It is a scam to fill the pockets of Hispanics for votes, and more fuel for the already raging inferno of killing the unborn!!!

God help America!!!

Jeremiah

Good golly when will they see the real cause of our healthcare problem? If everyone has insurance and the demand for everything healthcare goes through the roof then the costs will go up. Reduce demand and increase supply. The only Universal Healthcare that the Feds should even begin to consider is one that partially resembles the Prescription Drug plan. After $5000 of out of pocket expenses for the year, the insurance kicks in and covers for non-elective healthcare.

Make it illegal for businesses to pay for individual's insurance coverage and require the people to pay for the additional coverage that they elect to have. Tax Elective surgery and healthcare (the nose-jobs, etc.) to pay for the Universal coverage - (reasoning is that the demand for this portion is draining on the supply for the other portion). Anyone who calls an ambulance to take care of a hangnail - that's right it's taxed at a higher rate.

Then give RN's more power to provide healthcare. There, the price of coverage goes down across the board.

do I dare ask what the supposed motivation of the health care industry is for universal health care?

Do I dare point out the quality of life is significantly higher in many european countries?

No Mark - you are the one bought and sold by the insurance companies. Just wait until they deny someone in your family a life saving operation so that they can save a few bucks.

universal health care is not an economic issue - it is a moral issue. If you want to let people die i seriously suggest you go really read the bible and see what Jesus would do - believe me his answer wouldn't be to have a for profit healing industry

As part of ANY agreement on healthcare, Republicans and Conservatives must DEMAND actions to reduce the costs -- not just take more tax dollars to pay for out-of-control and ever increasing costs.

First is a total revision and rework of the "tort" system -- dramatically reducing both the number of lawsuits and the amount of those ridiculous, excessive, and bankrupting awards and settlements... blocked by Democrats!

Next is to stop using American tax dollars to pay for and subsidize "free" healthcare for illegal aliens and people who are not American citizens. If Democrats include that in the plan, Republicans must make sure ALL Americans understand WHAT is being done and WHO is doing it!

Republicans and Conservatives must mount a 24/7 media campaign to educate the America people on ALL of the problems -- direct and indirect -- and use it to their advantage (e.g. tort reform, educating the public).

Based on history and past performance, however, I have no confidence the current batch of Republicans are capable of recognizing, understanding, or doing what needs to be done to turn it to their (our) advantage!

AAR

LiberalT - ever actually lived in a European country?

"i seriously suggest you go really read the bible and see what Jesus would do"

I think Jesus would send tax collectors with guns to take everyones money and then Jesus would force everyone to buy insurance from a corporation whether they wanted it or not. But if your poor Jesus might give you some of the stolen money to help you buy your mandatory health insurance.

Hey what do you know thats Clintons plan!!

liberalT,

RE: "If you want to let people die i seriously suggest you go really read the bible..."

Really, does the Bible say that if we impose taxpayer funded healthcare on everyone, people will not die?

So "universal healthcare" is the solution to eternal life? I don't think so. How about YOU read the BIBLE... if you can find and recognize one!

RE: "What Jesus would do?"

That's a well used propaganda technique and trick!

Where did Jesus say people should live off the work and backs of others? Where did Jesus propose an enslaving welfare system? Even Jesus worked and earned his own living!

Is it morally right to steal money from others to pay for your healthcare? Or, is it more morally right to work (extra hours and jobs if needed) and pay for your own healthcare?

AAR

yes - i spent several years in France. Look - of course every system has its problems - but the quality health care I received was very high and I didn't have to wait any longer than I had to in the US.

"universal health care is not an economic issue - it is a moral issue. If you want to let people die i seriously suggest you go really read the bible and see what Jesus would do - believe me his answer wouldn't be to have a for profit healing industry" - liberalT

Jesus would have advocated a society where your born into a system where a huge organization has a hegamonic relationship over a large segment of the population through the compulsion of violence, and uses it to dictates what the people may or may not do with their actions, and what they must do with very much of the product of their labor.

Why would anyone want a free society when through the government's power of violent coercion we could steal from anyone we want and give everyone healthcare? Freedom and liberty and all that are old and overrated principles when it comes to American government, free healthcare is where the future of American government is at.

How exactly is Socialized Health Care "bought and paid for" by the insurance industry? Why would a corporation support a plan that puts them out of business?

"How exactly is Socialized Health Care "bought and paid for" by the insurance industry? Why would a corporation support a plan that puts them out of business?" - Rana Quijotesca

Because the plan is to force everyone to buy insurance. I think the idea is that the more you spread the money around, the more interest groups that will support the cause.

We have a long history of bailing out industries that are heavily involved in government. Nothing like guaranteed profits backed by taxpayer money(banking/chrysler and autos/agriculture/dairy ect...).

At the risk of handling a discussion the way liberals do (by changing the topic or attacking the person) I just have to say that liberalT starts his blog with:

yes - i spent several years in France.

and from that point on I need read no more.

ah - the voice of reason (yes yes I know the BBC is anti-american, evolution and global warming are make believe by socialists, and France is the anti-christ)

You really need to get out more. I see you share the same character flaw of many on this blog - you refuse to even examine evidence if it is something you don't like. You just make up an excuse as to why you don't need to look at it (its anti-american, its "obviously wrong" - though you can offer no evidence to the contrary, its socialist, its -god for bit - France...)

God forbid you would have to actually do research or think...

No...you are quite wrong. In fact, I rarely believe anything I see (either side) until I personally have done the research and certainly don't quote any facts without having done my homework. Now for certain, "consider the source" does come into play but it serves me zero to just spout off and repeat what I hear without making certain I am speaking truth.

I was reminded of how great our country is and why we left Europe a long time ago during a visit to Colonial Williamsburg. I see no reason to return to the ways of over 200 years ago.

I also was reminded during my visit to Canada last summer. My acquaintences there, very wealthy ones I might add, told me about the medical care in Canada. He said "I really don't have a problem with it because (and this was implied) I have connections." If you don't have connections in a socialized medicine environment, you suffer.

We need to stop treating symptoms of problems and instead cut right to the source of the exhorbitant costs. Anything added to the formula can in no way be less costly, regardless of what you call it.

Oh, and for your comment about thinking, isn't it your party that gets in bed with unions and expects all members to walk in the voting booth with blinders on and pull the lever? Tell me exactly what level of "thinking" is required to do that?

LiberalT,

Certainly there is a moral aspect to health care - but there are no cosmic solutions which will make everything all better; people are imperfect, and anything they do will have imperfections in it. It isn't a matter of "do you want health care" but, instead, "what are you willing to pay for it?". A price will be paid - either in money out of pocket or in rationed services, or both. Pick one - I prefer money out of pocket.

..you refuse to even examine evidence if it is something you don't like. - libT

Pot, meet kettle.

Mark - the point is that given the cost not everyone can afford health care. To me - health care should be a social service provided by the Government just like the fire department or the police. They both come to your house if you call them - and they will put your fire out and search for a thief regardless if you have money to pay them or not. I cannot understand why there is a difference between those. In fact - the US is one of the only advanced countries to do that.

To answer your question - for people like me who have good jobs and money and can afford it it doesn't matter. For children born into single parent homes in welfare? What did they do? I simply cannot understand how you are not willing to pay taxes to give health care to underprivileged children while you are more than willing to pay for aggressive wars oversees to secure cheap oil. Its hard to imagine a world in which people would not only do that - but then have the guts to claim that I am the one who doesn't care about people.

What is your rational for not giving poor children health care? You can say what you want about how bad or stupid their parents are if you want - but that doesn't change the fact that these are complete innocent children that you are refusing to help.

liberalT:

So take some of your own medicine here (no pun intended). Do some research and find out exactly why the cost of health care is so out of control. You keep saying that government is the solution BUT if you were to find out that there are other things driving the price so high and were able to eliminate them, wouldn't that make more sense than just adding more complexity to the system?

Your analogy is a bit off base because the police and fire services you enjoy don't exactly fit into a competitive free enterprise model. Police are charged with serving by enforcing law. Law is a function of the government. Fire fighters are paid with tax dollars (government again) because their services are used maybe a handful of times by each citizen through the course of their lifetime.

On the other hand, the medical field is so wide and diverse and free to exist in the marketplace....well, I better stop there and not do your homework for you.

(1) no money is not the issue - if it were cheaper or more expensive I would still want the government to provide it

(2) I don't buy your argument that my analogy is off base.
(a) yes law is a function of the government. So is protection of the populace - we have an army. So is protection provision of transportation (roads and highways). So is prevision of diseases - the health department. I see absolutely no reason why health care cannot be or should not be a function of the government just like it is in many other countries
(b) true the fire department is only used occasionally - but what does that mean? I use the roads almost every day does that mean we should privatize all roads? This argument is baseless

I don't see where cost enters into the discussion if the government should or should not provide heatlh care. There are things that the government provides me that (on an individual level) are very cheap and things that are very expensive. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. I guess if it became to costly to stop a foreign invading army you would argue we shouldn't pay for it and everyone should be left to fend for themselves?

Fundamentally - the argument is about what government should provide. I believe health care is one of the fundamental things that the government should pay for. You could argue the exact same thing about the fire department (why should i pay for someone else's fire protection? Couldn't we reduce the cost of fire protection - (of course we could but still I would argue even if it was cheap it is something the government should do). I believe this comes down not to arguments about money - but arguments about what the purpose of government is.
Fundamentally - I believe if someone is sick and we have a pill that can cure them - you give them the pill even if it is expensive. Other countries have proven that it is possible to do - and despite the nonsense that insurance companies try to sell you if you go and do the research you find that in most cases the state health care is quite good. Yes it is expensive - but somethings (like the health of poor children) are more important than tax dollars

health care should be a social service provided by the Government just like the fire department or the police. They both come to your house if you call them - and they will put your fire out and search for a thief regardless if you have money to pay them or not. I cannot understand why there is a difference between those.

LiberalT,

There is a difference ... You pay local tax, along with your water bill that goes to funding for the fire department, and local police ... Then you have Federal Tax, which helps to fund social programs such as - Medicaid, Social Security, Pensions, Disability, unemployment, and others...

Why should we have to pay for any more taxes for those who do not work and help themselves ... you see, since these folks won't help themselves, Democrats see an oppurtunity to pander to them, and say, "Hey, you! If you will vote for me, I will help you to buy your food for free." and the guy says, "Hmmmm ... Sounds like a pretty good deal," He think for a moment more, and he makes his mind up ... "It's a deal, I'll take it."
And boy do the Democrats ever eat it up, "Boy have we ever got it made now," Slandering us Conservatives all the way, with the most evil thoughts that ever was thought of .... And once the Democrats get their way?

They sit up like kings feasting off the suckling pig, saying --- "Gimme more, gimme MORE, GIMME MORE." those hundred dollar bill coming in by the brief case load, they open it up...

Ssssss, Ahhhhhhh, Fresh dough, the almighty green back....

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the little man is slaving like animals, just to satisfy the Democrats and their lazy cohorts!!!

There's a lot more to it than this though ... I could go on for hours about what it would be like if a Socialist Hillary Clinton were ever to grasp the Presidency.

God help us, if that day should ever come!!!

Jeremiah

libteenybopper - "For children born into single parent homes in welfare? What did they do? I simply cannot understand how you are not willing to pay taxes to give health care to underprivileged children...."

They already have access to government healthcare! It's called Medicaid! Medicaid and Medicare already act like the private insurance companies. They also try to get out of paying for services. My wife, who is disabled and qualifies for Social Security and Medicare, has trouble getting Medicare to pay because they claim they are secondary to my company insurance. She qualifies for the plan but they refuse to pay! Imagine that!!!! The government refusing to pay! Her sister was also a disabled single mother...she had problems as well. And you advocate more of the same!

The poor also have access to state run hospitals! But they do not take advantage of these....they'd rather show up in a private hospitals emergency room, who HAS to see them (another gift of liberal policies) and then stiff the hospital for the bill. Why, because in most cases the state run hospital gives substandard basic care. Now, it most cases their trauma centers are the place to go, but basic care is lacking.

And you advocate more of the same........

Your comparison of police and fire fighters to health care is, as usual, bogus! These are two different occupations and the certifications for those are completely different. When lawsuits are filed against a city or municipality for negligent actions of police or firefighters it is tough to get any compensation from the city or municipality. Imagine that on a government doctor, malpractice would be a thing of the past, since it is very hard to sue city and state government entities and it is almost impossible to sue the federal government.

Imagine trying to sue the federal universal health care for malpractice.....

Republicans should love this compromise. Many requirements such as Americans must have health insurance are the same that the current leading Republican candidate for President; Mitt sold to MA. If anything Hillary should be criticized for stealing parts of a Republican plan.

Do I dare point out the quality of life is significantly higher in many european countries?

Kinda hard to do that from mommy's basement.

God forbid you would have to actually do research or think...

What would you know about either--or God, for that matter?

Folks, let's try and guess libtardT's age. My guess is 22...but brain-dead at age 8...

liberalTeen,

If you believe "the quality of life is significantly higher in many European countries", you and your liberal friends should move there!

You'd be happier! We'd be happier!

AAR

LiberalT,

You make a false dichotomy - it isn't a matter of do I want health care for children or not, but what is the best means of providing it.

Thinking of health care as being the same as police and fire departments is a bit screwball - we only need police and fire in dire emergencies, and thus we can get along with actually a quite small number of each. Health care is far more complex and far more needed - it is, mostly, routine. Its the difference between having a police force on general patrol and responding to alarms and having a cop on each block, just in case he's needed that day.

Here's your real question: What have you done to provide health care for children? You are making demands upon us, and thus we have a right to know what your contribution is. Have you donated to organizations providing low-income health care? Volunteered at inner city clinics? Bestirred yourself to learn medicine with a mind towards willingly providing services at low cost? Morality isn't cheap - it comes with a high cost.

There are, of course, very many charitible organizations out there providing health care - most of them based upon some sort of religious denomination; some are, however, entirely secular in outlook. It is my view that rather than make a massive, government-run (and thus inherently costly) health system, we should just determine what the needs of low income health care are, and then provide the money to any reputable groups (ie, those who have a good track record, or at least come highly recommended by groups with a good track record) who will take care of it for us.

Why doesn't this idea commend itself to the left? Because when you involve, say, the Catholic Church, you wouldn't be able to get abortions. Also, it doesn't allow bureaucrats to empire-build. Finally, it provides little "look what I did for you" stuff for elected officials. But this is the best means of providing quality health care to low income people...and, by putting this low cost health care out there, driving down the cost for everyone else.

no - fundamentally there is no difference - there are many services which have the same sort of requirements that health care does (that you need more often, that are expensive, that ...) its not that there is something so different about it - but rather that you just don't want to pay for it. Once you admit that we can move forward. You have offered nothing except for rhetoric to retort this - I use the roads every day , the military is expensive, etc, etc etc,.

Hey, did TiredofLibBullsh*t make a discovery here? Is libtardT really teenageliberal and not kblockhead?

Then my guess of "22" is way off...but I'm still correct about the "brain-dead at age 8" assertion...

If anything Hillary should be criticized for stealing parts of a Republican plan.

If anything, Plainlamejane should be criticized for stealing the brain of a dead lobotomy patient...

LiberalT,

Ah, you almost get it...and then you swerve away from it, afraid to contemplate that your liberalism might not be the end-all of thinking.

Seriously, think about it - perhaps God is calling you? Maybe your mission in life is to bring health care to the poor...think about how you would do this.

Rule Number One:

You don't know everything.

That means a lot more than you think it does, if you consider it carefully.

Mark - i am not sure what that even means. I never claimed to have all the answers or to be right 100% of the time. I simply know this - there is no reason other than you and other people like you - who would rather spend a fortune invading other countries for oil than caring for our most disadvantaged.

Seriously Mark - you never answered - what do you think Jesus would think about Universal Health care? Scared of the answer?

Seriously Mark - you never answered - what do you think Jesus would think about Universal Health care? Scared of the answer?

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Got an inside line to Jesus, libtardTkblock? You want Mark to offer an opinion so you can debate "why he's wrong?"

As if you're an expert on any subject; I'll bet you're not even potty trained, are ya, girlfriend?

LiberalT,

It is the starting point on your path to wisdom - you're understanding that you don't know everything. The next step is to understand that you can't know everything - no matter how hard you try or how long you live, most of what can be known will be unknown by you.

Vis a vis health care, the things you don't know include:

How many doctors we'll need in 2017; how many hospital beds we'll need; whether we'll need more OB/GYN's or Cardiologists; what sort of medical advances will have taken place; how many people will be alive; what the economy will be like; what the fertility rate will be...

Not only will you not know these things - and hundreds of others - you will NEVER know the answer until 2017 rolls around and you actually see what is happening...but if, meanwhile, you have set up a government-run health system and have decided that we need a crash course in Cardiologists, then you might find Cardiologists going begging for work while there is a massive shortage of OB/GYNs. At best, you are making educated guesses about what we'll need - and yet you think it is a good idea to straightjacket ourselves into a government system, which by its very nature will lack the suppleness of private industry in responding to changing conditions.

You don't know everything - kneel down, be humble. Acknowledge it - and pray God to give you wisdom to do your best with the gifts He has given you.

What would Jesus have to say? That he wants us to care for the least of these - no, not that he wants you to vote for Hillary (or Obama, or Edwards, or what have you) who will then pass a law...he wants YOU to care for the least of these. Right now. This very night.

We all fall short of Our Lord's commands - but rather than whistling up another law and calling into existence a massive, new government entity...perhaps you should just send $20 to Missionaries of the Poor? They are actually out there, this very night, taking care of the least of these which you (and I) in our selfishness have not gone out to help.

thats a very interesting answer Mark. So you agree that Jesus would want us to take care of the poorest of the poor. I do donate to charity and I do go to the local homeless shelter and volunteer. But we can do more than that Mark - if you are willing to occasionally send 20 to a charity to help these people why not work together in order to solve our problems.

That is what government is suppose to be about. Yes it is broken but that is not because it fundamentally cannot work but rather because we are not giving enough back to the governemnt. Why would you want to give health care of your family, yourself, and the poorest of the poor to a corporation. I am not one of these people who believes corporations and capitalism are inherently evil entities. What do believe is that a corporation's primary interest , actually by law, is to make profit for its share holders. Therefore - by definition - it is not looking to provide the best and cheapest health care for everyone (though it could happen as a consequence - but not likely) but rather to maximize profits. Many years of a failed system in which the insurance companies get rich while people suffer have proved this system not to work.
Why not work together to fix the problem than to continue the failed policies of the past. Why not learn from other countries that have excellent universal health care but also learn from the mistakes they made in their systems.
I just cannot understand why you think handing these things over to a corporation is a good idea. This is where it has gotten to us now - a failed system where a large fraction of the population cannot afford health care and many of those that do are in peril of being hoodwinked out of proper care so that the insurence companies can profit.

Think about it for a second. How can an insurence company maximize profit? By getting the most people possible to pay them the most money possible while giving out the fewest benefits possible. Now its always an optimization because if they don't give any benefits then nobody will buy their health care - but by definition the maximization of these equations will not be the maximum health care - but by DEFINITION the maximum profit for the companies. Why have a system which maximizes profit rather than care?

LiberalT,

It is a common misconception that insurance companies make their money off premiums...they don't; they make their money off investing the premiums. It isn't paying out claims which they are trying to stop (insurance companies keep large amounts of liquid assets close at hand for just such things) but a matter of ensuring that they aren't viewed as ATMs for whatever happens to be the issue of the day. Usually, what isn't covered vis a vis health care is the newest, least tried and most expensive therapies. Because of this, we can always get stories of some poor soul who didn't get this particular treatment which (in reality) only might have helped them (though in the heart-rending MSM stories, it is always presented as a sure cure). Once a therapy becomes common, it is invariably covered, because failure to cover it would open up the insurance company for a lawsuit.

Over just this past year, working with private insurance companies, both the Mrs and I have had, between us, two colonoscopies, one colon surgery, two MRIs, various prescription medications presecribed to us, a one-week hospital stay (in regard to that colon surgery), a large number of lab tests, and about a dozen routine doctor appointments. Our out-of-pocket has been a couple hundred dollars.

In contrast to this, I've spent $3,400 on dental care...so, if you want to pitch a fit with me over insurance companies, then your line of complaint should be over dental insurance...on the other hand, had I taken better care of my teeth, I probably never would have needed all that work.

Now, as you can see vis a vis dental care, insurance companies can be infuriating - heck, this year we've even had quite a wrangle over car insurance and getting a bumper fixed after a fender-bender. The problem with insurnace companies is the problem with all human enterprise - it is staffed with humans. Fallible creatures who WILL get it wrong from time to time. The diference between the bone-heads at the insurance companies and the bone-heads-to-be at Hillary Care is that you and I can sue the heck out of the insurance company if they really mess up...but you will not be able to sue Hillary Care, no matter how badly they screw up. Gross negligence at Hillary Care could lead directly to your untimely demise, and there would be no real recourse for your family, while you would be with Our Lord, putting in a kind word for me because I was so incredibly right about the pitfalls of Hillary Care.

Government takes incompetance to whole, new levels - because there's nothing we can do except at election time, and even that would only be an indirect reaction, which may or may not have a genuine effect on the persons responsible for the actual screw ups (people who will, almost certainly, have strong union and civil service protections against punitive action). Its not that I don't want everyone to have reasonable access to basic health care, but that I know for certain that the government cannot do it - not now, not ever.

Give money to charity - heck, as I said, I'll even send $220 billion in taxpayer dollars to charity (which is twice what Hillary's plan will cost)...because the charity groups will actually do the job, and without all the flapdoodle of a government program...of course, as I said, at the Catholic charity you'll get a dose of the gospel and no abortion; same with the Evangelical charity...and that is what will prevent Noonan Care from becoming law...the stumbling block of baby-butchering not being part of it.

This, in turn, demonstrates what is really up with the liberal desire for universal health care - not that health care be dispensed, but that lives be controlled, and directed ever more towards liberalism.