Letter: Forbestown event a success

I would rather be taxed to provide for America's health than be taxed to destroy Iraq.

The fact is , prior to anyone voting for George Bush, Congress voted to remove SH from power. We did so in a manner repulsive to you. So what I get out of that is when Congress passes resolution after resolution, your ok with those being just words and no action. Forward to today. Just exactly why much of the nation is up in arms (so to speak). We know a liberal Congress will say just about anything and forget it tomorrow. We all want heath care reform and those of us on the right want it in writting so we can talk about what it means and influence how it is enacted. In other words, we are more concerned about what action those words will lead to. You all just want to feel good about words and the action and out come is irrelavant.

Wildcat wrote:

I would rather be taxed to provide for America's health than be taxed to destroy Iraq.

Amen.

Get real!
Bush increased the government in size and really screwed up this country, financially. Two wars out of control. No wonder this pathetic country is broke. Health care is another reason to blame right wing idiots like Wally Herger!

Well Bill, all I ask is that you back up your misinformed opinion with action. You let me see that you will not accept medicare and Social Security and I will applaud you. Until then, you are only one more misinformed person with an opinion and a computer.

tiredofthesos wrote:

Do these needlessly, but obviously willingly, frightened people even know what the word "Option" in "Public Option" mean?
Do they, in fact, understand anything that doesn't match their very, very extreme and ignorance-(often hate-) based prejudices?
(Yeah, I know. But they shouldn't even BE rhetorical questions!)

In a time of crisis, each person responds with their strength. People whose strength is their ability to think and understand, think and speak. Those whose strength is action, jump into action when they understand what they need to do. Then there are the rest- they neither think well nor act well. They just emote- gush. They use whatever misinformed spin they can remember to reinforce their emotional drooling. Just look around- people love to show off their strength. It will NEVER work to ask them to reason, it's foreign territory.

Don wrote:

<quoted text>
In a time of crisis, each person responds with their strength. People whose strength is their ability to think and understand, think and speak. Those whose strength is action, jump into action when they understand what they need to do. Then there are the rest- they neither think well nor act well. They just emote- gush. They use whatever misinformed spin they can remember to reinforce their emotional drooling. Just look around- people love to show off their strength. It will NEVER work to ask them to reason, it's foreign territory.

Change is a frightening thing for those who are unwilling to expand the boundaries of their comfort zones.

It's not likely that you are going to be taxed any more if your income puts you in the "struggling" category. As there is no final wording on any bill, it is premature to say what is in the bill. To state as fact that abortions are to be funded is to lie. Under no plan being considered would government make medical decisions. Currently though, private insurance makes medical decisions every day. When "for profit" entities make decisions on health care, you can bet that patient loses.

Wildcat wrote:

I would rather be taxed to provide for America's health than be taxed to destroy Iraq.

I agree!

Mr. Chambers is attempting to oversimplify the whole, high complex matter of health care reform into the issue of whether or not government ought to pay women for their abortions. He briefly mentions his belief that Democratic health care reform will raise out taxes.

Mr. Chambers argument may have appeal to those determined to decide this highly complex matter with over simplified distortions of fact. For those to whom reality is important, it will easily become apparent the reform will not include government funding of abortions, even while some abortions are unquestionably health related. As to taxes, there is a broad recognition that the reform package must be tax neutral and that to accomplish this task the federal budget will have to be adjusted to achieve this goal.

In passing it might be noted that few from the "no new taxes" crowd bat an eye when defense spending is increased by $1 trillion over a decade. One might wonder if the Dems proposed another $trillion/decade increase in defense spending whether Republicans wouldn't argue the increase ought to be more. The question is then why its so easy to spend money on defense, adding to a grotesquely over bloated existing defense budget, but impermissable to spend money to assure all Americans have access to affordable, good, basic health care? If defense was really about protecting the homeland and securing our freedom, we could probably do that for about $150 billion a year. Our defense spending is mostly to defend and expand our worldwide hegemony and we ought to ask whether that goal is more important than assuring every American has affordable access to good, basic health care.

Surveys have shown that Medicare is better run at a lower cost than private insurance. Additionally, Medicare provides better access to care than private insurance.
I would really like to see some of these republicans offer to give up Medicare and go out and buy private insurance.

Rather than talk about how to improve the health care industry why are the democrats so hell bent on nationalizing the health care industry?

If they succeed they will take government spending from about 20-25 percent of GDP to almost 50 percent of GDP.

Under the guise of "health care reform" the left is attempting to create another constituency. Keep in mind the NHS (british health care system) is the third largest employer in the world.

We've all seen government in action - Barney Frank and Co. with their Fannie May fiasco to California's welfare spending. So obviously the correct course of action now is to create more of it.

The biggest lie they tell is -

"You can keep your private insurance" -

However, under HR3200 Section 412 how long will that be true?.

Section 412 is the provision the requires employers who do not provide health insurance to pay a excise tax of 8% of an employees wages.

And for employers with smaller payrolls the tax is graduated down to zero.

The reality is that the provisions of section 412 are designed as an incentive to turn you over to the public option because it will be less expensive to pay the tax than providing you insurance.

The current numbers look rather benign. Once they get this section on the books they can be adjusted over time until the Public Option (government insurance) is the only option.

Government run - nationalized health care - single payer - universal health care - is the goal. The Democrats have said so. They just aren't saying now because they know most of you won't go along with it.

So one has to ask why are they lying about it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

A link to HR3200

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/...

Mr Chambers needs to step away from the grape kool-aid!

Ignorance is bliss. Wlllful ignorance is stupidity.

Conservative opposition to government run health care is amazing. This fear about having the government run health care is so weird when you examine how insurance companies operate. Before any expensive procedure, your doctor must call an insurance company for authorization. I and my family have been forced to accept cheaper medications and services because our insurance would not fund what our doctor recommended. How is this better than government run health care?

Talk about rationing health care - now it is rationed for only those who are health and have the money or good job to pay for insurance. Our current "private insurance" system of health care is so great that we spend nearly double the amount any other industrialized country while 47 million are uninsured. Our “private insurance” system of health care is so great that even with insurance thousands are forced into bankruptcy because insurance never pays the full amount. Private insurance is so great that their profit is 20-30 percent of all money they receive is profit, where Medicare’s overhead is about 4%.

I better stop because facts are not what conservatives what to hear. Instead, I probably should try some rumors or make something up to continue the fear mongering.

Poorly written article with an obvious religious bias.

taxpayer wrote:

Surveys have shown that Medicare is better run at a lower cost than private insurance. Additionally, Medicare provides better access to care than private insurance.
I would really like to see some of these republicans offer to give up Medicare and go out and buy private insurance.

1. Medicare is already underfunded.

2. Medicare is intended for the retired and elderly.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/h...

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

<quoted text>
Change is a frightening thing for those who are unwilling to expand the boundaries of their comfort zones.

You're absolutely right. And when the topics are sacred cows like health care, prople resist change even moreso. "You want me to trade what I know and depend on for something I know nothing about" is terribly disarming. I see it every year- High school seniors, anxious to get out. Then, long about April/May, the reality hits them- the world is full of unknowns. The secret is personal confidence in one's ability to adapt and adjust but the tendency is to resist.

Eric Severide wrote:

It's not likely that you are going to be taxed any more if your income puts you in the "struggling" category. As there is no final wording on any bill, it is premature to say what is in the bill. To state as fact that abortions are to be funded is to lie. Under no plan being considered would government make medical decisions. Currently though, private insurance makes medical decisions every day. When "for profit" entities make decisions on health care, you can bet that patient loses.

Right on, well-stated

Buster202 wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Medicare is already underfunded.
2. Medicare is intended for the retired and elderly.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/h...

and Medicare beneficiaries have paid into the system for at least 10 years (40 quarters) for a policy that has a $1000 deductible for hospitalization,$124 deductible for physician visits, and 80% co-insurance. The Part B costs $96 per month. Medicare does not cover Rx meds. To ensure that a retired person has enough coverage, they should purchase a Medicare Supp (~$120 per month) and a Part D Drug plan (~$35 per month) and the system is going broke! To add it up, the Medicare and supplemental plans cost $254 per month.