hitler, Mussolini, and the like.
Illegal immigrants. The word “Illegal” has been forgotten. The 2nd time a person enters the USA improperly it is a felony. A felony… Yet, we have cities, counties, states, and a federal government that provide sanctuary and services to criminals. Isn’t this aiding and abetting in the commission of a felony? I am no legal scholar but I can apply common sense.
March 10, 2010 @ 7:30 am