Thread: Democrats to Ram healthcare down Americans throats !

Originally Posted by April

Betty, we don't want socialist medicine here.

Betty appears to be fond of all things progressive from what she posts.

I am a Democrat. It is my understanding that Alipac is bipartisan.

On some issues I am progressive, like being against these two usless wars.
On some issues I am a middle of the roader, like being against NAFTA and illegal immigration.
On some issues I am right wing, like supporting fiscal conservatism.

I also think there is a lot more common ground between Dems and Repubs than the leadership of those parties let on. They both are fanning the flames to increase their own power.

Let's stop demonizing each other and start talking to each other.

Originally Posted by vortex

I lucked into a job in Germany (legally) and after six hours of work I was 100 percent insured. Wonderful, as after about a month, had an appendicitis attack and was thrown in the hospital for about a week while every test was run on me. Christmas was coming and they released me for the holidays, but I never went back. Came back to US with my appendix, but who picked up the bill except the German taxpayers. I had not be employed enough to pay the taxes for my care.
We already have the same kind of care who are here illegally for humanitarian reasons, something the ERs are seeing daily for problems with earwax and hangnails.

.........

Agreed!

I believe if more people knew how other systems really work, (not the insurance company propoganda) they would realize how good they can be, and how truly awlful our present system is.

Some countries have a government run system, some have hybrid systems, with private insurance and some government regulation.. there are all sorts of options that have proven to give equal care to ours, at a lower price, and provide universal coverage to boot.

The Wall Street rip off is nothing compared to what the health insurance industry is doing to Americans. But the insurance companies have hyped up the "socialist" label to ensure their scam continues.

We need real reform.

Yes, we should give emergency care to illegal aliens. That is the only human thing to do. But we should not allow them to buy into the system. That only will encourage more illegal immigration.

Yes Betty, I am against all those socialistic things. They're all failures. Especially education. Have you looked at an American History text book lately? It is full of complete distortions and is a confusing muddle. The kids might as well be reading the Communist Manifesto instead. But from reading my daughter's text book, it may as well be.

Socialist Security is a pyramid scheme. Aren't pyramid schemes illegal? They were and still are to my knowledge, oh that's right, it's only illegal unless you are the government.

How is the military socialist? Do they have hammer and sickle over red star on cap?

Sorry, but I don't look to government to take care of me. Drive through Detroit and you'll get an idea as to why. Detroit is the posterchild for what will happen if you have too much government involvement. People lose the ability to think for themselves. The government wil pay for it. Yeah right.

A good example, how'd that cash for clunkers program go. Those people could screw up a wet dream and not even be involved. Sorry that was my old football coach in highschool there.

Socialism = NO

Communism = NO

Democracy = NO

American poet James Russell Lowell warned that "democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor." Lowell was joined in his disdain for democracy by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who remarked that "democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors." Across the Atlantic, British statesman Thomas Babington Macauly agreed with the Americans. "I have long been convinced," he said, "that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both." Britons Benjamin Disraeli and Herbert Spencer would certainly agree with their countryman, Lord Acton, who wrote: "The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."

War Department's 1928 "Training Manual No. 2000-25," which was intended for use in citizenship training, and what followed. The 1928 U.S. government document correctly defined democracy as:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct expression." Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights. Attitude of the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Decades later, in an article appearing in the October 1973 issue of Military Review, Lieutenant Colonel Paul B. Parham explained that the Army ceased using the manual because of letters of protest "from private citizens." Interestingly, Parham also noted that the word democracy "appears on one hand to be of key importance to, and holds some peculiar significance for, the Communists."

In 1931, England's Duke of Northumberland issued a booklet entitled The History of World Revolution in which he stated: "The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise."

No I do not buy into progressive propaganda. And as long as the blood flows through my veins, I will do everything in my power to make sure that my children will not have to live in a land of serfdom, shackled to the yoke of debt slavery. Nor any of my liberty cherishing fellow Americans.

Like my bumper sticker says, I'll keep my guns, money and freedom, you keep the change.

Originally Posted by Bettybb

I live in CA where Anthem Blue Cross is raising rates 33%. There is no effective regulation. In fact, it is thought that Anthem is playing fast and loose with its figures in order to come up with this increase. But no one knows for sure. Hence the rush to put regulations into place.

I have lived in Canada and in Belgium, both with a single payer system.

In both countries I could go to any doctor I wanted.
In both countires I never had to wait for an appointment. In fact, I have had to wait longer her in the US under my Blue Cross PPO coverage.
The care I received in both Canada and Belgium was equal to that I have received here.
My cost for my medical coverage in both countries was far, far less than what I am paying here.

Wake up people. The insurance industry has you bamboozled. They are making 30% profits off the fear they have instilled in you.

The result... America is way, way behind in the level of health care compared to other first world countries.

It is time Americans took control and reigned in the greedy insurance companies. Whether it is a public plan or through insurance offered nationally,

1. All Americans should be able to have top notch coverage at an affordable price.
2. preexisiting conditions should be covered.
3. there should be no discrimination against women.

NO MORE PRICE GOUGING!

Betty, over 63 million Americans under the age of 65 are already on MediCaid, HIPP and SCHIP. Another 49 million are on MediCare. That's 112 million or well over 1/3 of our population on these 4 programs. There are another 2.3 million in prison on state and federal health care. There are 9 million Americans insured by the Federal Government through their Federal Employee Retirement System. There are 2 million federal workers who aren't retired covered by government health care. Then there are another 15 million employed by Not-For-Profits most of whom are covered with insurance funded by taxpayer deductible contributions. There are 6.5 million teachers in the US with insurance funded by public dollars. Then add all state and local government employees and their insurance and this number I don't have but I would expect it to be 2 x the teachers so we'll call it 13 million. That's another 48 million. Now add their families x 2 = 96 million. Now add the 63 and that's over 161 million people, more than 53% of the US population that's already insured by with tax dollars or tax deductible dollars. Wait, I forgot to double the 14 million for the families of the not-for-profit people. Add another 15 million and that's 176 million out of 305 million population or 58% of the US population that is already insured by American Taxpayers. And I've probably left some group out ... oh yeah ... Congress and the Veterans. How many Veterans are taken care of by the Veterans' Administration? Lets say 5 million. I've no idea that's just a guess. Oh wait ... I forgot the US military and their families and the State National Guards. Add another 5 million. So we have 186 million Americans already covered with some type of government funded, subsidized health insurance program which is 61% of the US population.

We have 40 million uninsured. That accounts for 236 million out of 304 million which is 77%. Okay that leaves 23% of the US population that is privately insured paid for by either themselves or their employer.

20 million of the 40 million are illegal aliens. That leaves 20 million people to worry about, probably 10 million citizens.

Just add them to MediCaid if and when they get sick until they get a job. Tell the illegal aliens to get out of the country and if the immigrants can't afford insurance, then they need to go back home too.

Adding 10 million US citizens to MediCaid would be a 20% increase to a $408 billion budget which is another $82 billion a year. The stimulus package alone would have funded their health care for 10 full years.

So you want 23% of the population to fund 40 million more un-insureds?

Oh wait ... I forgot the federal contractors. That's another 10 million. So we're already funding 196 million. Oh geez, that's actually 20 million if we double it for their families. Holy Moly ... that's 206 million Americans who already have government funded tax payer subsidized health insurance. That would make the private sector insured only 19% of the US population.

No wonder private insurance companies are raising their rates on private health insurance plans. There aren't enough Americans left off the public dole to sign up for them to fund their reserve mandates.

I have an idea. Why don't the 196 million pass the hat and raise some money for a fund to take care of the 10 million or so uninsureds who are actually US citizens, send the 20 million illegal aliens and the 5 million immigrants who can't afford health insurance back to their homelands of citizenship and let their governments take care of them.

Anyone with better data than what I have here, please post it. I think it's critical that we determine how many Americans are insured with public monies either as a direct employee of the government, a contractor, a prisoner or a not-for-profit.

Thanks. Can that number be right?! it can't be can it? If it is, no wonder our government is $14 trillion in debt and almost 40 states are on the verge bankruptcy.

Yes Obama has a plan to ram this down our throats no matter what!

Republican lawmakers have explicitly ruled out a sweeping bill like the one Obama is advocating.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said the administration was preparing to move forward without GOP lawmakers, if necessary.

Democratic leaders have been developing a legislative strategy in which the House would vote on the Senate bill and then both chambers would separately pass a series of changes, likely along the lines of the ones proposed by the president.

That package could be advanced through a process known as budget reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority in the Senate, rather than the 60-vote supermajority necessary to squash a filibuster.

Pfeiffer said no decision has been made about using budget reconciliation, but he said the president's proposal was developed with that option in mind.

"The president expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform," Pfeiffer said. "The package is designed to provide us the flexibility to achieve that if the Republican Party decides to filibuster health reform."

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/polit ... mas_new_...

Originally Posted by Bettybb

I live in CA where Anthem Blue Cross is raising rates 33%. There is no effective regulation. In fact, it is thought that Anthem is playing fast and loose with its figures in order to come up with this increase. But no one knows for sure. Hence the rush to put regulations into place.

I have lived in Canada and in Belgium, both with a single payer system.

In both countries I could go to any doctor I wanted.
In both countires I never had to wait for an appointment. In fact, I have had to wait longer her in the US under my Blue Cross PPO coverage.
The care I received in both Canada and Belgium was equal to that I have received here.
My cost for my medical coverage in both countries was far, far less than what I am paying here.

Wake up people. The insurance industry has you bamboozled. They are making 30% profits off the fear they have instilled in you.

The result... America is way, way behind in the level of health care compared to other first world countries.

It is time Americans took control and reigned in the greedy insurance companies. Whether it is a public plan or through insurance offered nationally,

1. All Americans should be able to have top notch coverage at an affordable price.
2. preexisiting conditions should be covered.
3. there should be no discrimination against women.

NO MORE PRICE GOUGING!

Perhaps Anthem Blue Cross's need to raise rates by 33% in California has something to do with the cost of illegal alien health care, no?

If Glenn Beck is correct, the insurance companies on average are making a 3.5% profit; much lower than Pepsi Cola does at 18% profit. And let’s not forget that this legislation has their blessing. Corporations don’t usually go along with something unless they stand to gain from it.

I don’t know much about the national health care of other nations, and I won’t pretend to either. What I do know is that I have excellent health coverage through my employer, to which I contribute every week out of my paycheck, and which covered all the costs of my recent hospitalization for a heart procedure, all follow-up doctors’ visits, and provides substantial benefit for medication I will need for years to come.

Why radically alter a healthcare system which for the most part is working just fine for approximately 80% of the population, instead of providing something for the other 20% for whom it isn’t? And why isn’t it? That bears careful consideration, because more than half of that 20% are illegal immigrants.

Why not instead establish a failsafe to provide healthcare for Americans in indigent circumstances that need it? Oh, that's right, we already have it. It's called welfare, and if it wasn't being squandered (yes, I said squandered) on illegal aliens it would be available to American citizens in need.

How about a catastrophic health care fund for those who find themselves facing bankruptcy due to exigent health circumstances which are not covered by their health insurance?

Let’s not forget that access has nothing to with this debate; it is all about wanting someone else to pay for it for you. Most of the people who are calling for this, by the way, have no qualms spending their money on entertainment, toys, and frivolous things.

Health care is not a right, it is a responsibility. Period. Here’s why:

Each person’s health is subjective to his or her behavior. One cannot eat poorly, refuse to exercise, smoke, drink, and otherwise live recklessly, and still expect the public to pick up the tab for his irresponsible behavior. Americans already have access to healthcare either through public assistance or our employers, who may or may not contribute to the cost of the health care plan. Part of the responsibility for those who wish to do business in the USA is to provide these basic needs for their employees which allows them to subsist with a reasonable level of care and quality of life. That’s not to say they should bear the entire burden, but certainly some of it, as they can’t do business without a workforce. Those of us who don’t qualify for public assistance or have a health plan are billed for services, and have the option to make payment arrangements to satisfy the debt. I’ve done this many times early in my marriage as I started my family, and we always managed to fit it into our budget. It’s actually a pretty darn good system IMHO, and personally, I don’t think it should be any other way.

If the government really wanted to “fixâ€

WASHINGTON — Americans overwhelmingly doubt that the White House summit Thursday will succeed in reaching an agreement on a health care bill, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, setting low expectations for the high-profile confab.
More than three in four, 77%, say their "best guess" is that President Obama and congressional Democratic and Republican leaders will leave the six-hour session at Blair House empty-handed. Just one in five, 22%, predict they'll reach a deal.

The poll also found no consensus that the public wants an agreement.

By 49%-43%, those surveyed oppose passage of a bill like that Democrats have drafted. The White House on Monday released a $950 billion, 10-year proposal designed to expand coverage and control costs. It would require most Americans to have health insurance and provide subsidies to help those of moderate incomes afford it.

While that divide was relatively narrow, opponents feel more intensely about it than supporters do: 23% "strongly oppose" such a bill while 11% "strongly favor" it.

The findings underscore the uphill challenge for the White House and Democratic congressional leaders, who have struggled for more than a year to enact Obama's signature domestic initiative. The upset election in Massachusetts last month of Republican Scott Brown to the seat held by the late Edward Kennedy cost Democrats their filibuster-proof 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Now, in a last-ditch effort, Obama has invited congressional leaders from both parties to join him at the government guest house, just across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, for a day-long discussion that will televised live on C-SPAN3. The agenda focuses on four topics: insurance reforms, cost containment, coverage expansion and deficit impact.

Even the shape of the table — now to be arranged in a "hollow square" that puts Republicans on an equal footing with the president — was the subject of negotiations.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs indicated Monday that, if necessary, the White House was open to using a parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation to bypass a prospective filibuster in the Senate. That means a measure could pass the Senate with a 51-vote majority rather than the 60 votes needed to end debate.

Americans are opposed 52%-39% to using that device to get a bill through.

The poll of 1,009 adults nationwide, taken by landline and cellphone Tuesday, has a margin of error of +/—4 percentage points
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... ults_N.htm

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Yes Betty, I am against all those socialistic things. They're all failures. Especially education. Have you looked at an American History text book lately? It is full of complete distortions and is a confusing muddle. The kids might as well be reading the Communist Manifesto instead. But from reading my daughter's text book, it may as well be.

Socialist Security is a pyramid scheme. Aren't pyramid schemes illegal? They were and still are to my knowledge, oh that's right, it's only illegal unless you are the government.

How is the military socialist? Do they have hammer and sickle over red star on cap?

Sorry, but I don't look to government to take care of me. Drive through Detroit and you'll get an idea as to why. Detroit is the posterchild for what will happen if you have too much government involvement. People lose the ability to think for themselves. The government wil pay for it. Yeah right.

A good example, how'd that cash for clunkers program go. Those people could screw up a wet dream and not even be involved. Sorry that was my old football coach in highschool there.

Socialism = NO

Communism = NO

Democracy = NO

American poet James Russell Lowell warned that "democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor." Lowell was joined in his disdain for democracy by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who remarked that "democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors." Across the Atlantic, British statesman Thomas Babington Macauly agreed with the Americans. "I have long been convinced," he said, "that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both." Britons Benjamin Disraeli and Herbert Spencer would certainly agree with their countryman, Lord Acton, who wrote: "The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."

War Department's 1928 "Training Manual No. 2000-25," which was intended for use in citizenship training, and what followed. The 1928 U.S. government document correctly defined democracy as:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct expression." Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights. Attitude of the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Decades later, in an article appearing in the October 1973 issue of Military Review, Lieutenant Colonel Paul B. Parham explained that the Army ceased using the manual because of letters of protest "from private citizens." Interestingly, Parham also noted that the word democracy "appears on one hand to be of key importance to, and holds some peculiar significance for, the Communists."

In 1931, England's Duke of Northumberland issued a booklet entitled The History of World Revolution in which he stated: "The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise."

No I do not buy into progressive propaganda. And as long as the blood flows through my veins, I will do everything in my power to make sure that my children will not have to live in a land of serfdom, shackled to the yoke of debt slavery. Nor any of my liberty cherishing fellow Americans.

Like my bumper sticker says, I'll keep my guns, money and freedom, you keep the change.

Well, you are almost consistent.

Our military is a socialist system. It is not run by private enterprise. It is run by the government and paid for by the taxpayer.

Are you also against our socalist police, firemen, public transportation, airports, highways, and other infrastructure, national parks etc?

I agree some of our public schools are terrible. One thing No Child Left Behind has done with standardized tests is to show how some states, many of which are in the south, have dumbed down education.

I also agree that cash for clunkers was a terrible, and really stupid government program.

But the problems with Detroit come from the collapse of GM.. in other words, private enterprise, not government action.

Government never pays for anything. We do. We need to determine exactly what services we want from government then tax ourselves to pay for it.

The problem now is both the Repubs and Dem politicians are spending our money, or borrowing on our backs, to fund special interests. Bush borrowed and spent our country into the poorhouse, and Obama has continued the out of control borrowing and spending.

We are the dupes of the moneyed elite, and our country is not being run for the people, but for the profit of the elite.

It is time we took our country back, and kicked all incumbent politicians out.

Originally Posted by melena29

Originally Posted by Bettybb

I live in CA where Anthem Blue Cross is raising rates 33%. There is no effective regulation. In fact, it is thought that Anthem is playing fast and loose with its figures in order to come up with this increase. But no one knows for sure. Hence the rush to put regulations into place.

I have lived in Canada and in Belgium, both with a single payer system.

In both countries I could go to any doctor I wanted.
In both countires I never had to wait for an appointment. In fact, I have had to wait longer her in the US under my Blue Cross PPO coverage.
The care I received in both Canada and Belgium was equal to that I have received here.
My cost for my medical coverage in both countries was far, far less than what I am paying here.

Wake up people. The insurance industry has you bamboozled. They are making 30% profits off the fear they have instilled in you.

The result... America is way, way behind in the level of health care compared to other first world countries.

It is time Americans took control and reigned in the greedy insurance companies. Whether it is a public plan or through insurance offered nationally,

1. All Americans should be able to have top notch coverage at an affordable price.
2. preexisiting conditions should be covered.
3. there should be no discrimination against women.

NO MORE PRICE GOUGING!

Perhaps Anthem Blue Cross's need to raise rates by 33% in California has something to do with the cost of illegal alien health care, no?

If Glenn Beck is correct, the insurance companies on average are making a 3.5% profit; much lower than Pepsi Cola does at 18% profit. And let’s not forget that this legislation has their blessing. Corporations don’t usually go along with something unless they stand to gain from it.

I don’t know much about the national health care of other nations, and I won’t pretend to either. What I do know is that I have excellent health coverage through my employer, to which I contribute every week out of my paycheck, and which covered all the costs of my recent hospitalization for a heart procedure, all follow-up doctors’ visits, and provides substantial benefit for medication I will need for years to come.

Why radically alter a healthcare system which for the most part is working just fine for approximately 80% of the population, instead of providing something for the other 20% for whom it isn’t? And why isn’t it? That bears careful consideration, because more than half of that 20% are illegal immigrants.

Why not instead establish a failsafe to provide healthcare for Americans in indigent circumstances that need it? Oh, that's right, we already have it. It's called welfare, and if it wasn't being squandered (yes, I said squandered) on illegal aliens it would be available to American citizens in need.

How about a catastrophic health care fund for those who find themselves facing bankruptcy due to exigent health circumstances which are not covered by their health insurance?

Let’s not forget that access has nothing to with this debate; it is all about wanting someone else to pay for it for you. Most of the people who are calling for this, by the way, have no qualms spending their money on entertainment, toys, and frivolous things.

Health care is not a right, it is a responsibility. Period. Here’s why:

Each person’s health is subjective to his or her behavior. One cannot eat poorly, refuse to exercise, smoke, drink, and otherwise live recklessly, and still expect the public to pick up the tab for his irresponsible behavior. Americans already have access to healthcare either through public assistance or our employers, who may or may not contribute to the cost of the health care plan. Part of the responsibility for those who wish to do business in the USA is to provide these basic needs for their employees which allows them to subsist with a reasonable level of care and quality of life. That’s not to say they should bear the entire burden, but certainly some of it, as they can’t do business without a workforce. Those of us who don’t qualify for public assistance or have a health plan are billed for services, and have the option to make payment arrangements to satisfy the debt. I’ve done this many times early in my marriage as I started my family, and we always managed to fit it into our budget. It’s actually a pretty darn good system IMHO, and personally, I don’t think it should be any other way.

If the government really wanted to “fixâ€

Good news. Our paper reported that Obam's current health care plan does not allow illegal aliens to buy insurance at the exchanges.

Of course, by the time any bill becomes effective, Obama thinks he is going to have all the illegal aliens legal.