Health Care Reform - Be Careful

[Guest]

THIS IS IMPERATIVE EVERYONE SEE THIS!! IT WAS TAKEN OFF THE VIDEO TAPES TAKEN OFF THE VIDEO TAPES OF THE FLOOR OF OUR NATIONAL LEGISLATURE… Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C.https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/images/smilies/agree.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded

[Guest]

THIS IS IMPERATIVE EVERYONE SEE THIS!! IT WAS TAKEN OFF THE VIDEO TAPES TAKEN OFF THE VIDEO TAPES OF THE FLOOR OF OUR NATIONAL LEGISLATURE… Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C.https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/images/smilies/agree.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded

Great post GOLFER...thank you !

This plan is Barrack Obama..period. This is what he believes in. Take from what HE defines as rich and give to those HE defines as needy in anyway he can. This is what he has ALWAYS believed in and ALWAYS practiced and preached and he now has a congress controlled by frustrated Democrats who want to pass social program after social program ! The perfect storm !

Thanks again GOLFER for a great post !

[Guest]

All too true! Do you think Michelle Obama or Barbara Boxer be the ones denied timely treatment for breast cancer, or the tests for early detection? This is starting to feel like "Animal Farm" by George Orwell in which the famous line is, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

This country was established on the principle that, "... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." We seem to be turning this around by saying your right to access health-care is one granted and controlled by the government.

[Guest]

On and on it goes - "punish" those who worked so hard to earn their health care benefits, by forcing them to subsidize those who don't have those benefits.

The best words to describe Mr Richards statements are myopic and selfish.

Myopic because he completely ignores the history of man, the rise and fall of civilizations and inevitable destruction of every society which has allowed the greedy and aggressive "haves" to dominate the "have-nots". The larger the gap between the groups and the larger number of have-nots, the sooner the society will be destroyed. Our society is so technologically advanced, yet a significant portion lives in, or on the brink of hopelessness. The hopeless finally demand change in revolutionary, inevitably destructive ways.

Selfish because we are so economically advantaged that we can actually provide health care for everyone without materially changing the economic status of any of the haves, and in the design of the hated Obama administration, without virtually any of the haves even noticing there is a change at all.

We need to remember how many of us come from the hopeless and made it to where we are by some work, but often more by luck of accidental birth as a white, healthy person in a place uncrowded, resource rich and brimming with opportunity. It's harder now to become a have, but we who are so privileged must be visionary enough to see that our assistance to have nots is not a mere tax deduction or "feel good" exercise, but an essential perpetuation of democracy and equality.

And before you who applaud Mr Richards' myopathy and selfishness rail about how we are mortgaging our children's future with this mindless government spending, take another look at history and remember this: 1) WE are still the government (don't just sit there); 2) the deficits are the product of inaction and mistakes made by people you ardently supported, and in some cases, still do; and 3) in our amazing first 200 years we have, at a number of times, been far more insolvent than at present.

Opportunity is the ultimate by-product of a successful democracy. Opportunity isn't just at our fingertips anymore by moving West, or investing $500 to open up that new tin lizzie dealership. We who have so much need to provide the basic foundation for have-nots to become haves.

[Guest]

On and on it goes - "punish" those who worked so hard to earn their health care benefits, by forcing them to subsidize those who don't have those benefits.

The best words to describe Mr Richards statements are myopic and selfish.

Myopic because he completely ignores the history of man, the rise and fall of civilizations and inevitable destruction of every society which has allowed the greedy and aggressive "haves" to dominate the "have-nots". The larger the gap between the groups and the larger number of have-nots, the sooner the society will be destroyed. Our society is so technologically advanced, yet a significant portion lives in, or on the brink of hopelessness. The hopeless finally demand change in revolutionary, inevitably destructive ways.

Selfish because we are so economically advantaged that we can actually provide health care for everyone without materially changing the economic status of any of the haves, and in the design of the hated Obama administration, without virtually any of the haves even noticing there is a change at all.

We need to remember how many of us come from the hopeless and made it to where we are by some work, but often more by luck of accidental birth as a white, healthy person in a place uncrowded, resource rich and brimming with opportunity. It's harder now to become a have, but we who are so privileged must be visionary enough to see that our assistance to have nots is not a mere tax deduction or "feel good" exercise, but an essential perpetuation of democracy and equality.

And before you who applaud Mr Richards' myopathy and selfishness rail about how we are mortgaging our children's future with this mindless government spending, take another look at history and remember this: 1) WE are still the government (don't just sit there); 2) the deficits are the product of inaction and mistakes made by people you ardently supported, and in some cases, still do; and 3) in our amazing first 200 years we have, at a number of times, been far more insolvent than at present.

Opportunity is the ultimate by-product of a successful democracy. Opportunity isn't just at our fingertips anymore by moving West, or investing $500 to open up that new tin lizzie dealership. We who have so much need to provide the basic foundation for have-nots to become haves.

Well said! :clap2:

[Guest]

WOW!! I don't even know where to begin. First of all, this monstrosity of a health care bill has nothing to do with health care. Its about control. Same way with Cap and Trade. If your garage door is broken would you tear down the whole house to fix the door??? I resent the fact that you think people who have worked hard all their lives only have what they have, because they were lucky. Many people who don't have money for health insurance made poor decisions. I've lived in two foreign countries. Our poor live a lot better than many middle class, in other countries. I have no problem with fixing things that are wrong, in our health care system, but to punish the 85% that are happy with their health care is just plain wrong. And to say we were just lucky is insulting.

[Guest]

So that begs the question from the other two posters. How much of what I earn for my family belongs to YOU and why?

It's a philosophical question asked several times here and has never gotten an answer.

If you look at it through liberal eyes it's all about sounding good and feeling good. Actual outcomes and common sense are ignored especially when someone else gets to pay for it.

They think they are taking the moral high ground by forcibly punishing achievement and offering it up to others as freebies. Makes them feel righteous.

Liberals call it selfish. Most call it thievery.

"You can't make a weak man stronger by making a strong man weak." But they think that's exactly what's got to happen to fix the problem.

We who have so much need to provide the basic foundation for have-nots to become haves.

And how'd that welfare program work out? All it gave us was a welfare state and for many welfare became a way of life. It didn't help anyone achieve anything. Oh I'm sure it helped a few who pulled themselves up by the boot straps but none the less it was abject failure. Even Bill Clinton knew that.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/rector0307cht2.jpg

And after all that we still have poor people. How much more do we have to give until everyone is equally poor? It's simply not fair that some people are successful and some are not. The misery must be spread equally and that's exactly what Obama aims to do.

My family gets by. Obama is going to see that we get by with a little less.

[Guest]

On and on it goes - "punish" those who worked so hard to earn their health care benefits, by forcing them to subsidize those who don't have those benefits.

The best words to describe Mr Richards statements are myopic and selfish.

Myopic because he completely ignores the history of man, the rise and fall of civilizations and inevitable destruction of every society which has allowed the greedy and aggressive "haves" to dominate the "have-nots". The larger the gap between the groups and the larger number of have-nots, the sooner the society will be destroyed. Our society is so technologically advanced, yet a significant portion lives in, or on the brink of hopelessness. The hopeless finally demand change in revolutionary, inevitably destructive ways.

Selfish because we are so economically advantaged that we can actually provide health care for everyone without materially changing the economic status of any of the haves, and in the design of the hated Obama administration, without virtually any of the haves even noticing there is a change at all.

We need to remember how many of us come from the hopeless and made it to where we are by some work, but often more by luck of accidental birth as a white, healthy person in a place uncrowded, resource rich and brimming with opportunity. It's harder now to become a have, but we who are so privileged must be visionary enough to see that our assistance to have nots is not a mere tax deduction or "feel good" exercise, but an essential perpetuation of democracy and equality.

And before you who applaud Mr Richards' myopathy and selfishness rail about how we are mortgaging our children's future with this mindless government spending, take another look at history and remember this: 1) WE are still the government (don't just sit there); 2) the deficits are the product of inaction and mistakes made by people you ardently supported, and in some cases, still do; and 3) in our amazing first 200 years we have, at a number of times, been far more insolvent than at present.

Opportunity is the ultimate by-product of a successful democracy. Opportunity isn't just at our fingertips anymore by moving West, or investing $500 to open up that new tin lizzie dealership. We who have so much need to provide the basic foundation for have-nots to become haves.


I did not hear Mr Richards say he did not favor health care for all, nor have I heard anyone say that ! May I ask where you got that ?

[Guest]

If Liberals were sincere about sharing their hard earned money they would send it overseas to countries that really need it.

Why are Liberals so concerned about Americans they consider needy.
All americans receive food, healthcare, clothing, and whatever else they need .

If you want to feel guilty there are millions of people all over the world who need help. Send your money to them. Unlike Americans they are starving to death.

[Guest]

If Liberals were sincere about sharing their hard earned money they would send it overseas to countries that really need it.

Why are Liberals so concerned about Americans they consider needy.
All americans receive food, healthcare, clothing, and whatever else they need .

If you want to feel guilty there are millions of people all over the world who need help. Send your money to them. Unlike Americans they are starving to death.

I highlighted the sentence. Are you kidding???? What America do you live in?:loco:

[Guest]

The last I knew the government was established to protect the Americans from foreign powers, which is the major responsibility of the President. It was also to protect rights within the United States, (voting, religion/rights, commerce, criminal activities, fair trade and so on). It is not "church" it does not have a soul. It was not meant to act as a social organization.
Now comes the "do gooders" who think the Government is an arm of the Church, that it was established to act like another organized religion. For goodness sake, read the Constitution and tell me where you get the right to change the structure of a government. The church NOT our government. In fact the men who had the courage to write the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and so on were strong in the separation of church and state. Now some less than informed people want to mix the two. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
Nothing stops a neighbor from paying for the medical needs of a neighbor, or from providing food and shelter. Unfortunately in most cases they do not want to, and try to pass on the responsibility to others. Look at the wealth in Hollywood and their desire to force someone else to do what they are capable of but don't want to make sacrafices.
That my friend is the hypocrisy of the liberal. They either wants hands outs without working for them or for someone else to relieve them from their guilt for not sharing their wealth. If all the "liberals" emptied their bank accounts and gave the money to the needy none of this debate would be going on.

[Guest]

If Liberals were sincere about sharing their hard earned money they would send it overseas to countries that really need it.

Why are Liberals so concerned about Americans they consider needy.
All americans receive food, healthcare, clothing, and whatever else they need .

If you want to feel guilty there are millions of people all over the world who need help. Send your money to them. Unlike Americans they are starving to death.

If liberals were sincere they would donate more of thier own money and leave ours alone.

Yoda

[Guest]

I had problems with the gentleman's statements from the get-go.

While I sympathize with his sentiment, I disagree with him in that he's proceeding from a false premise.

He says 'why should we punish the 85% to give to the 15%'. That's a fair question, but I think it's the wrong one. He then goes on, after putting the debate in those terms, to make his point.

He says 85% are happy with their health care - he's wrong about that. there's dissatisfaction about ever increasing co-pays, member premiums and perhaps the biggest black mark of all - cancelling your insurance when you need it.

We pay more and get less than any other country on the planet. The question he SHOULD be asking is "Why are we the #1 spenders on health care, don't cover everyone, and have the 37th-rated system in the world?"

We don't need a completely nationalized system (like Canada and the UK) - Switzerland and France have proven that.

What would happen if all those people who HAVE employer-supplied health insurance were suddenly given a raise equal in amount to the employer-paid portion of their health-insurance premiums - and then had to write the check to the insurance company every payday?

There would be an OUTRAGE.

I heard the story of an employer in Michigan years ago who set up an interesting pay system. He set up a line of tables. At the first table, you received your pay - your full gross pay, in cash. You were then directed to the next table where you paid your FICA. The next, you paid your federal income tax, and then your state income tax, and so on down the line.

It didn't take long for the people to stop voluntarily going down the line.

When it's just numbers on a pay slip, it means less than if you're actually forking over the cash.

If we were forking over the cash directly, I think the debate would be VERY different.

Of course, this brings up the idea of having an employer give you a fund in your paycheck and YOU choose which health insurance plan to go with and you're NOT limited by state boundaries.