Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterSUN EDITORIAL:
House takes bold action
Now it is Senate’s turn to deliver desperately needed health insurance reform
Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2009 | 2:07 a.m.
Reps. Shelley Berkley and Dina Titus, both Nevada Democrats, deserve praise for joining the House majority Saturday to approve a truly historic comprehensive health care insurance reform bill. It was a bold move that seeks to reverse generations of congressional failure by giving tens of millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans sufficient access to the nation’s health care system.
The legislation now heads to the Senate, where it will face stubborn opposition from Republicans who have no interest in fixing the broken insurance system. As Sen Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation”: “The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who supports the public option, will have his hands full not only with obstructionist Republicans but also with reluctant Democrats who want reform but aren’t sure how far to go.
We strongly urge all senators to take stock of their constituents, many of whom have no choice but to crowd hospital emergency rooms because they do not have the insurance to see a family doctor or specialist.
Millions of Americans do not have insurance because they are unemployed, work for an employer who does not offer a health benefit, or have preexisting medical conditions that make them ineligible for coverage. Many others are drowning in medical debt because they are underinsured.
There are, then, both humanitarian and economic reasons for the Senate to join the House in passing insurance reform that will result in healthier Americans and a stronger nation.
This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that the Senate cannot afford to squander. Much like passage of Social Security, the GI Bill and the Voting Rights Act, health insurance reform would represent the kind of landmark legislation that would improve the quality of life in this country for generations to come.
The major challenge for Reid is to break through a potential filibuster, a tool available only in the Senate that allows opponents of legislation to force at least 60 votes to close off debate. Given the razor-thin margin of victory for the House bill, his goal of reaching 60 votes will be much tougher.
But no one has displayed more determination to get things done than Reid. From our perspective, the Senate cannot approve reform quickly enough.
Discussion: 52 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- CityCenter unveils Crystals high-end retail district
- No. 24 UNLV gutsy in 74-72 victory at Arizona
- Vdara exec predicts strong sales
- Sarah Palin wasn’t a disaster, but Obama is
- Freeze warning issued for LV
- Guilty plea a victory for ATF agents
- Cheney’s time to be heard is over
- Fontainebleau lenders sue construction companies over liens
- Noteworthy: More from the Trop, Cher changes, Newton on ‘CBS Sunday Morning’
- NASCAR hits Las Vegas for Champions Week awards show
Blogs
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Superintendents want state to immediately seek Race to Top funds
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The great Jennifer debate
The Kats Report
From Eva Longoria Parker to a cluster of execs, crowd takes a shine to Crystals (2 Comments)
Elsewhere
Harry Reid's recipe for getting health-care deal done (8 Comments)
UNLV in at No. 11 in SI's college hoops power rankings (3 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
Top Chef Episode 13: A few good chefs
Gray Matter
Fight weekend in Las Vegas and Thanksgiving (3 Comments)
Calendar »
- 4 Fri
- 5 Sat
- 6 Sun
- 7 Mon
- 8 Tue
-
Ray Price at Boulder Station
Boulder Station Hotel and Casino | 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
-
Clay Walker at The Golden Nugget
Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino
-
Gloriana at LAX
LAX Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Brooks & Dunn at the Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Bill Engvall at the Treasure Island Theatre
Treasure Island Theatre
-
Ron White performs at the Mirage
Terry Fator Theatre
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who supports the public option, will have his hands full ...with reluctant Democrats who want reform but aren't sure how far to go."
On 10-14 the lowball Baucus Health Insurance Reform bill for just under a trillion dollars does not cover 29 million people.
On 11-7-2009, in a midnight vote, the Nancy Pelosi House passed her 2% solution.
After a dramatic visit by President Obama (to "answer the call of history") and the Stupak Pro-life amendment voted 220-215 to pass Health Insurance reform Nancy has a Health Insurance bill with a public option that will only cover 2% of the people and it costs just 1.2 trillion dollars. The buying of Democratic votes had to go right down to the wire. Even with the Pro-life amendment bring over 64 votes, Democrats still had 39 defections; a switch of just 2 more congressmen would have lost it. The House also defeated the Republicans' plan (H.R. 3962 - Boehner Substitute Amendment), which was a more common-sense and fiscally responsible approach.
So for $1.2 trillion dollars and 1990 pages the CBO is telling us we are getting:
- 98% of the people NOT covered by the public option
- 29 million NOT covered by health insurance
- A wait time of 6 months if you have a pre-condition
- installs a "Payment Advisory Commission" (wage, price, and rationing control board)
- $490 billion taken away from senior's Medicare
- $280 billion NOT paid to Doctors for services rendered
- A new 5.4% surcharge tax on small businesses
- A new 5.4% income tax surcharge
- Mandatory changes to current insurance policies in five years
- Insurance premium increases
- It does NOT include tort reform to save money
- It does NOT allow plans to cross state lines
- It does NOT reduce the cost of healthcare providers
- It does NOT have a enforceable Individual mandate
- It does NOT allow for catastrophic" healthcare policies.
- It does NOT preclude cost shifting.
- It does NOT impose tort reform to reduce defensive medicine.
The Stupak Pro-life amendment brings us back to Obama's address to the American Nation from the "Halls of Congress" felt he was right to ridicule and call opposition to the bill's pro-abortion position "a lie, plain and simple.
The fact that Obama and the Democrats finally had to capitulate and put a pro-life amendment into the Health Insurance bill shows teabaggers were telling the truth.
Obama implored critics to stop "phony claims" but Obama failed to debunk in his words the "more outrageous myths" of the healthcare proposals.
Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are tone deaf. They do not respond to our phone calls, e-mails, townhalls, or rallies. They refuse to listen to us because we are lairs to them, but mostly because they know we do not believe them or trust them. Harry called us evilmonger and Nancy called us un-American.
D.O.A. in Senate. The Nancy/Obama shame will not make it through the senate. The longer they do not bring it forward for debate and vote, the less chance it will have of passing. More and more folks everyday see the writting on the wall, this is nothing but a shame for Nancy and Obama to try and get their names to go down in history as passing a bill and comparing this "historic" moment to the passage of medicare or social security. Its for their own benefit to become famous - they are just figments of their own immagination. Health care - dead on arrival in the senate. And Obama said he would not sign bill if it increases deficit one dime - lets see if he has the kiwis to back up that statement
it really is very simple...
you either support the public option...
or...
you support the greedy pig insurance companies and their very real death panels and the money grubbing whore doctors...
period...
end of story...
Congratulations Fellow Idiots: A good thing indeed for the poor, this new reform of health care, thanks in part to the representatives from Nevada, Berkley and Titus. Capitalism has been evaded all along on health care insurance companies for years but we the people did not know it because we play the stupid role or the left out role. No,wait, its an 'ism' but for health insurance companies its a monopoly given them by Congress just as is professional baseball and this reform was seriously needed. Can we get them to reform baseball now? Its gotten to be so boring it needs some Cuban teams to be set up here for competition. That's another issue, though. Health insurance companies enjoy insulationism from competitors it what it is now as has been for many years. No competition from upstarts or existing companies to expand into a new and exciting area of health care profit making off the backs of we the payers of everything by way of our taxes. Its the float that's crucial to these insurerers and the refusal to pay for a lot of stuff and that cute little pharase we all love .... PRE-EXISTING CONDITION .... all those monthly checks flow into the insurance companies and only a few flow out as WallStreet sits back in luxury and enjoyment of watching it all. Yes, fellow idiots, we the people, on the everyday street pay for it all. Now, maybe, the poor man or woman who is in need of surgery for a blocked artery but has no insurance and can't afford any will have a chance to live on a few more months by way of getting fixed thanks to this new reform. Maybe they can go into a doctor's office and get that Doppler or that Sonagram and that MRI that they could not get before that caused them to drop off the couch dead in front of Grandma as the Steelers dismantled the Broncos in last night's game. Yes, dead, fellow Americans, dead, due to untreated blocked carotid which was refused due to no insurance.
Ain't it great now that CriminalBush is gone? But beware, BrotherJeb is crouched low in the weeds and pythonbush awaiting a run at the White House. He has some great religious ideas, too, that he gets from his prayers. Talk about health care, he was instrumental in keeping a brainless Schiavo alive for years as he and his cohorts prayed for her revival. Wonder what the cost on that deal was? Astronomical obviously. The woman had no brain as proved by the autopsy and in the face of science they just kept up the prayers. Keep an eye on this idiot.
It works in Japan and Germany who have companies and products that are respected around the world. The mindless Sean Insannitized Dittoheads are one stroke or one tumor away from financial ruin. Does Limpbought or Sean Inssanity or a Republican like Sen. Enswine (who has government health-care) have to worry about medical bills?
Anti-health care advocate, Hate-talker Sean Insannity, has now embraced neo-confederate Southern Band "Lizard Skinner" for his next Vegas pro-war hate-concert. (a band that supported southern segregation-ism in song.)
Pharmacy freak Rush Limpbaught, who never met a pill he didn't like, can't get health insurance because he has a history of drug abuse and yo-yo-dieting. But what does he care? He gets millions by being a spokes-mouth for billionaires.
fosimmons finally figured out that George Bush is not in office anymore. Now, fosimmons has moved on to Jeb Bush. This fosimmons is a good representation of those compassionate people on the left...
Next year the voters will retire Harry Reid and he will have no option.
fosimmons - did I read your post correctly??? Your for the death option instead of keeping someone alive? Costs too much - Get rid of them.
Nobody over 40 can be trusted. Eliminate them. When they blow out their fortieth candle, let the cake go off! BLLOOey! End of skyrocketing health care costs. It's because of our desire to prolong the inevitable that we continue to dump dollars into health care for those who are NOT healthy. If you can't press your weight at 18, same deal. If you can't run a mile in six minutes, same deal. If we are not healthy, we don't get to belong to the genepool. What's best, wasting money on sick, old geezers, or investing in mens sana in corpore sano?
It's ironic that this bill is compared to Social Security which the liberals refuse to reform while it sinks under its own weight. What makes "compassionate" liberals think that this Pelosi monstrosity will not suffer the same fate a generation from now? Or is the debt burden acceptable as long as we are redistributing wealth?
kenny,
right now we're collectively denying millions of Americans ANY health insurance just as .000000013% of the population have castles, fleets of ships and private airplanes at the expense of all of the rest of us who bought these extravagant luxuries because we might get sick.
What part of humanity do you not understand?
POWERPLAY said.....
"Next year the voters will retire Harry Reid and he will have no option..."
Keep your fingers crossed and keep telling yourself that my little friend. Who will the Republicans have to oppose Harry once the primary season is over? "Super Sue" or "Baby Tark?" "Baby Tark" is zero for two when it comes to getting elected to any office, and "Super Sue" has never run for anything....
I'm putting my money on Harry. He knows his way around the block and he will have more than enough money to run a hard hitting campaign....
Listening to Harry speak is like watching paint dry but he's a guy that gets things done...he's the most powerful man in the Senate and one of the most powerful men on Capital Hill. The loss of Harry would move Nevada to the rear of the line for a long, long time.......Wake-up!
Wolfy is correct when he writes that Harry "...the most powerful man in the Senate and one of the most powerful men on Capital Hill."
Kinda makes you want to puke up your socks doesn't it???
The House bill will do for healthcare what all the bailouts have done for employment. (Great if you're a member of Congress or one of their favored special interests, not so great for the rest of us.) Not that the GOP plan is any better. Both sides seem more interested in currying special interest favor and jockeying for the 2010 elections than in actually writing something that is sensible, affordable, and effective.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. It's funny how that mantra led to the fall of the Berlin Wall. If socialism is the ideal, how was this magnificent country built without it? When the government steps in to correct the wrongs of society in the name of humanity, maybe your freedom will be the price. Are you willing to pay that price? I'm not. -- signed, kenny
LarryVegas said....
"fosimmons finally figured out that George Bush is not in office anymore. Now, fosimmons has moved on to Jeb Bush..."
I'm sure fosimmons figured out some time ago that clueless George is no longer living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave......thank god that George was forced to move out of his rent-free dwelling! I thought he was never going to leave...
For fosimmons to remind us of the fact that "little brother Bush" is lurking in the weeds, ready to pounce on any opportunity that might improve his chances of also living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is very important.
Can you imagine another Bush in the White House? Wow! We barely survived the first two...
Of course "little brother Bush" can actually read, write and speak with out doing great damage to the English language...That's a first among the Bush clan...
It's probably a good idea that we don't "misunderestimate" him... Ha! Ha!
cpa_ken said....
"When the government steps in to correct the wrongs of society in the name of humanity, maybe your freedom will be the price. Are you willing to pay that price? I'm not...."
Hmmmmmm...I never thought of it that way before. Are you saying that the passage of the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments took away many of our liberties?
Allow me to get this right.....In other words, the Supreme Court decision handed down in Brown v. Board (1954) was a very bad thing and was an immediate threat to our freedoms, right?
Are you saying that the passage of the 1965 voting rights act was not a good thing? Are you saying that we should never have given woman the right to vote (1920) or Native Americans their citizenship (1925)?
Wow! That's a new twist in logic!
we is it, man. It's not some foreign object; our government is our voice. It's not stepping in, as you say. It's merely responding to resounding calls for some more efficiency. Health and economy for most of us outweigh the right of health care insurance to grab chunks of my health dollars for their own Boeing to zip from castle to castle. I hope you see that where I'm suggesting we might go with this is not so much the realm of any government stepping in. Our system is skewed; we pay about twice what we get. As you correctly point out, Pelosi's plan may well suffer the same fate as Social Security, having to face minor adjustments to accomodate the inability of recent generations to match grampa's love.
But that's how our government actually works - err and err and err again, but less and less and less. PH
It's not a Berlin Wall thing; it's a pocketbook thing. It's cheaper and better to get delivery of health care than to continue to line the fleecy pockets. Does 'of the people, by the p...'ring a bell? AL
Today is the Marine Corps Birthday! Congratulations to all who have served our glorious Corps and to those who will serve in the future.
Since you bring up the Constitution, where is the passage stating that Congress has the authority to force people to buy health insurance?
Hey Wolfy...
The fact that "little brother Bush" is lurking in the weeds, ready to pounce..."
Kinda reminds of this story about the big bad wolf who had socialist tendencies. Instead of living with his good neighbors, the wolf wanted to consume them himself. This was part of the Wolf's plan on redistribution of wealth. But, the wolf turned out to be a cross dresser and got shot by one from his own ilk looking for wealth to redistribute.
So the morale of the story is that if you are a wolf, act like one openly and don't lurk around in the bushes, acting like a politician making deals behind closed doors...
CPA_Ken, sir,
You absolutely got my goat with that one. I have nowhere to turn for an answer to where in the Constitution our forefathers described either my laptop or my health insurance. Just a few scattered, fuzzy notions about life, liberty and the pursuit of happi..something.
air
cpa_ken said....
"Since you bring up the Constitution, where is the passage stating that Congress has the authority to force people to buy health insurance?"
I assume you're talking to me, right? Where in the Constitution did it state that women and Native Americans had the right to vote? Where in the Constitution did it say that "segregation" was legal or illegal in the United States?
Our government has done many, many things over the last 200+ years that are not "expressly stated or written" in the Constitution.....
No place in the Constitution will you find the document talking about Social Security or Medicare. There's many other examples of that very thing..
Many of the things done by Congress and our various presidents have been justified by the use of the "general welfare clause" found in the preamble of the Constitution...
The Supreme Court has consistently backed that line of thinking... Keep in mind, with a few exceptiuons, Americans are required to pay into Social Security. Does the Constitution state that?
Thanks Air. We agree. Now we need to convince the wolf that the Constitution is still the law of the land. He is absolutely correct in the points he makes. But his argument basically says that the Constitution is irrelevant as long as a well-intentioned Congress can pass laws that promote an agenda.
I don't disagree that health reform is needed but I don't trust a Speaker of the House, a Senate Majority Leader, and a President who have no more expertise than you or I in the matter. They may pass a health reform bill but I fear the unintended consequences of increased government intervention in a segment of society where very personal decisions should be left to those who make them and not to some unknown Washington bureaucrat.
LarryVegas said...
"So the morale of the story is that if you are a wolf, act like one openly and don't lurk around in the bushes, acting like a politician making deals behind closed doors..."
Not sure what your point really is....Not sure you understand the many approaches a wolf uses to get what they want... I've never met a "cross dressing wolf"(Ha!Ha!) but that's not saying that they don't exist. Are you saying that I should be careful in what I wish for?
Look for "baby brother Jeb" to continue to lurk in the weeds waiting for an opportunity to throw his hat in the presidential arena....."Potomac fever" runs out of control among the Bush clan. It always has. I'm sure you remember junior's grandfather, Prescott Bush.
In all honesty, "little brother Jeb" would probably do a much better job that older brother or father did as president.....but how in the world could he do a worse job than junior did?
I guess he could start four or five wars (instead of two) in various places in the world and work even harder that junior did to destroy the economy and decrease the value of the dollar...
Massive tax cuts to his wealthy friends and the continued exporting of good paying jobs off-shore might also be something that he could do...
El Lobo,
Thank you for pointing out the obvious to the blithering right. Not every single solitary eventuality to befall humankind could have possibly been envisioned by the framers of our constitution, nor covered in the final document.
If the contents of the constitution are interpreted by the high court to suit the right, it's just fine to "decide what they really meant by that." If it's interpreted favorable to the left, or a majority of citizens for that matter,
it is HERESY! TREASONOUS! SPITTING ON THE GRAVES OF OUR FOREFATHERS! &... well... it's just not RIGHT!!!
To the Marine Corp... Happy Birthday. Semper Fi.
Ken,
Reform has been a long time coming; but if we do it right, (likely?) then we'll build-in some recourse to tweak, modify, adjust, fudge and overhaul. Nobody wants anything but the best in health care. Getting the word from Washington or Atlanta or Des Moines doesn't matter so much as whether I've got a voice in how I'm treated. My doc says this; I'm stickin to her word. It's the right thing, and in my lifetime, we might get there.
Medically vs. Financially Managed Healthcare. This is what we are giving up. What I mean by this is; under our current system, the insurance carriers follow American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines for "what" treatments work with "what" ailments. At least with our existing system - decisions (for the most part) are based on solid medical findings.
With the government options and government controls over health insurance providers - everything will move toward a "financially based" system. This means - if your "Quality Adjusted Remaining Years" QARY do not justify a $50,000 treatment - you will be denied that particular treatment. In other words - if you are not actively contributing to society, to sick to do so, disabled or just plain too old your personal QARY will not justify the treatment - Hello Soilent Green!
With all the mandates going in to this process, this is the only way to manage the costs. There are only so much $$ to go around, and people will end up suffering under these government mandates. Just look at New Jersey, New York and California - the medical insurance costs in these states exceeds national averages (considerably) - this is because of all the government mandates in these states.
Being a geezer rapidly skiing the fall line on an icy slope, personally I would rather you take that $50,000 you might have dumped onto my grave and instead handed it over to some youngin' who might be able to make her life way better with a little care right now. But you got to promise not to take half of it for your castle in Scotland or yacht parked by your Malibu mansion.
cpa_ken said.....
"Now we need to convince the wolf that the Constitution is still the law of the land. He is absolutely correct in the points he makes. But his argument basically says that the Constitution is irrelevant as long as a well-intentioned Congress can pass laws that promote an agenda."
Not sure how you came up with that line of thinking....I don't believe the Constitution is something that can be ignored when ever Congress and the President chooses to do so.....I didn't say that but you may remember, George W. Bush did say that.....
What did George say about the Constitution? Hmmmm.... I believe he called it a "mere sheet of paper."
Actually, (you won't agree with this but what's new?) the Constitution is exactly what the Supreme Court says it is at any point in time. A detailed study of the hundred's of Supreme Court decisions handed down since 1803 points out that very thing...
We can argue until the cows come home about the powers of the Constitution and what Congress and the President can and cannot do constitutionally but in the end, the Supreme Court will have the final say...
The Founding Fathers knew that the document they wrote would require change from time to time if the government that it created was going to survive.....that's why they created the amendment process...
Look at the number of changes that have become part of the Constitution and look at how the Court has chosen to interpret various parts of the document.......Contrary to what many conservatives believe, the Constitution is a living, breathing document.
I understand your viewpoint. A living, breathing document is so much more convenient. It's like eating at the Outback Restaurant - "No Rules, Just Right."
Put our Constitution on the same pile as the Roman Empire's.
Gmag,
You're right, our founding fathers couldn't predict what would happen in the future. In fact, government is often very terrible at predicting the future and very bad at planning for it. The government is very susceptible to stupid populist fads that are, ultimately ineffective at achieving their stated goals.
This is probably why they wanted government power limited and wrote that limitation into stone.
Phargo said....
"Put our Constitution on the same pile as the Roman Empire's."
In some ways you're not far off in your assessment. Actually an argument can be made that the Roman Empire didn't have a constitution as we know it.....they simply had a list of laws that people were expected to follow called the "Twelve Tables." The "Tables" were displayed in the Roman Forum for all to see...
The laws were very simple in nature and common sense dictated what was written....Of course, the patricians had more rights than the plebians or slaves had...females were sort of left out in the cold....
Gibby....
I don't believe the Founding Fathers backed the idea of limited power simply because they were concerned about "stupid populist fads that are, ultimately ineffective at achieving their stated goals."
That had nothing to do with their belief in limited government. I'm surprised to hear you say something like that. That's very disappointing coming from you....
The Founders were very much against the idea of the government having too much power because they felt that with too much power came a tyrannical government that destroyed the liberties of the people and concentrated too much power and wealth in the hands of too few!
The Founders were well aware of the monarch's of Europe and the disadvantages that came from having a "ruling elite" call the shots.....
In a nut shell it was simply the old "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power absolutely ."
I don't think our founding fathers ever fathomed that the federal government would nullify most "states rights" and create a monstrosity of a bureaucracy with absolute overwhelming power and control over the states and it's citizens...
Larry,
I believe there is an opt-out plan being discussed for those states that are too backward to accept that reform is good for all USA citizens.
The opt-out is for a public option type plan. How about the 500 billion in cuts to Medicare. Can we opt-out there???
Here you go, Lar. Enjoy.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/more-se...
gmag: isn't your program also good for all "non-USA citizens" who somehow happen to make it here?
Did you really miss me?
Very interesting.
Turns out that FactCheck - which those on the left have been referring to as if it were the political Bible, is a baby of the Annenberg Foundation.
Yes, that is THE Annenberg Foundation:
Senator Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation.the one with a board connected to William Ayers and Barack Obama.
So gmag, you are going to have to find another source for your facts. Sorry...
El_Lobo
What I meant was the Romans failed because of rot on the inside and severe aggression from the outside. Twelve Tables, Constitution, 10 Commandments, whatever, it doesn't matter. Man cannot govern himself.
Phargo said....
"What I meant was the Romans failed because of rot on the inside and severe aggression from the outside. Twelve Tables, Constitution, 10 Commandments, whatever, it doesn't matter. Man cannot govern himself."
If man can not govern himself then what is the answer? Churchill once said that "democracy is the worst form of government known to man with the exception of all the other forms that that have been tried..."
Depite the many problems associated with man's continued attempts to govern himself, there's no other way to go.....The Greeks knew this early on and the Romans picked up on it at a later date.
LarryVegas said....
"I don't think our founding fathers ever fathomed that the federal government would nullify most "states rights" and create a monstrosity of a bureaucracy with absolute overwhelming power and control over the states and it's citizens..."
You are 100% correct but the Founding Fathers also never fathomed that the nation they created as a mere 13 states with approximately 4 million people would grow into a nation of 50 states with a population of 330 million people.
The Founders, in their wildest dreams, never considered that we would be able to send a man to the moon and return him safely to earth; build bullet trains that can easily run 200 miles an hour; develop a super bomb capable of killing 100 thousand people in a matter of seconds and communicate with people in the far corners of the globe instantly...I could go on and on but I believe you get the picture, right?
NOTHING stays the same....the good old days are gone for ever, and unfortunately change is always a double edged sword. You have to give up something to get something. Everything is a trade-off! What is one man's food is another man's poison.
michael... N O ! to the non-USA citizens.
Larry... I guess if it's not affiliated with FOX it's not a legitimate source of information, eh?
This very interesting about what is so go for us but so bad for the elite in DC this is from a interview w/OB guess it will be hard to blame Bush for his reply
MR PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
AND JOIN THE NEW 'UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM' THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????"
THERE WAS A STONEY SILENCE AS OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER IT !!!
IN ADDITION, A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS."WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT."
AND THEY DID. IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE "KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL" WAS WRITTEN INTO THE NEW HEALTH CARE REFORM INITIATIVE ENSURING THAT THAT CONGRESS WILL BE 100% EXEMPT!
SO, THIS GREAT NEW HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT IS GOOD FOR YOU AND I... IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA, HIS FAMILY OR CONGRESS...??
PERSONALLY, I CAN ONLY ACCEPT A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL THAT EXTENDS TO EVERYONE... NOT JUST US LOWLY CITIZENS... WHILE THE WASHINGTON "ELITE" KEEP RIGHT ON WITH THEIR GOLD-PLATED HEALTH CARE COVERAGES.
El_Lobo...With all due respect, I have no answers, I was hoping you did.
I would like to thank all the fine fans of opra and letterman,as well as all the other celebs fans that talked this fool right into office.As the last elections showed they didnt seem to come out like before?Why is that?Well they know they made a big mistake,and have no way out?Well my freinds there is.Its called impeachment,and we as REAL AMERICANS dont stand up now,and get this fool out of office,we will ALL BE DOOMED BEFORE YOU CAN SAY "JACKASS"!definition for a politition,there liers and cheaters,and if there not kissing your baby,their stealing their lolly pops!
What an interesting piece. I love how it starts off by giving praise to our Dem congresswomen and then goes into the stubborn republicans.
Give me a break!!!
I have called both of their offices. Although Shelley Berkley is not my congresswoman, her staff was very polite. On the other hand, I contact Dina Titus' office and of course, you never get to speak with them and the person that took my message was not quite as polite as the other one I had spoken to. It is also annoying that when I email Dina Titus, I get a lame form email that didn't address a single question I had.
I love that politicians can cram things done your throat and all we can do is let them. I heard Dina on the radio a couple months back and she could not answer a single question about health care or cap and trade with out blowing a fuse. She was not baited be the host she was asked questions, that she did not answer, and she was given time to answer without interruption.
I'm sorry I am ranting like this, but we shouldn't praise those that can't answer the questions they are asked. I used to be a believer in universal healthcare, but I must say, I can't follow a group that can't answer any questions. I'm not picking on Dina because she's a dem, or I would have picked on Shelly also, I pick on her because she can't provide a better answer than , because it's good.
What is good for one isn't always good for all and what some want to do for all isn't always good for all either.
If this is really about reducing cost or about insuring the uninsured, than lets think of solutions that doesn't involve another department of government(that only increases the cost).
Phargo said.....
"El_Lobo...With all due respect, I have no answers, I was hoping you did."
The only thing that I can add is that we need to keep working at it. Churchill's statement about democracy being the "worst form of government known to man with the exception of all the other forms that have been tried" is 100% true.
With that being said, we must continue to stay the course with what we have.
Of course this does not mean that we shouldn't be attempting to change, tweak, improve upon what we have. Term limits, campaign finance reform, and better control of the lobbyist would be a great start.
I'm basically a person who always sees the glass as half full. We need to do a better job of holding our elected officials responsible for their actions.
We still have far too many people who take no part or interest in government, and we remain the worst democratic nation in the world when it comes to going to the polls and voting.
A turn out in a national election among voters that reaches 50% is considered very good.... that's embarrassing!