how much control does the federal government have on healthcare

[Guest]

I have a few questions about the healthcare reform bill that keep coming up in discussions I have with my husband and friends not associated with TOV. I'm not saying these questions or their answers are good or bad, right or wrong. It's just food for thought.

Everyone keeps talking about the federal government regulating health insurance. Doesn't it already? Every state has a State Insurance Commission.

Doesn't the government already control healthcare to the extent that a group of physicians or a locality can't arbitrarily expand an excisting hospital or build a new hospital. It is called a certificate of need. It is administered on the state level and on the federal level.

Doesn't the government already dictate the medical care of Medicaid, Medicare and military insurance patients?

My step-daughter (who has excellent health insurance with her job) gave birth to our first grandchild a little less than a year ago. Before the baby was dry behind the ears, the hospital staff had social service (government) people in the mother's room filling out forms to give the baby a Social Security number. As she signed authorization forms for government testing of the new-born's blood, she and her husband were getting lessons on how breast-feeding is better than formula feeding. (Did you know they don't give samples of baby formula to the mother at hospitals with a new baby and refuse to give information on certain breast pumps because "they set you up for failure and want you to formula feed your baby"). Not saying breastfeeding is a bad thing, but they actually have a government agency for breastfeeding:

http://www.naba-breastfeeding.org/

The government controls what information and how medical staff can give out patient information, even to famiy members. Right? The HIPPA law. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. HIPPA, according to the US Dept. of Labor: Limits the ability of a new employer plan to exclude coverage for preexisting conditions;
Provides additional opportunities to enroll in a group health plan if you lose other coverage or experience certain life events;
Prohibits discrimination against employees and their dependent family members based on any health factors they may have, including prior medical conditions, previous claims experience, and genetic information; and
Guarantees that certain individuals will have access to, and can renew, individual health insurance policies.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_hipaa.html


U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) says 60 percent of our healthcare is already controlled by the government.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?ContentRecord_id=5a785b7a-802a-23ad-4816-2aa18d62c3e4&FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases

[Guest]

...U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) says 60 percent of our healthcare is already controlled by the government....

Even those who stridently complain that "the government can't run anything right" won't let their Medicare or VA benefits go until they're torn from their cold, dead hands.

No way would they trade those benefits for private health insurance in the current environment. Just ask them.

I really wonder how deeply people think about issues before they repeat some soundbite from a partisan columnist, TV entertainer or member of Congress.

[Guest]

Even those who stridently complain that "the government can't run anything right" won't let their Medicare or VA benefits go until they're torn from their cold, dead hands.

No way would they trade those benefits for private health insurance in the current environment. Just ask them.

I really wonder how deeply people think about issues before they repeat some soundbite from a partisan columnist, TV entertainer or member of Congress.

Medicare is bankrupt because like everything the Government tries to run it is overcome with corruption and bad management.

Adding Obamacare will be the last straw.

[Guest]

nor the prospect of the funds to pay for what is being proposed?
Please don't cite the ridiculous offset of $500 billion of savings from Medicare. Medicare was/is still headed for insolvency in less than 10 years.

How about the results from the simple math of reducing Medicare by $500 billion?
Less money paid to providers can ONLY result in reduced services.

How about adding 32,000,000 more people into the existing system with no increase in facilities/capability?

We as private individuals would not be able to make relative commitments if there were no funds....or the prospect of funds.
The fortune 500 or 1000 companies would not allow implementing any programs that cost money without showing specific real savings or adequate funding.

Medicare headed to insolvency.
Social security headed to insolvency.
Amtrak was supposed to turn a profit a short time after the government took over....what is it 25 years? And still losing $$$$
The post office is headed for bankruptcy.
The military is spending money we don't have because the government will not let them do what it takes to win.

545 representaives in Washington, most of which are attorneys....too many of which are NOT law abiding, upstanding citizens with ONLY their personal political careers in mind....too many liars, lechers and too long in the tooth incompetents...have no business acumen, accountability or responsibility.

So what is it we are supposed to delve into to become believers that the federal government can do well?


I wait with baited breath for the revelation(s).

btk

[Guest]

I have a few questions about the healthcare reform bill that keep coming up in discussions I have with my husband and friends not associated with TOV. I'm not saying these questions or their answers are good or bad, right or wrong. It's just food for thought.

Everyone keeps talking about the federal government regulating health insurance. Doesn't it already? Every state has a State Insurance Commission.

Doesn't the government already control healthcare to the extent that a group of physicians or a locality can't arbitrarily expand an excisting hospital or build a new hospital. It is called a certificate of need. It is administered on the state level and on the federal level.

Doesn't the government already dictate the medical care of Medicaid, Medicare and military insurance patients?

My step-daughter (who has excellent health insurance with her job) gave birth to our first grandchild a little less than a year ago. Before the baby was dry behind the ears, the hospital staff had social service (government) people in the mother's room filling out forms to give the baby a Social Security number. As she signed authorization forms for government testing of the new-born's blood, she and her husband were getting lessons on how breast-feeding is better than formula feeding. (Did you know they don't give samples of baby formula to the mother at hospitals with a new baby and refuse to give information on certain breast pumps because "they set you up for failure and want you to formula feed your baby"). Not saying breastfeeding is a bad thing, but they actually have a government agency for breastfeeding:

http://www.naba-breastfeeding.org/

The government controls what information and how medical staff can give out patient information, even to famiy members. Right? The HIPPA law. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. HIPPA, according to the US Dept. of Labor: Limits the ability of a new employer plan to exclude coverage for preexisting conditions;
Provides additional opportunities to enroll in a group health plan if you lose other coverage or experience certain life events;
Prohibits discrimination against employees and their dependent family members based on any health factors they may have, including prior medical conditions, previous claims experience, and genetic information; and
Guarantees that certain individuals will have access to, and can renew, individual health insurance policies.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_hipaa.html


U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) says 60 percent of our healthcare is already controlled by the government.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?ContentRecord_id=5a785b7a-802a-23ad-4816-2aa18d62c3e4&FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases

In a nutshell---> the Feds want to take over what the states have been providing... and then some.

[Guest]

Even those who stridently complain that "the government can't run anything right" won't let their Medicare or VA benefits go until they're torn from their cold, dead hands.

No way would they trade those benefits for private health insurance in the current environment. Just ask them.

I really wonder how deeply people think about issues before they repeat some soundbite from a partisan columnist, TV entertainer or member of Congress.

Your cold, cavalier sweeping "hit job" on Vets and the elderly on Medicare,"won't let their Medicare or VA benefits go until they're torn from their cold, dead hands " certainly is not reflective of the "deep thinking" contained in your usual work.

There is a quantum difference with those who earned and contributed to the government programs they now receive benefits from. Those now on Medicare carried the system with their payroll deductions and Vets earned every benefit they receive the hard way. The 30+ million people the liberals want to put on the dole for the most part did not and do not contribute. It is unlikely they served their country or they would be receiving benefits. I don't know many veterans that would appreciate your condescending characterization of them. Are you a vet?

The worst part of the government takeover is that it will be at the expense of those that earned it. Obamacare requires a $500 billion cut in Medicare benefits. "Cost effective" medicine is a key component of Obamacare. You know about that, right? Caregivers will consider factors like age and ability to contribute to society. Accordingly, the ailing elderly, especially heart and cancer patients will be given "happy" pills allowing them to proceed quickly to the end of life without all those pesky, expensive tests and procedures. It's really a twofer. It will speed up the reduction of those eligible for social security. Now that, like your post, is coldly efficient. Of course those expensive procedures and technological medical advances will be saved for the more deserving.....like unions, political allies and Congress. I take full attribution for those...how did you put it...."soundbites".

BK - Yes, the government already has significant control of health care as you point out. Now....they want it all. I hate other people, especially leftists, or the government telling me how to spend my money. It's part of the same logic and ideology demonstrated when VK and his liberal friends supported buying $23 billion dollars of computers so every American can have one....see related thread....let them pass the hat to those who agree with them. Don't spend my tax dollars on "feel good" gifts for votes in the middle of arguably the greatest economic crisis in our history so some limousine liberal can appease his guilt and feel better. I am not suggesting VK is a limousine liberal but I suspect a few are lurking.

God Bless Our Troops

[Guest]

Your cold, cavalier sweeping "hit job" on Vets and the elderly on Medicare,"won't let their Medicare or VA benefits go until they're torn from their cold, dead hands " certainly is not reflective of the "deep thinking" contained in your usual work.

There is a quantum difference with those who earned and contributed to the government programs they now receive benefits from. Those now on Medicare carried the system with their payroll deductions and Vets earned every benefit they receive the hard way. The 30+ million people the liberals want to put on the dole for the most part did not and do not contribute. It is unlikely they served their country or they would be receiving benefits. I don't know many veterans that would appreciate your condescending characterization of them. Are you a vet?

The worst part of the government takeover is that it will be at the expense of those that earned it. Obamacare requires a $500 billion cut in Medicare benefits. "Cost effective" medicine is a key component of Obamacare. You know about that, right? Caregivers will consider factors like age and ability to contribute to society. Accordingly, the ailing elderly, especially heart and cancer patients will be given "happy" pills allowing them to proceed quickly to the end of life without all those pesky, expensive tests and procedures. It's really a twofer. It will speed up the reduction of those eligible for social security. Now that, like your post, is coldly efficient. Of course those expensive procedures and technological medical advances will be saved for the more deserving.....like unions, political allies and Congress. I take full attribution for those...how did you put it...."soundbites".

BK - Yes, the government already has significant control of health care as you point. Now....they want it all. I hate other people, especially leftists, or the government telling me how to spend my money. It's part of the same logic and ideology demonstrated when VK and his liberal fiends supported buying $23 billion dollars of computers so every American can have one....see related thread....let them pass the hat to those who agree with them. Don't spend my tax dollars on "feel good" gifts for votes in the middle of arguably the greatest economic crisis in our history so some limousine liberal can appease his guilt and feel better. I am not suggesting VK is a limousine liberal but I suspect a few are lurking.

God Bless Our TroopsSee my post above... the Haves (us) already provide for the Have-Nots (how and why someone is a have not is grist for the mill). The Obama administration feels, related to healthcare... oh, and now college aid... it's currently not enough and they can do it better. How and how much The Haves take care of The Have-Nots will be with us forever (Dickens- A Christmas Story). That is, unless we do become a completely socialist gov't and economy. Then the question will be answered. The govt will be the only Have.... we will all be Have-Nots and what we end up with will be what is provided to us by The Have (the govt). Decide how you want it.

[Guest]

Even those who stridently complain that "the government can't run anything right" won't let their Medicare or VA benefits go until they're torn from their cold, dead hands.

No way would they trade those benefits for private health insurance in the current environment. Just ask them.

I really wonder how deeply people think about issues before they repeat some soundbite from a partisan columnist, TV entertainer or member of Congress.

May I ask if you are a veteran? Most of the men folk in my family served proudly, including one aunt. Some did not make it back alive.

I
The government cannot handle the deserving benefits. What in the world are we going to do with 30 million more entitlements for people who have done nothing for this great country?

[Guest]

Even those who stridently complain that "the government can't run anything right" won't let their Medicare or VA benefits go until they're torn from their cold, dead hands.

No way would they trade those benefits for private health insurance in the current environment. Just ask them.

I really wonder how deeply people think about issues before they repeat some soundbite from a partisan columnist, TV entertainer or member of Congress.

Just have to join in with others to remind you that I surely PAID into Medicaire....dont make it sound as if I did not earn my benefits. The bill being passed will take care of those who did not with my money !

[Guest]

government in the same sentence.

btk

[Guest]

The government cannot handle the deserving benefits. What in the world are we going to do with 30 million more entitlements for people who have done nothing for this great country?[/QUOTE]

Donna2,
I hate to keep citing your posts to disagree, but you have once again made a most uncharitable, outrageous, myopic generalization about 30 million of your neighbors. It betrays your true bias and stereotypical thinking.

Most of those 30 million people work hard at being contributing, law-abiding members of society. Some of them go to your church, live on your street, and would offer you help any time you asked. They work at part-time jobs, many more than one, pay taxes of all sorts and contribute to medicare and social security. It's all they can get at this time. Many literally have to decide about buying housing and food or health insurance. And I'm not even talking about the unlucky people who lose their savings, homes and jobs because they get sick.

Since you condemn the lazy non-contributors, have you ever stopped to think how many hundreds of thousands of Americans have never worked a day in their lives (or retired at age 28), and live strictly off of the money they inherited, stole or won? Do you realize there may be just as many of those people as there are poor lazy non-contributors.

Instead of all the extreme generalizations, let's recognize what will be a large source of revenue to help the disadvantaged obtain health care. The wealthy who either work and earn a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR!!, or sit around and earn that much and more, will be required to increase their payments so that millions of deserving people can have decent health care. Here is one thing I feel certain about: those increases will not change the lifestyles of the contributors even one teeny, tiny bit. That is unless you think choosing a 75 ft. instead of an 80 ft yacht constitutes life change.

I'm certain you have health insurance, like many of us middle class fortunate ones. Under health care reform your insurance costs and mine will be more stable than if there is no change. Will premiums increase for you and me in the next few years? Probably. (but probably not as much as in the last few years. Here's another thing I feel certain about: with the proposed reforms in place any increases in the premiums you and I pay will not change our lifestyle.

The recurring argument that it is "wrong to take any money I earned out of my pocket to pay help pay for someone else's benefit" is wrong for at least these reasons: 1) It ignores the fact that the nation's stability, prosperity, and protection of individual freedom in many cases made it possible for us to work, earn and parlay that into a high standard of living, beyond work into retirement. 2) Those of us who achieved the comforts we have were lucky. There are many unlucky circumstances which could have taken away all of our comforts, and millions of real people just like us who have suffered from those unlucky circumstances. 3) If we are to continue to be a united nation, not at risk of revolution and chaos, we must pull together to make sure citizens are not disenfranchised, politically, socially or economically.

[Guest]

The government cannot handle the deserving benefits. What in the world are we going to do with 30 million more entitlements for people who have done nothing for this great country?

Donna2,
I hate to keep citing your posts to disagree, but you have once again made a most uncharitable, outrageous, myopic generalization about 30 million of your neighbors. It betrays your true bias and stereotypical thinking.

Most of those 30 million people work hard at being contributing, law-abiding members of society. Some of them go to your church, live on your street, and would offer you help any time you asked. They work at part-time jobs, many more than one, pay taxes of all sorts and contribute to medicare and social security. It's all they can get at this time. Many literally have to decide about buying housing and food or health insurance. And I'm not even talking about the unlucky people who lose their savings, homes and jobs because they get sick.

Since you condemn the lazy non-contributors, have you ever stopped to think how many hundreds of thousands of Americans have never worked a day in their lives (or retired at age 28), and live strictly off of the money they inherited, stole or won? Do you realize there may be just as many of those people as there are poor lazy non-contributors.

Instead of all the extreme generalizations, let's recognize what will be a large source of revenue to help the disadvantaged obtain health care. The wealthy who either work and earn a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR!!, or sit around and earn that much and more, will be required to increase their payments so that millions of deserving people can have decent health care. Here is one thing I feel certain about: those increases will not change the lifestyles of the contributors even one teeny, tiny bit. That is unless you think choosing a 75 ft. instead of an 80 ft yacht constitutes life change.

I'm certain you have health insurance, like many of us middle class fortunate ones. Under health care reform your insurance costs and mine will be more stable than if there is no change. Will premiums increase for you and me in the next few years? Probably. (but probably not as much as in the last few years. Here's another thing I feel certain about: with the proposed reforms in place any increases in the premiums you and I pay will not change our lifestyle.

The recurring argument that it is "wrong to take any money I earned out of my pocket to pay help pay for someone else's benefit" is wrong for at least these reasons: 1) It ignores the fact that the nation's stability, prosperity, and protection of individual freedom in many cases made it possible for us to work, earn and parlay that into a high standard of living, beyond work into retirement. 2) Those of us who achieved the comforts we have were lucky. There are many unlucky circumstances which could have taken away all of our comforts, and millions of real people just like us who have suffered from those unlucky circumstances. 3) If we are to continue to be a united nation, not at risk of revolution and chaos, we must pull together to make sure citizens are not disenfranchised, politically, socially or economically.[/QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ ______-

I sure dont want to get into an arguement with you on numbers or your feeling that folks opposed to his health bill are somehow folks who dont want to "pull together" or are unsympathetic which seems to ALWAYS be the way on here if you oppose anothe give away program.

HOWEVER...last numbers I saw were that OVER 20% of the uninsured can afford it but dont want it or are covered by other government insurance....MOST of the uninusred are healthy 18-24 year olds who dont want insurance because they dont want it.

There are for sure those who cannot afford health insurance and need coverage...but do not try and make it seem like anywhere near 30 million are walking around poor and without any insurance and sick as a dog. It is not true.

HOWEVER, this bill will ADD a premium to those who dont want it because they have to take it.

Now, my biggest complaint with yourpost and others is to paint anyone who is opposed to this bill, as some kind of heartless cold person.....you sound exactly like one of the party folks who want to make the guy who doesnt agree with you as a bad guy...I had enough of that during the campaign when every other post either said or intimated I was a racist. You can have your opinion but dont you dare even hint that I dont care about folks...you have no idea what we (those opposed) have contributed in time and moneyto those less fortunate !

[Guest]

Okay, I can settle this. Why don't you and the other 63.4 million who voted for Obama take care of just one of the 30 million "disadvantaged" who "work hard at being contributing, law-abiding members of society" but you say have no insurance. You be compassionate with your money. Keep your hands outta my pockets and let me decide who I want to be charitable towards. That's my business. My husband, who did serve his country in the US Army, worked his behind off this year to pay $65,000 in taxes to this country and contribute to the current messed up system. If that money goes to the elderly and veterans, good. Or if it goes to help my 74 year old father-in-law who worked his entire life and served this country in the military, good. Or to my 90 year old father, another veteran, who never took a handout and volunteers at a food pantry, good. You do your part. We're doing ours.

I agree with Cabo35: "The worst part of the government takeover is that it will be at the expense of those that earned it."

[Guest]

The government cannot handle the deserving benefits. What in the world are we going to do with 30 million more entitlements for people who have done nothing for this great country?

Donna2,
I hate to keep citing your posts to disagree, but you have once again made a most uncharitable, outrageous, myopic generalization about 30 million of your neighbors. It betrays your true bias and stereotypical thinking.

Most of those 30 million people work hard at being contributing, law-abiding members of society. Some of them go to your church, live on your street, and would offer you help any time you asked. They work at part-time jobs, many more than one, pay taxes of all sorts and contribute to medicare and social security. It's all they can get at this time. Many literally have to decide about buying housing and food or health insurance. And I'm not even talking about the unlucky people who lose their savings, homes and jobs because they get sick.

Since you condemn the lazy non-contributors, have you ever stopped to think how many hundreds of thousands of Americans have never worked a day in their lives (or retired at age 28), and live strictly off of the money they inherited, stole or won? Do you realize there may be just as many of those people as there are poor lazy non-contributors.

Instead of all the extreme generalizations, let's recognize what will be a large source of revenue to help the disadvantaged obtain health care. The wealthy who either work and earn a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR!!, or sit around and earn that much and more, will be required to increase their payments so that millions of deserving people can have decent health care. Here is one thing I feel certain about: those increases will not change the lifestyles of the contributors even one teeny, tiny bit. That is unless you think choosing a 75 ft. instead of an 80 ft yacht constitutes life change.

I'm certain you have health insurance, like many of us middle class fortunate ones. Under health care reform your insurance costs and mine will be more stable than if there is no change. Will premiums increase for you and me in the next few years? Probably. (but probably not as much as in the last few years. Here's another thing I feel certain about: with the proposed reforms in place any increases in the premiums you and I pay will not change our lifestyle.

The recurring argument that it is "wrong to take any money I earned out of my pocket to pay help pay for someone else's benefit" is wrong for at least these reasons: 1) It ignores the fact that the nation's stability, prosperity, and protection of individual freedom in many cases made it possible for us to work, earn and parlay that into a high standard of living, beyond work into retirement. 2) Those of us who achieved the comforts we have were lucky. There are many unlucky circumstances which could have taken away all of our comforts, and millions of real people just like us who have suffered from those unlucky circumstances. 3) If we are to continue to be a united nation, not at risk of revolution and chaos, we must pull together to make sure citizens are not disenfranchised, politically, socially or economically.
[/QUOTE]
Wow, I am so honored, again, that one of our token shortsighted liberals deems it necessary to address me directly. Is it my name or sex that drives you to try and intimidate me. Keep dishing baby, I can throw it right back at you.
You said they were lazy, not me. Some kind of Freudian slip? As far as pulling together, where were you the last 8 years? Oh, we only pull together when it is time to increase liberal social causes?

You should learn to keep up with the conversation. My post was in response to someone belittling the veterans and medicare people. Your tired old socialist comments about sticking it to the rich to pay the poor , wealth distribution baloney is getting old since they already pay 95% of the taxes already. All the entitlement programs are going broke and President Johnson spend our Social Security on the War on Poverty. How did that work out?. How many times does history have to repeat itself to get it through the left's myopic fantasies of everybody being well off and nobody has to pay for it?
And Bucco is right. You don't know who pays what to private charities so you should keep your criticisms to yourself and not judge people.
And remember, if there wasn't enterprising people in the dreaded private sector who see America as the land of opportunity there would be no money for charities, public education and all the goodies you take for granted. If they keep sucking the blood out of everybody who wants to get ahead, where's the incentive gonna be?

[Guest]

...Are you a vet?...

...It's part of the same logic and ideology demonstrated when VK and his liberal friends supported buying $23 billion dollars of computers so every American can have one...

Yes, I am a veteran.

The proposal I supported was NOT to buy computers for people who didn't have them. It was a proposal to provide high speed internet service to the many parts of the country that don't have such service, or in many cases no broadband service at all. And yes, I believe that providing such access would have a very positive effect on lots of people in those underserved areas, from schoolchildren trying to use the internet for their education to small businesses who might be able to improve their competitiveness or access new markets. It would be an investment that would almost certainly pay positive dividends.

At least read the links that you provide as references.

[Guest]

:1rotfl: Now that there's funny I don't care who you are. Donna you crack me up. "What page is the turd collector on?" I laid in bed last night laughing about that one.

[Guest]

Now, my biggest complaint with yourpost and others is to paint anyone who is opposed to this bill, as some kind of heartless cold person.....you sound exactly like one of the party folks who want to make the guy who doesnt agree with you as a bad guy...I had enough of that during the campaign when every other post either said or intimated I was a racist. You can have your opinion but dont you dare even hint that I dont care about folks...you have no idea what we (those opposed) have contributed in time and moneyto those less fortunate ![/QUOTE]

I have a great deal of respect for some of the people (yourself included), who object to the health reform bill using intelligent arguments and raising good questions. You and I will probably never know how much the final proposal has been revised BECAUSE of good questions and arguments. However, I have no respect for comments which paint 30 million people with the same nasty, false stereotype, or those summarized by some silly global axiom like 'it's wrong to take anything I earned and use it to benefit someone else'.

All of my political posts have been been in one of two themes; either to challenge sweeping generalizations and stereotypical characterizations or to suggest why it is right and beneficial for the future of our nation to assist disadvantaged citizens. I keep asking why it isn't beneficial to share the wealth when the sharing process does not materially affect the lifestyle of those who pay higher amounts. We all dislike taxes, but I'd bet we would agree that taxes have a greater impact on our lifestyle than they do on anyone we know who has regularly earned 250k or more per year. And still with that impact, middle class Americans have generally continued to live well. How many more boomers will be able to sustain that pretty good life in retirement because of medicare and social security.

I am not a lover of big government, but unfortunately there are two glaring areas of need for national regulation: health care and investment finance. Effectively managing these problem areas, along with avoiding armed conflicts, will provide a direct path toward eliminating the deficit. So, I believe the opposite of some, that health care reform will bankrupt us. As implied above, the only lives changed by health care reform will be those who will be able to finally obtain and keep that protection.

[Guest]

As implied above, the only lives changed by health care reform will be those who will be able to finally obtain and keep that protection.

Dream on.

[Guest]

2) Those of us who achieved the comforts we have were lucky. There are many unlucky circumstances which could have taken away all of our comforts, and millions of real people just like us who have suffered from those unlucky circumstances. 3) If we are to continue to be a united nation, not at risk of revolution and chaos, we must pull together to make sure citizens are not disenfranchised, politically, socially or economically].[/QUOTE]


I beg to disagree with you but what I have achieved in my life was NOT due to luck. I have no need to "dump" my young hardships on you to make my point but I bristle when I hear anyone suggest my current position in life is due to luck. Also, I will never change my belief system out of fear that "the disenfranchised" will "revolt" to take from me what I have worked so hard for.

[Guest]

VK..I will try not to confuse you with the facts, but, the post in question, not mine, clearly stated,

The FCC presented a $24 billion plan to Congress today to provide high-speed broadband Internet to every American man, woman and child.

You acknowledged your support of the expenditure with this quote:

Having repeated the oft-used phrase about how small expenditures add up to big ones, in this case I believe it's an expenditure that should be made.

I responded:

It's part of the same logic and ideology demonstrated when VK and his liberal friends supported buying $23 billion dollars of computers so every American can have one....see related thread....let them pass the hat to those who agree with them.

God Bless Our Troops

I have a modest understanding of the King's English. Accordingly, outside that little $1 billion dollar typo, I believe the above fact pattern supports my position. My comments are precisely accurate notwithstanding your snide misrepresentation of fact about reading posts. To the contrary, your snap judgement and remarks on that point are without merit or factual basis. It is a typical liberal tactic frequently employed when one cannot defend the indefensible.
This "he said, she said" game is unproductive, but if you wish to continue to engage, go for it. Personally I would prefer to agree to disagree on a wide range of philosophical differences and occasionally agree with you especially when many of your informed financial and economic opinions are enlightening.

Thank you for your service to the country.

Have a good evening.

[Guest]

The government cannot handle the deserving benefits. What in the world are we going to do with 30 million more entitlements for people who have done nothing for this great country?

Donna2,
I hate to keep citing your posts to disagree, but you have once again made a most uncharitable, outrageous, myopic generalization about 30 million of your neighbors. It betrays your true bias and stereotypical thinking.

Most of those 30 million people work hard at being contributing, law-abiding members of society. Some of them go to your church, live on your street, and would offer you help any time you asked. They work at part-time jobs, many more than one, pay taxes of all sorts and contribute to medicare and social security. It's all they can get at this time. Many literally have to decide about buying housing and food or health insurance. And I'm not even talking about the unlucky people who lose their savings, homes and jobs because they get sick.

Since you condemn the lazy non-contributors, have you ever stopped to think how many hundreds of thousands of Americans have never worked a day in their lives (or retired at age 28), and live strictly off of the money they inherited, stole or won? Do you realize there may be just as many of those people as there are poor lazy non-contributors.

Instead of all the extreme generalizations, let's recognize what will be a large source of revenue to help the disadvantaged obtain health care. The wealthy who either work and earn a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR!!, or sit around and earn that much and more, will be required to increase their payments so that millions of deserving people can have decent health care. Here is one thing I feel certain about: those increases will not change the lifestyles of the contributors even one teeny, tiny bit. That is unless you think choosing a 75 ft. instead of an 80 ft yacht constitutes life change.

I'm certain you have health insurance, like many of us middle class fortunate ones. Under health care reform your insurance costs and mine will be more stable than if there is no change. Will premiums increase for you and me in the next few years? Probably. (but probably not as much as in the last few years. Here's another thing I feel certain about: with the proposed reforms in place any increases in the premiums you and I pay will not change our lifestyle.

The recurring argument that it is "wrong to take any money I earned out of my pocket to pay help pay for someone else's benefit" is wrong for at least these reasons: 1) It ignores the fact that the nation's stability, prosperity, and protection of individual freedom in many cases made it possible for us to work, earn and parlay that into a high standard of living, beyond work into retirement. 2) Those of us who achieved the comforts we have were lucky. There are many unlucky circumstances which could have taken away all of our comforts, and millions of real people just like us who have suffered from those unlucky circumstances. 3) If we are to continue to be a united nation, not at risk of revolution and chaos, we must pull together to make sure citizens are not disenfranchised, politically, socially or economically.[/QUOTE]Do you know how insulting it is to hear someone say to me that what I have achieved in the past 60 years was due to LUCK? Like my life was a Vegas slot machine and I had a lucky pull. I wont trouble you with the challenges of my life but I will assure you that my current lot was NOT due to luck! And I will never give up my beliefs and values because of fear or a "risk of revolution"from the disenfranchised.

[Guest]

Donna2,
Do you know how insulting it is to hear someone say to me that what I have achieved in the past 60 years was due to LUCK? Like my life was a Vegas slot machine and I had a lucky pull. I wont trouble you with the challenges of my life but I will assure you that my current lot was NOT due to luck! And I will never give up my beliefs and values because of fear or a "risk of revolution"from the disenfranchised.
Exactly :agree::beer3:

[Guest]

:1rotfl: Now that there's funny I don't care who you are. Donna you crack me up. "What page is the turd collector on?" I laid in bed last night laughing about that one.


Sometimes I can't help myself. What a bunch of funny and zany characters down there at the Village. I found myself a great place to "retire" to. LOL

[Guest]

[/B]
Exactly :agree::beer3:

I agree too. I was brought up dirt poor. My grandmother raised me. Her husband died of WWI related injuries but not until he fathered a few children. Grandma never took charity and cleaned well to-do people's homes on the rich side of town until she was well into her 70's.
It is the "useful idiots" that will be the ruination of this once great country.

[Guest]

Based on the Liberal posts in this thread I have come to a conclusion.

Liberals who have achieved a level of success believe that they earned it and can keep their rewards. Liberals also believe that conservatives who have achieved success did it with luck and they should share it.

There is proof for this in that Liberals give only a fraction of what Conservatives give to charities.

[Guest]

Based on the Liberal posts in this thread I have come to a conclusion.

Liberals who have achieved a level of success believe that they earned it and can keep their rewards. Liberals also believe that conservatives who have achieved success did it with luck and they should share it.

There is proof for this in that Liberals give only a fraction of what Conservatives give to charities.

I have seen the polls about contributions to charities, and you are correct cashman. Most liberals (or if you prefer, progressives) are not the religious types and believe in the "nanny state" Therefore they figure contributions to charities is the state's ( Feds) responsibility.

[Guest]

"Effectively managing these problem areas, along with avoiding armed conflicts, will provide a direct path toward eliminating the deficit."

And what unknown information would you have access to that would lead you to believe that the representatives (so called) of this country have the ability, all of a sudden, to pull off the intent of your wishful, dream on statement?

You used the wording of classifying stereotypes, which you know is a concept relative to only the eye of the beholder. Just as I see your commentary as a stereotypical supporter....with the just because rationale.

Just as Obama tries to brainwash his flock with wording like....a vote for health care reform is a vote for progress and a no vote is a vote for the status quo....according to his narrow definition.

My questions I keep harping on with little discussion is where is the money coming from for the future debt obligation? Where is the added facility and practitioners coming from to care for the additional load of 32,000,000?

Emotions, beliefs, partisanship aside.....the numbers DO NOT ADD UP.
It is a mission impossible that your quote in my opening above stereotypically ignores!!!

btk

[Guest]

"Effectively managing these problem areas, along with avoiding armed conflicts, will provide a direct path toward eliminating the deficit."

And what unknown information would you have access to that would lead you to believe that the representatives (so called) of this country have the ability, all of a sudden, to pull off the intent of your wishful, dream on statement?

You used the wording of classifying stereotypes, which you know is a concept relative to only the eye of the beholder. Just as I see your commentary as a stereotypical supporter....with the just because rationale.

Just as Obama tries to brainwash his flock with wording like....a vote for health care reform is a vote for progress and a no vote is a vote for the status quo....according to his narrow definition.

My questions I keep harping on with little discussion is where is the money coming from for the future debt obligation? Where is the added facility and practitioners coming from to care for the additional load of 32,000,000?

Emotions, beliefs, partisanship aside.....the numbers DO NOT ADD UP.
It is a mission impossible that your quote in my opening above stereotypically ignores!!!

btk

You will not get an answer as the liberals never address the issues heads-on. They will only read through a post quickly and pick up on some nuance and then go directly to their talking- point lecture-sermon.
Ridicule and a tone of superiority are their forte.

[Guest]

What an interesting time to live. We are seeing and being witness to the possible destruction of America, its Constitution and world leadership. It is greed, power and control that is driving the change and the people are raising their ire just a little late. Politicians are being threatend and bribed with the bottom line being greed as the measure of thier principles. This has not happened overnight. You had Hillary Clinton carpet bag into NY, you had President Clinton lower the morals to that of a cess pool, you had Bush declare war based on incomplete facts and thousands die, you had Osama come out of the back alley of Chicago politics based on the need of the Pelosi's and Reids of the world to find someone they could control and was from a crooked background. We are in a "tail spin" and the real question is whether it is too late to save America. Regarding the current bill: Where do people think the Dr's will come from to treat another 30+ million patients? This means treatment overall will be worse.It is a simple equations. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. If you raise the need to get another 1 trillion dollars where will the additional dollars come from? Lowering medicare coverage/care..of course..increasing taxes..of course..lowering the standard of living in the USA...of course. I guess the one thing that I still can't comprehend is how many dumb people there are..It is not a case of being "labeled" like "Liberal" or "Conservative". It is being smart. My only hope is that all that voted for this stupid bill are defeated in November and that a new Congress can turn it around.
As a further example: Can you imagine what John L. Lewis in Western Pennsylvania in th e30's would have said if you said you were "downsizing". Heck you are, you are firing and laying people off but today it is an accepted term for business's who want to cover up what they are doing. How about
"undocumented" people. Heck, they are illegal's who are using the USA citizents to pay their medical bills, food stamps, rahter than improving their own country. They are riding off of the hard work the US Citizens has accomplished to make a better standard of living.
Oh well..All of this will probably not impact me but unfortunately the crooked
politicians and "I don't care" citizens will ruin a lot of our grandchildren.:ohdear:

[Guest]

They (the progressives) Keep insisting that this bill is not "socialized Medicine".

Maybe they are correct, but at the very least it is:

One giant leap for American mankind into complete Government control of
medicine, education, abortion, the lives of children and seniors and the
beginning of the end of Capitalism.

Liberals (progressives) know that , But like Their leader Obama they do not care about the destruction of The American way of life as long as they get their way.

[Guest]

I have seen the polls about contributions to charities, and you are correct cashman. Most liberals (or if you prefer, progressives) are not the religious types and believe in the "nanny state" Therefore they figure contributions to charities is the state's ( Feds) responsibility.

Well that's a bunch of crap. Most of your celebrities are Liberals and they are the ones that get most of the contributions in, organize relief work and phone in telethons, get their own rear-ends over there, and pump people up to give and give back. Let's see those polls.

Oh, did you want to bring up Victoria Jackson again??? :oops:

[Guest]

Yes according to ABC's 20/20 program conservatives not only donate more than Liberals by 65% vs 35% but they are more generous in other ways for instance they give 18% more blood than Liberals.

P.S. Donna I read your posting over a few times and failed to find "a bunch of crap", but I did find "a bunch of common sense and facts". Actually in an intelligent conversation or even in a debate I seldom hear someone use that terminology.

[Guest]

Yes according to ABC's 20/20 program conservatives not only donate more than Liberals by 65% vs 35% but they are more generous in other ways for instance they give 18% more blood than Liberals.

P.S. Donna I read your posting over a few times and failed to find "a bunch of crap", but I did find "a bunch of common sense and facts". Actually in an intelligent conversation or even in a debate I seldom hear someone use that terminology.

Thank you cashman. I do not pay attention to the liberal whose only defense is ridicule. All I can say to those kind of people is that they really should take a break from their talking points and do a little research on their own. Also,I would suggest that they also look into the "progressive's" agenda and they may find that their religion is trees and the government and maybe not in that order.

[Guest]

Oh, did you want to bring up Victoria Jackson again??? :oops:

I will if you want me to. Or do you prefer Rosie O'donnell, Janeane Garofalo and Roseanne Barr? Birds of a feather, don't ya know.