Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Interesting Speech on Healthcare Reform

Posted By: TechSupport on 2009-05-01
In Reply to:

Not sure if the embed link below will work.  If not, here's the link to the web page where you can watch it. I'll pose a question immediately below this post.


http://www.breitbart.tv/html/330913.html


 


<object width=425" height=344"><param name=movie" value=http://www.youtube.com/v/dJkXl4wG2eU&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name=allowFullScreen" value=true"></param><embed src=http://www.youtube.com/v/dJkXl4wG2eU&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type=application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen=true" width=425" height=344"></embed></object>




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

I found something interesting about US healthcare.

Because I am infinitely quizzical about most things and the rising cost of healthcare was on my mind, I did a little browsing and came across this document:


http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm


Now keep in mind this is information compiled is from a think tank funded by some of the biggest corporations, including insurance corps for the betterment and furtherance of the regressive conservative ideal, so I was rather surprised to see these numbers so beautifully printed in black and white. 


It shows exactly how much we are paying for healthcare in the United States and it is rather astounding.  Far more of our GDP, about 15.5% (the highest in the world) goes to healthcare.  Almost double that other industrialized nations that have socialized healthcare. 


I think this is a pretty good argument against a free market healthcare system being the most efficient and the best, it is just the most expensive and at the rate it has been exploding, it is going to increase the number of uninsured. 


Why is it so expensive?  Because the insurance companies are pacing the market.  Some things should just NOT be included in the free market enterprise, and healthcare is one of them.  We get sicker and the insurance companies get fatter.


Interesting take on Romney's speech.

Does Romney’s America Include Non-Believers?



Does New York Times" href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?ex=1354683600&en=8a31b02ef8ccfd20&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>David Brooks has a sober and thought-provoking take on Mitt Romney’s “Mormon speech,” simultaneously praising its intricate weaving of philosophy and worrying that his method of arguing for inclusion of Mormons in the political sphere was at the cost of excluding non-believers.



When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.


The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.


The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand. In this calculus, the faithful become a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics.


In Romney’s account, faith ends up as wishy-washy as the most New Age-y secularism. In arguing that the faithful are brothers in a common struggle, Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?


Indeed. The problem with the secularization of religion is that it winds up being insufficiently secular and insufficiently religious.


Brooks is also right that non-believers are more excluded from our process than even aggrieved religious groups like Mormons and Muslims. As noted here months ago, an atheist would have a much harder time getting elected president than a homosexual, black, or Hispanic — let alone a Mormon.


Memeorandum rounds up the blogger reactions to Brooks’ column. Most, like Ron Beasley, seem to agree with Brooks.


An exception is Red Stater Hunter Baker (who doesn’t appear to have read Brooks’ column) takes the opposite view, though: “The United States has traditionally been a nation that recognizes freedom must be paired with religion and morality if it is to persevere in political society. Mitt said it. Libertarians need to hear it. So do secularists.”


While there’s not much question that the Protestant Reformation played a role in the rise of democratic governance in the West, it’s far from clear that religion is necessary for freedom. Indeed, it’s difficult to think of a free theocracy.


The Washington Post weighing in on the question this morning with an editorial entitled, “No Freedom Without Religion? There’s a gap in Mitt Romney’s admirable call for tolerance.”



Where Mr. Romney most fell short, though, was in his failure to recognize that America is composed of citizens not only of different faiths but of no faith at all and that the genius of America is to treat them all with equal dignity. “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom,” Mr. Romney said. But societies can be both secular and free. The magnificent cathedrals of Europe may be empty, as Mr. Romney said, but the democracies of Europe are thriving.


“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government,” Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal.


The estimable John O’Sullivan, though, thinks Brooks and others are reading something into Romney’s message that was not there.



The religious liberty celebrated by Romney plainly entails the liberty to be non-religious. What Romney is opposing in those sections of the speech that seem to concern the culture wars is an obligation to be non-religious in the public square.


David’s arguments seems to be that if religious people were to unite against secularists to fight the their joint battles more effectively in the culture war, that would be an aggressive, divisive, and regrettable act. But that argument itself rests on the unstated assumption that the culture wars would stop if religious people stopped fighting them. In fact the culture wars began because the Left employed the courts to change America on everything from abortion to school prayer to gay marriage. This has not stopped. The obligation to be non-religious in the public square, though a very recent invention of liberal philosophers, is treated seriously in legal arguments and court decisions today.


So why shouldn’t religious people, while affirming the right to be non-religious, organize to defend their joint beliefs and interests in the way deplored by David?


No reason at all, of course. Indeed, while I would prefer that public policy decisions be decided on purely secular grounds, religious convictions are ultimately no less legitimate motivation for policy preferences that economic interest, party loyalty, or “we’ve always done it this way.”


It seems inevitable, though, that the overwhelming majority who are religious will mount their fight to protect their cultural values (even those shared by many secularists) on Us vs. Them grounds.


Further, as Eric Klee reports, Romney is thus far refusing to distance himself from the Brooksean interpretation.



A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday.


It’s a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney’s speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.


Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. “It is as if they’re intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They’re wrong,” Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.


Romney’s strategy, if indeed it was intentional, is a politically sound one. The numbers favor pandering to the religious to the exclusion of non-believers; that’s especially so in the Republican primaries. It’s not the way to national unity but that’s generally well behind winning votes in a politician’s calculus.


"kill him" speech is not acceptable free speech - it is against the law - nm
x
Well, you talked a little about tax reform, but
The only reason you haven't heard about Obama's tax cuts is because you have not been listening. His tax cut program will benefit 95% of the population, those individuals making less than $250,000 per year. Obama's plan also has an increase in deduction amounts for working families. I'll skip the scare tactics and terrorist innuendoes. They have nothing to do with the subject at hand…the economy. Preach that sermon to the choir. Nobody else is listening.

O's plan also proposes simplification of the tax code and streamlining tax filing. With regard to earmarks, Obama Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act would require disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be considered by the full Senate. There are also provisions for tax relief to small businesses.

So it seems that you think tax policies take care of the economy issue. But what about unemployment, jobs, worker's right's, minimum wage, stagnant wages, cost of health care and medical insurance, trade, outsourcing, energy, infrastructure, the mortgage crisis, predatory credit and lending practices, the stock market, etc. Does McCain have anything that remotely compares with this?

1. $1000 energy rebate.
2. State growth fund/Jobs growth fund job loss prevention measures.
3. Tax cuts to working families.
4. Eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000/yr.
5. Simplify tax code.
6. Trade policy reform.
7. Revise NAFTA to favor American jobs preservation.
8. Improve jobs transition assistance.
9. Tax credits to companies that preserve US jobs.
10. Establish Advanced Manufacturing Fund to encourage innovation and jobs creation.
11. Increased funding for Manufacturing Extension Program to create and protect US jobs.
12. 5 million new green jobs.
13. New job training programs for clean technologies.
14. Extend Production Tax Credit in renewable energy sector.
15. Create National Infrastructure Investment Bank.
16. Invest in science.
17. Make research and development tax credit permanent.
18. Reform Universal Service Fund to provide and expand broadband across America with new tax and loan incentives.
19. Tax relief for small businesses and start-up companies.
20. Create network of public-private business incubators.
21. Ensure freedom to unionize.
22. Ensure worker's right to organize.
23. Protect striking workers.
24. Raise minimum wage.
25. Crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders.
26. Create universal mortgage credit.
27. Ensure more accountability in the subprime mortgage industry.
28. Mandate accurate loan disclosure.
29. Close bankruptcy loophole for mortgage companies.
30. Create credit card rating system to improve disclosure.
31. Establish credit card bill of rights to protect consumer.
32. Reform bankruptcy laws.
33. Cap interest rats on payday loans.
34. Encourage lending institutions to make small consumer loans.
35. Expand Family Medical Leave Act.
36. Encourage companies to adopt paid leave policies.
37. Expand after-school opportunities.
38. Expand Child and Dependent Care tax credit.
39. Protect against caregiver discrimination.
40. Expand flexible work arrangements.

Earmark Reform

Obama To Push Earmark Reform At Omnibus Signing
















Obama to sign spending bill, push for new rules


Obama plans to sign spending legislation, push for new rules that would crack down on earmarks


PHILIP ELLIOTT
AP News


Mar 11, 2009 06:09 EST



President Barack Obama plans to sign a massive spending bill to keep the federal government running, even though it is stashed with the very kinds of pet projects that the campaigning Obama promised to resist.






Obama could sign the $410 billion spending package as early as Wednesday, although he remains "troubled" by the so-called earmarks in the bill that Republicans and moderate Democrats have assailed as unworthy pork-barrel spending. The president planned to use the signing ceremony to announce earmark reforms.


White House officials in recent weeks have dismissed criticism of the earmarks in the bill, saying the legislation was a remnant of last year and that the president planned to turn his attention to future spending instead of looking backward.


White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama wouldn't be the first president to sign legislation that he viewed as less than ideal. Asked whether Obama had second thoughts about signing the bill, Gibbs' reply was curt: "No."


"This is necessary to continue funding government," Gibbs said. "It represents last year's business. Although it's not perfect, the president will sign the legislation, but demonstrate for all involved rules moving forward that he thinks can make this process work a little bit better."


It's that process that administration official planned to focus on Wednesday, not a bill signing that might take place in private. Aides said the administration would move to introduce new "rules of the road" that could allow Obama greater sway over lawmakers, particularly on politically embarrassing spending that generated mockery from pundits and rival politicians.


During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel-spending ways. Yet the bill sent from the Democratic-controlled Congress to the White House on Tuesday contained 7,991 earmarks totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the Republican staff of the House Appropriations Committee.


While the White House would say only that Obama would announce new rules on earmarks on Wednesday, it was clear he wanted to rein in spending, particularly on the pet projects lawmakers inserted into the spending bill.


The 1,132-page bill has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. Among the many earmarks are $485,000 for a boarding school for at-risk native students in western Alaska and $1.2 million for Helen Keller International so the nonprofit can provide eyeglasses to students with poor vision.


Most of the government has been running on a stopgap funding bill set to expire at midnight Wednesday. Refusing to sign the newly completed spending bill would force Congress to pass another bill to keep the lights on come Thursday or else shut down the massive federal government. That is an unlikely possibility for a president who has spent just seven weeks in office.


The $410 billion bill includes significant increases in food aid for the poor, energy research and other programs. It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.


The measure was a top priority for Democratic leaders, who praised it for numerous increases denied by Bush. It once enjoyed support from Republicans.


But the bill ran into an unexpected political hailstorm in Congress after Obama's spending-heavy economic stimulus bill and his 2010 budget plan, which forecast a $1.8 trillion deficit for the current budget year.


The bill's big increases — among them a 14 percent boost for a popular program that feeds infants and poor women and a 10 percent increase for housing vouchers for the poor — represent a clear win for Democrats who spent most of the past decade battling with Bush over money for domestic programs.


Generous above-inflation increases are spread throughout, including a $2.4 billion, 13 percent increase for the Agriculture Department and a 10 percent increase for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system. The measure also contains a provision denying lawmakers the automatic cost-of-living pay increase they are due next Jan. 1.


Health care reform

What do I think about H. Clinton's mandatory health insurance proposal?


Here's my situation....I'm in my mid 50's, have a few pre-existing conditions, and am an IC doing medical transcription for years. I have health insurance which will cover the pre-existing conditions, however I rarely use the policy and have not been in a hospital for over 10 years. In 1999 my premium for coverage was about $250.00 per month. That same policy now costs me $1,097.00 per month, and that is coverage for one person.


I don't know about Hillary's proposals, or that much about anyone else's for all that goes. I do know however, that health care reform is being discussed again, and from where I am sitting I am a very strong supporter of health care reform, be it mandatory coverage or any other proposals. I frankly cannot afford monthly health insurance premiums that are running over one thousand dollars a month, and if you ask me, monthly health insurance premiums as high as this are criminal, to say the least.


The Democrats have been blocking reform of...
Fannie and freddie since 2006. Both McCain and the Bush administration have tried. How did they do that? Killing bills in the Democratically controlled banking and finance committee. It started LONG before the last 2 years.
Americans for Tax Reform: The Candidates


Dear Friends,
1.  ATR Presidential Primer: Everything You Should Know about the Candidates’ Tax Proposals  (read more >>)


 ATR Presidential Primer: Everything You Should Know about the Candidates’ Tax Proposals



The 2008 election is only days away. Soon you’ll be called on to vote for your next President, U.S. Senator, and U.S. Representative. Are you familiar with all their tax policies? Do you know where the candidates stand on the issues closely related to your family budget?
 
Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a list of all the recent materials we’ve put out on the Presidential candidates. We think you’ll find these resources and links to be very useful in your decision-making process.
 
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, discusses his thoughts on the two presidential candidates in the Politico. You may want to take a quick read to see what he thinks hinges on this election.
 
Educational Resources:
 
- Which candidates have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge? See if your candidate has promised never to raise taxes. (Incumbents and Challengers)
 
- Americans for Tax Reform and Rutledge Capital Release Version 2.0 of Obama-McCain 401(k) Tax Calculator
 
- McCain v. Obama on Taxes
 
- McCain vs. Obama on Energy Taxes
 
- He$$ in a Hand basket: Life Under a Democrat Congress
 
- Five Things You Might Not Know About Obama’s Small Biz Tax Hike
 
- Obama’s “Spread the Wealth” Plan Raises Taxes on two-thirds of Small Business Profits
 
- If Obama Wants to “Spread the Wealth,” He Ought to Start With His Personal Tax Gap: Barack Obama Has a Tax Gap of Over $250,000
 
 - Obama to U.S. Companies: “Don’t Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out” Obama Supports Keeping U.S. Business Rate Second-Highest in World
 
- Worried About Your 401(k)? Start Asking Obama About the Corporate Income Tax Rate
 
- Obama Advisor Changes the Definition of “Welfare”: Free Money Handouts Are No Longer Enough
 
- Joe the Plumber cares about more than just his higher tax rates: Expensing his Equipment in year one
 
Please consider making a $10, $15, or $20 donation to help Americans for Tax Reform continue our work. Thank you for your generous support.



(<< back to top)


 


Onward,
Grover Norquist


Welfare Reform is a Success

Welfare Reform Reauthorized


Healthy Marriage, Fatherhood Initiative Approved; Work Requirement Strengthened


Today, President George W. Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program administered by HHS’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF).


"The reauthorization of the TANF program takes the next step in welfare reform by strengthening work requirements and providing the assistance families need to climb the career ladder," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Welfare reform is helping millions of people climb out of poverty. Now, we want to go the next step and help them climb the job ladder by creating more opportunities for education and job training."


The new law maintains the same 50 percent work participation requirement for states as before. However, prior to today’s reauthorization, a caseload reduction credit allowed states to reduce their work requirement by their caseload decline since 1996. As most states experienced dramatic caseloads declines, the credit had virtually eliminated the work participation requirements for most states.


Today's reauthorization recalibrates the base year for calculating the caseload reduction credit and also closes a loophole to include separate state programs in the work calculation. These changes effectively re-implement a meaningful state work participation rate requirement as envisioned by the architects of welfare reform back in 1996.


"The reauthorization of welfare reform, with its strengthened state work participation rate requirement, supports the Bush Administration's goal of ending the crippling cycle of welfare dependency," said HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. "Welfare reform is a success because more families and individuals are working and entering the economic mainstream and fewer children are growing up in poverty."


Today's reauthorization includes $150 million to support programs designed to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages. Up to $50 million of this amount may be used for programs designed to encourage responsible fatherhood. In its welfare reform law of 1996, Congress stipulated three of the four purposes of the TANF block grant to states be related to promoting healthy marriages.


"A key component of welfare reform is supporting healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood," Dr. Horn added. “Approval of these funds will help to achieve welfare reform's ultimate goal: improving the well-being of children."


The Healthy Marriage Initiative, administered by ACF, was created in 2002 by President Bush to help couples who have chosen marriage gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. Funding for responsible fatherhood includes initiatives to help men be more committed, involved and responsible fathers, and the development of a national media campaign to promote responsible fatherhood.


The welfare reauthorization provisions also made several improvements to the child support enforcement program, including a change that will provide more support directly to families, especially those who have left welfare.


For more information on the Healthy Marriage Initiative, view: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/.


9/11 Panel Gives Gov't Poor Marks on Reform

9/11 Panel Gives Gov't Poor Marks on Reform





By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press
Writer
35 minutes ago



More than four years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies
still are failing to share information while Congress battles over security
funding, a panel that investigated the terrorist hijackings will conclude in a
new report.


In interviews Friday, members of the former Sept. 11 commission said the
government should receive a dismal grade for its lack of urgency in
enacting strong security measures to prevent terror attacks.


The 10-member, bipartisan commission disbanded after issuing 41
recommendations to bolster the nation's security in July 2004. The members have
reconstituted themselves, using private funds, as the 9/11 Public Discourse
Project and will release a new report Monday assessing the extent their
directives have been followed.


Overall, the government has performed not very well, said former commission
chairman Thomas Kean, former Republican governor of New Jersey.


Before 9-11, both the Clinton and Bush administrations said they had
identified Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as problems that have to be dealt with,
and were working on it, Kean said. But they just were not very high on their
priority list. And again it seems that the safety of the American
people is not very high on Washington's priority list.


A spokesman at the Homeland Security Department declined to comment until the
report is issued Monday. Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland
Security Committee, acknowledged that some areas continue to be vulnerable but
have not been addressed due to disagreements with the Senate.


Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government
missteps that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It found that the United
States could not protect its citizens from the attacks because it underestimated
al-Qaida. Since June, the former commissioners have held hearings to examine
what they described as the government's unfinished agenda to secure the
country.


Among the main concerns, which former Democratic commissioner Timothy Roemer
said would receive the worst grades:


_The United States is not doing enough to ensure that foreign nations are
upgrading security measures to stop proliferation of nuclear, biological and
chemical materials. Such materials could be used in weapons of mass destruction,
and over 100 research reactors around the world have enough highly enriched
uranium present to make a nuclear device.


We've seen that Osama bin Laden likes to do spectacular things, said Roemer,
a former Indiana congressman. Is a dirty bomb next? ... We're not doing enough,
and we're not doing it urgently enough.


_Police, firefighters, medics and other first responders still lack
interconnected radio systems letting them communicate with each other during
emergencies. Responders from different agencies at the World Trade Center were
unable to coordinate rescues — or receive information that could have saved
their own lives — on 9/11.


Congress last year approved spending nearly $1 billion on interoperable
systems, but King said the matter is a very difficult issue.


_Both the Bush administration and Congress have continued to distribute
security funding to states without aiming most money at high-risk communities.
The Homeland Security Department gave $2.5 billion in grants to states and 50
high-risk cities last year, but some rural states, like Wyoming, received more
money per resident than terror targets like New York.


The House and Senate have been unable this year to agree on a funding formula
that distributes money based solely on risk, threats and vulnerability. King
said the Senate's proposal is still living with a pork-barrel formula. But
Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins said in statement
that her bipartisan plan provides a meaningful baseline of funds to each state
so that the nation as a whole can achieve essential levels of preparedness.


Kean said information-sharing gaps among turf-conscious federal intelligence
agencies continue to exist. He also chastised the Transportation Security
Administration for failing to consolidate multiple databases of passenger
information into a single terror watch list that would make it easier for
airlines to screen for suspicious travelers.


Moreover, expanded governmental powers to seek out terror-related
intelligence have not been adequately balanced by civil liberties protections or
oversight, said former Democratic commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste. He said
President Bush was tardy in naming a civil liberties protection board, whose
funding is anemic and which has not yet been met to get underway.


A bright spot in the government's performance is the creation of a national
intelligence director to help coordinate all government terror information,
Roemer said.


Generally, the grades range all the way from A to F, Kean said.

Still, No parent would be happy with this report card, said former Democratic
commissioner Jamie Gorelick.

___

On the Net:

9/11 Public Discourse Project:


http://www.9-11pdp.org/


and this today on health care reform

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul

Please note starting at paragraph 8 the parts about how this will be paid for and go from there. Pretty soon I won't be able to afford TO work.
One site to keep an eye on health care reform....

Hi, all.  Here's one site to keep an eye on what your government is doing with health care:


http://www.cprights.org/


I do not want socialized medicine.  In England, if you're over 55 and need dialysis?  Too bad.  You're over the age limit.  Folks, this is a government run program and they have to draw the line somewhere.  Think you'll still be able to get the same meds you're on now?  Don't think they'll say some of them are too expensive? 


I should warn you - this is a conservative web site, so if you really dislike conservatives, this isn't the site for you but it does appear to look like a good site to keep an eye on health care reform and you can sign up to receive updates on health care reform as it happens. 


I don't know about you but right now, our entire country, our people, are losing the war - the war on freedom.  We may lose little battles here and there but if you feel it's important enough, and I do, write your representatives, the president, whoever.  Fight those little battles.  We don't want to look back 4 years from now and say Oh, man, we should have done this or that......  I don't want to log in to the Q one morning to find out the government, as they have already done since O took over, has passed another bill while I was sleeping (some congressman and senators were threatened with Marshall law and a plummeting stock market if they didn't sign certain bills, which they had less than an hour to read) and now my job is gone because we have new healthcare. 


Fight for your jobs!  Our government cannot run Medicare and Medicaid and they're both sucking us dry, meanwhile giving really low reimbursement rates to doctors.  Do you really think they can successfully insure our entire country?  I'll let you judge for yourselves. 


OK. Here's an article on Health Care Reform

Please TAKE NOTICE..... Bold and underlined portions are my emphasis.  Read the whole article link below.


"Obama wants a health care reform bill on his desk by October, but faces opposition from Republicans who oppose creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.


Many of his fellow Democrats are wary of making deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the U.S. health care programs for seniors and poor people, to pay for reforms.....


,,,,About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments. That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.


Obama also proposed cutting payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients by $106 billion on the assumption those ranks would decline as health care reforms phase in.


An additional $75 billion would come from "better pricing of Medicare drugs," Orszag said, adding the White House was in talks with stakeholders over the best way to do that.


The remaining $22 billion in proposed cuts would come from smaller reforms, such as adjusting payment rates for physician imaging services and cutting waste, fraud and abuse."


http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/13/news/economy/Obama_health_Care.reut/index.htm?postversion=2009061307


 


Exxon CEO's retirement package and talks of reform..sm


 


Senator rips ex Exxon CEO's retirement package






By Tom Doggett Tue Apr 18, 4:53 PM ET



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid record oil prices and soaring gasoline costs, Exxon Mobil's $400 million retirement package to its former CEO is a shameful display of greed that should be reviewed by Congress and investigated by federal regulators, Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record) said on Tuesday.








Dorgan said he wants Exxon Mobil officials to appear at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to explain how the corporation justifies giving its former boss, Lee Raymond, such a huge retirement package.


He also said the

Securities and Exchange Commission should investigate the deal that appears to shortchange shareholders.


There can be no more compelling evidence that the price gouging and market manipulation which has produced record oil prices is out of control, and is working to serve the forces of individual greed and corporate gluttony at the painful expense of millions of American consumers, Dorgan said.


Dorgan's criticism of Raymond's financial package came on the same day that U.S. crude oil prices hit a record high of more than $71 a barrel at the New York Mercantile Exchange.


Higher crude oil prices are helping to push of up gasoline costs. The Energy Department reported prices jumped 10 cents over the last week to a national average of $2.78 a gallon, up 55 cents from a year ago.



President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he was concerned about the impact high gasoline prices were having on families and businesses.


Exxon earned the wrath of many lawmakers when it reported more than $36 billion in profits last year as energy prices paid by consumers soared.


Dorgan said he will push to win passage of his legislation that would impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies and rebate that money to consumers, unless the companies used their earnings to explore for and produce more energy.


I think a sensible public policy would insist that the big oil companies either invest those windfall profits in things that will increase our own domestic energy supplies, or we should return some of that money to consumers, Dorgan said.


Using them to drop $400 million dollars in the pocket of a big oil executive is simply unacceptable, he added.


Exxon Mobil has defended Raymond's retirement package, saying it was pegged to the rise in the company's profit and market capitalization that occurred during his tenure.


Stimulus reverses welfare-to-work reform

"....Before the 1996 welfare reform law, Washington doled out more money every time a new family was added to the welfare rolls. If caseloads fell, states got less money. The system created a strong incentive to boost caseloads.


Reform ended the open-ended welfare “entitlement” and replaced it with a program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Instead of linking funding to caseloads, the law replaced that money with block grants and gave states the policy goal of reducing the rolls.


The measure generated tremendous controversy, but it was effective. Caseloads declined by two-thirds. Millions of recipients formerly dependent on government made the transition from welfare to work.


Now we learn that the stimulus bill, signed Tuesday by President Barack Obama, will unravel much of the ’96 legislation.


Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation — who helped write the ’96 law — says the stimulus measure would effectively give states bonuses for boosting caseloads. The new system, he says, is actually worse, because the payoff for increasing caseloads will be much higher than under the old program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children.


In a paper written with Katherine Bradley, Rector said that under the stimulus measure, “the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare.”


The policy goal of moving families to self-sufficiency has been largely replaced by a system that rewards states for increasing dependency...."


More here:


http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/1046780.html


Oh, and Obama had better get on Welfare reform QUICKLY before it is a run-away train, or did the tra
already leave the station. Extension of unemployment benefits, GREAT, because in this economy it takes so much more time to find a worthwhile job. Extension of COBRA is great. But the free ride that many dishonest and lazy Americans have enjoyed for generations should be put to an abrupt END. Sorry, I see it every day. Hire enough trained, educated case workers, get them out in the field investigating these fraudulant claims, and give the truly deserving and huring population the funds they need to get back on track, as they want to, and push the lazy and indigent to get productive for our country.

I also love the money going directly to the SBA (Small Business Administration), so many of us are fed up and would probably do better working with the SBA to secure low-interest, easy term loans, employ ourselves, employ others, get the taxes rolling, and be part of the solution. Okay safely off soap box for now!
Truth is, Bush's Texas tort reform is hurting everyone.
Except, of course, his rich friends. That's so much better, isn't it, than laws which address the issues directly and favor the greatest number of citizens?

Texan tort reform that was W's payback to the wealthy who put him in office in Texas has been a disastrous model, giving doctors less incentive than ever to perform skillfully and leaving thousands of people with no recourse when they are medically victimized because they can't afford any longer to bring a justified lawsuit or can't prove the doctor intended to cause harm (a ridiculous qualifier). Insurance rates have gone UP instead of down for everyone despite the fact that tort reform was sold on the platform of cutting rates due to fewer insurance payouts. And, those who can manage to get a case into court no longer have the right to have a jury hear their case. Activist pro-Republican pro-big-business judges are all they've got in some cases, which means they haven't a fair chance at a favorable outcome.

That's life in crony capital USA!

But oooh, let's pretend it really *is* medical lawsuits that are the villains, and let's boo and hiss at the lawyers who make sloppy doctors and sellers of defective merchandise fear being held accountable for their actions. Isn't that what life in Bushworld is all about? - relieving the very best among us from any civic and legal responsibility for the destruction and death they cause? Let's all cheer for that! Go on sm, cheer some more for losing your right to sue a drunk doctor who kills your child! Cheer for your higher insurance rates! Cheer for your free market enterprise unfettered with quality laws, because you know they're going to be more concerned about the safety of those products they sell you than they are about making more money! Heck yeah, why shouldn't we all love that? We're all morons, we love it when they stick it to us! We can't get enough of that, nosiree!
Progressives harping about camp finance reform for years.
We've heard virtually nothing out of the republican party on this issue (except resistance) until how. Why is that? Could it be because they never expected democrats to beat them at their own game?

Spare us the phoney outrage. As the law stands now, those small potatoes contributions up to $200 have not been an issue until Obama received such a landslide of them and raised more money than any other candidate in history.

You want somebody to do something about this? You will have to start at the beginning...swallow the bitter pill and enact campaign finance reform. Until then, you can raise all the questions you want to raise.

PS: Ghadafi's claims that foreign national fundraising is "legitimate" is pertinent to this argument how? Have you seen the global electoral map lately? The entire world has their eyes on this election (hoping against hope we will not elect another saber-rattler) and are entitled to have an opinion.

http://www.economist.com/Vote2008/ Take a look.
O.K. friend, I LOVE tax reform for the wealthier bunch, the small fry like us have been shouldering
too much of the burden for many, many years, I love the cut-off for those making over 250K....hey, if we were bringing in that $$$ we would be happy and spreading it around (don't mean the manure,either!). We need stronger immigration reform FOR SURE, it is a touchy subject, especially in states like mine with a large immigrant population, but they just held a huge, large, angry rally on the State House steps becaue they don't want families broken up by sending the illegals back. Sorry, as a grandchild of immigrants who came here, assimmilated, learned, worked hard, payed taxes,and became PROUD AMERICANS, I feel strongly this is the right and only way and our president should enforce this. They are called "illegal" for a reason.

There are too many "Pet Projects" in states where the reps helped fund the Obamaa campaign, and these investments will not have a long term good for the country, we need programs that will directly affet the economy and the Americal worker ASAP. I believe he is forging ahead too quickly and blindly with relations with Syria, a known hot spot for extremists and terrorists, although I believe in the old addage "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," and I think that is what he is doing with Hillary going to Asia and Southeast Asia and opening talks with Syria and Korea. All in all, I just want to give this honest man a chance to get going on some things, see some of the results and go from there before I open mouth and insert foot!!!
He would also have (and likely already has) best healthcare in USA.
I don't consider this a concern. Major factor in cancer is awareness and monitoring, and I'm quite sure he's getting the best monitoring and follow-up care available.
healthcare
Healthcare is already rationed in the US: If you can't afford insurance, you can't get it. If you're sick, you can't get insurance. If your employer enticed you with promises of insurance, but then didn't pay you enough to cover premiums, you can't get it. If you can't afford a procedure, then your long wait just became a lot longer.

Incidentally, what Obama is offering is *not* anything like what those countries you mention have. He's not nationalizing the healthcare system (like the UK) *or* nationalizing the insurance system (like Canada). Read his plan; it's a mixture of public and private plans, with more strict requirements on the insurance companies to cover everyone affordably, rather than gaming the system and cutting out sick people.

Personally, I'd love a nationalized system. Insurance companies are unnecessary middlemen driving up costs. That said, they're not the entire problem with healthcare costs--you can look to pharmaceutical companies for a big part of *that* problem.

What happens to healthcare...(sm)
Yes, more people probably will go to the doctor.  That means there will be a lot of health maintenance involved, and as we both know only too well, health maintenance is a key issue in preventing major medical issues, hence less surgeries, etc.  Check out France's healthcare system.  I think main issue we will have is going to be dealing with the drug companies to get costs under control.  At this point a lot of people don't go to the doc because they can't afford it, like you said; however, even more don't go because they can't afford the drugs.
What happens to healthcare...(sm)

Yes, more people probably will go to the doctor.  That means there will be a lot of health maintenance involved, and as we both know only too well, health maintenance is a key issue in preventing major medical issues, hence less surgeries, etc.  Check out France's healthcare system.  I think main issue we will have is going to be dealing with the drug companies to get costs under control.  At this point a lot of people don't go to the doc because they can't afford it, like you said; however, even more don't go because they can't afford the drugs.


BTW, regardless of Fox's ratings, they are undeniably a right-wing station.  That is a fact that is widely known and recognized.  Just because you agree with what they say doesn't mean they don't lean to the right.  And yes, the same holds true for MSNBC (to the left), but at least they admit it.  You also might want to look into exactly how ratings for cable news come about.  You might be surprised and what you could learn.


Healthcare

I'm not sure this is a good idea either.  Ireland has gov't run medical and those women were waiting years, yes years to get their Pap smears read.  They had to be shipped to the US because of a lab closure.  Can you imagine wondering if you have cervical cancer for years?  No thanks.


 


universal healthcare
Where are you getting that information about Obama and universal healthcare? The last time I heard him speak about it he wanted universal healthcare for people who couldn't get healthcare but leave the option open to people who could get their own healthcare (as they are doing now) to do so. He also spoke about companies being held more responsible to providing affordable healthcare for employees. I don't remember him ever saying to knock out the entire healthcare system and make everyone have universal healthcare.

As for McCain... I guess you like the economy and the war. He's not going to change anything if he's elected.
European healthcare
Its not all cracked up as it sounds. I use healthcare right now in Sweden and its horrendously bad. I had to fly home to the US to get my breasts examined for lumps that were found because they have the "if it isn't broken, bleeding or obviously damaged, then go home and take an aspirin" mentality. They found the lumps and we were still waiting for a mammogram over a month later because they don't want to do testing and because they have a don't care attitude when it comes to everything here. Don't rush them. its amazing. Its at least 6 months waiting list (if your lucky) to see the dentist unless you are under a certain age as a youth. You can get private healthcare here but the cost of labor is such that its hugely expensive. I don't know about other places because I have only lived here and in the US. We have great healthcare in the US and we have never chosen jobs where we weren't going to have some kind of coverage, but I would never give up my doctors and my insurance in the US for this garbage social junk.
McCain's healthcare tax.

I posted this further down but there are apparently a lot of people who are still confused about how McCain's tax on health insurance works. 


So, here you go:


Say you pay 14% income tax based on your income.

And you receive $10,000 worth of health insurance from your employer.

The $10,000 is taxed separately at the 14% (your tax bracket). That comes out to $1,400.

McCain gives you a $5,000 tax credit.

$5,000 less the $1,400 -

YOU'RE AHEAD $3,600.

:)

Alternatively, you can take the $5,000 tax credit and purchase your own insurance (like I do). I pay $250 a month.

$250 x 12 = $3,000.

$5,000 - $3,000 - $2,000.

I'M STILL AHEAD $2,000.

WIN/WIN


On the healthcare front........sm

Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/primary.care.doctors.study/index.html?eref=rss_topstories



This comes from top healthcare facilities
nm
I'm pretty sure you don't get your healthcare from
nm
personally i have used the healthcare in Europe

and in France and England (several times in France) and I have to say that national healthcare over there works wonderfully well.....costs are minimal (though taxes are high) and all rxs in England cost the same and I was treated fabulously (married French) at American Hospital in Paris and Gap Hospital in France in 1980.....I did England in 71-72 and again, got treated well and for less than $40.  I believe national healthcare can work but the govt and medical professions here in the states don't want it - because they, the MDS, will make less.  But know this, that I saw the life of a doctor in France and his family in Michael Moore's movie SiCKO and they are living like kings, well not kings, but living VERY VERY WELL.


So, based on my own experiences in Europe - and the experiences to date of my in-laws over in France - I have to say the healthcare over there is FAR better and FAR LESS EXPENSIVE than over here but again, their taxes are somewhat higher.


Hillary screwed it up once before, I don't want to give her a second chance regarding healthcare.



healthcare a problem prior to THIS war and they did
x
It can end with affordable healthcare for kids.

I would like to see more affordable healthcare for all Americans, but really if kids got free or very affordable healthcare I would be happy.  We spend outrageous amounts of money on the space program, the war, gourmet food for Congress, etc.  I don't agree with the hoards of money going to those things, but I would think we could ALL AGREE on money being redirected to provide healthcare to all American children, because that is obviously a good and just cause.


France is getting universal healthcare right...

Great post piglet.  I so agree with what you all had to say in support of changing our current system.  Canada probably has the worst universal healthcare system, and yet the average Canadian lives 3 years longer than the average American.  People always point to the flaws in their system and just assume that we will make all the same mistakes.  Of course their system has flaws, just as our system has many fatal flaws.  England and France actually have great universal healthcare systems.  Here is an article I found about France's successful program:


"France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007

MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.

Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.

The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.

Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.

It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.

Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?

National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.

Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.

French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.

The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?

Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.

American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.

Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine."


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...lthcare_system/


I have used the British and French healthcare

I have visited and used both the British and French national healthcare system and I must say I was treated very_well in both countries.....and I think it is a great idea for THIS country now, having had first-hand experiences in Europe.. 


JMHO, of course.


Universal healthcare NOT the answer!!

  1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
  2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
  3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
  4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
  5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
  6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
  7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
  8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
  9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
  10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
  11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
  12. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
  13. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA!  His plans will fail and they will up the cost of everything.  Stop the government spending!  Don't vote for someone wanting to add more programs that will INCREASE government spending.  That is why our economy is in deep crap right now.


Members of Congress get the best healthcare that...sm
money can buy by the U.S. government and Obama wants us to have it too.
Here's a breakdown of McCain's healthcare tax.
Say you pay 14% income tax based on your income.

And you receive $10,000 worth of health insurance from your employer.

The $10,000 is taxed separately at the 14% (your tax bracket). That comes out to $1,400.

McCain gives you a $5,000 tax credit.

$5,000 less the $1,400 -

YOU'RE AHEAD $3,600.

:)

Alternatively, you can take the $5,000 tax credit and purchase your own insurance (like I do). I pay $250 a month.

$250 x 12 = $3,000.

$5,000 - $3,000 - $2,000.

I'M STILL AHEAD $2,000.

WIN/WIN :)
From what I understand Canada's healthcare...sm
is not run by private insurance companies as is Obama's plan, but rather by the government itself. His aim is for all people to have availablity to health insurance with a premium based on what they can afford, the ability to keep your insurance when you change jobs, keep your own doctor, and have your doctor ultimately decide what treatment is best for you not the insurance company.
When did socialism and universal healthcare
nm
Obama's universal healthcare will be SO much
nm
A ? for those in favor of national healthcare
What is your rationale for wanting government in charge of your healthcare? You have to know that if this happens, healthcare in this country IS going to be rationed, the same as it's been rationed in Great Britain, Sweden, and Canada. There will be long waits for procedures that we now take for granted being done in a very short time. I know Obama promised the same healthcare as he now has in the senate...do you believe him?
You need to talk with a few liberal healthcare
nm
what are liberal healthcare facilities?
b
A lot of "liberal" healthcare administrators
who once believed all the democrat garbage until they got Obama into office. Now, after reviewing from some of Obama's top sources the info on what Medicare will stop letting elderly have at their own discretion, they are becoming livid. Well, they wanted him, they got him. So many to thank for all their free lunch for everyone thinking.............
A lot of "liberal" healthcare administrators
who once believed all the democrat garbage until they got Obama into office. Now, after reviewing from some of Obama's top sources the info on what Medicare will stop letting elderly have at their own discretion, they are becoming livid. Well, they wanted him, they got him. So many to thank for all their free lunch for everyone thinking.............
A lot of "liberal" healthcare administrators
who once believed all the democrat garbage until they got Obama into office. Now, after reviewing from some of Obama's top sources the info on what Medicare will stop letting elderly have at their own discretion, they are becoming livid. Well, they wanted him, they got him. So many to thank for all their free lunch for everyone thinking.............
AIG/Future of American Healthcare

I've written a few times on this board that I think employers and insurance companies should be completely taken out of the picture when it comes to healthcare, that our very lives shouldn't be profit-driven commodities.


In my opinion, what's happening at AIG with greedy executives gives us a window into what could happen again (or probably already is happening) with health insurance companies.


I did a quick Google search and found the following two articles that address this.  The first link is more current and probably the better of the two links, but the second is worth reading, as well.  There may be better ones out there, but I didn't have much time to do my search, and these are two that caught my attention.  If you find others, please post them.


It seems to me that before a new healthcare plan is implemented for Americans, we need to insure (no pun) that greedy executives can never do this again to Americans, particularly if our very ability to live or die lies in the balance.


I plan on writing my Congressman and Senator.  I DON'T plan on having my concerns taken seriously (or even being read, for that matter).


Can you imagine -- just for a moment -- how much money could be saved by eliminating the profit factor in healthcare?  It might just pay for a new healthcare care system itself, or at least put a big dent into the cost of one.


http://blogs.webmd.com/mad-about-medicine/2007/08/ceo-compensation-who-said-healthcare-is.html


http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm


 


U. healthcare IS a disaster in other countries.
nm
Does not mean Universal Healthcare is answer.
nm
Republican healthcare plan....(sm)

Their plan for healthcare "reform" basically consists of changing nothing, and maybe tweaking medicaid and child care.  Cost of this plan?  We have no idea.  No numbers were given.  The total plan was only 4 pages. 


In other words, they are just fine with the idea that tons of people in this country have NO healthcare, and obviously don't see anything wrong with HMOs.  Yeah, they're working for the people alright......NOT.