Healthcare – Is it about the Money, t...

Healthcare – Is it about the Money, the People, or Government Power?

Posted in the Denver Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Aug 09

Englewood, CO

#1 Nov 1, 2009
I have been watching the Health-care debate for a few short months. I say short because what Congress and the Senate have done to create this overwhelming Healthcare Bill has been done in a very short period of time, especially when you think of the Socialist change it will make to our economy and our way of life. Think about giving up 6% of the free market to a Government you are not sure you can trust and putting it entirely in their pocket. It is like giving up your life savings to a bank that isn’t FDIC insured.

I ask the question: Is what Congress doing about the people, the money or Government Power? Let’s look at some of the cause and affects of each one individually so that we can further research on our own to determine if it is in the best interests of the U. S. citizens, and THEN call our congressional representatives and our Senators with how opposed, or in the unlikely event you are for it, that you want this healthcare bill to pass. Please don’t go looking for another Obama or Pelosi like half-truth, or just say shut up (
) if you respond to this blog. Instead, think about the cause and effect of this legislative boondoggle and the consequences for the super-majority of the U.S. citizens.

Since: Aug 09

Englewood, CO

#3 Nov 1, 2009
The Union leadership is for the government healthcare, but it is at the detriment of the Union membership. Healthcare is one of the biggest reasons Unions have the membership they have. I know that Unions work long and hard at negotiating for their membership, their wages, their time-off, their right to due process and the membership health benefits. Healthcare is a key ingredient that the Union Leadership seems to be willing to give up. If the government controls the healthcare insurance, the current membership suffers because they will belong to a system where they no longer get the care they get today. Instead because of a shortage of doctors, more people to care for and a disincentive to become a doctor (thus less quality professionals) the union membership will suffer because of their leaderships desire to have some say with the democratic party. And if Government controls this portion of the negotiations they will in the long term have less say. After all, why join a Union when the government provides it for you? Our Unions helped build the nation as I know it, they have provided for fairer wages for all, more benefits for all and the leadership of these Unions has been destroying what was once great about them because of their own perceived power.
Is it about the people? Well if the 2-6% people within the U.S. population including people who are not in the U.S. legally, depending on whose numbers you use, are to benefit from everybody else’s hard work or lifetime of savings and how these hard working people will be taxed, then yes it is about the people.
Is it about money? Sure it is about the money. The current administration looks at the dollars efficiently run insurance companies can make and says:“Why can’t we have that money?” The answer is pretty simple, government is not efficient. It is not built to be efficient. It is built in our country to secure the nation and give us opportunity. I am glad we have Social Security, but the government constantly robs it to pay for other special congressional projects. I am glad we have Medicaid and Medicare but the government claims they are almost bankrupt (put this in perspective to a government run public option because in a sense that is what it is on a smaller scale.)
The numbers from the Administration and the GAO are different for a reason. I assume the Administration believes this is the goose that laid the golden egg and believes this healthcare system will save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for three reasons: 1) They must believe they can be more efficient than they have ever been in the past, or that of other countries, so they can get some of the “profits” that efficiently run healthcare companies make. Part of this probably comes from a great orators ego, part of it comes from their own perception that the previous President wasn’t a good administrator without looking at the compromises made with Daschle, Pelosi, Reid and a non-super-majority Senate in any of those 8 years; 2) They know from other nation’s experiences that the elderly and those who are truly in bad health suffer from this program so they die sooner and it keeps Social Security from having to pay off for so long; and 3) They know that when you are talking about such huge numbers it is easy to skew the expenses and if they are wrong they can always increase taxes.
I find it interesting that the Swiss are a big part of the article I have put at the bottom of this blog called New Exotic Investments Emerging on Wall Street By JENNY ANDERSON published on 6 September 2009 by The New York Times Late Edition – Final where people are betting in the sick and elderly annuities in a bet that they will die sooner. This seems to be a product ripe for the proposed healthcare policy.

Since: Aug 09

Englewood, CO

#4 Nov 1, 2009
New Exotic Investments Emerging on Wall Street
By JENNY ANDERSON
2649 words
6 September 2009
The New York Times
NYTF
Late Edition - Final
1
English
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.
After the mortgage business imploded last year, Wall Street investment banks began searching for another big idea to make money. They think they may have found one.
The bankers plan to buy ''life settlements,'' life insurance policies that ill and elderly people sell for cash --$400,000 for a $1 million policy, say, depending on the life expectancy of the insured person. Then they plan to ''securitize'' these policies, in Wall Street jargon, by packaging hundreds or thousands together into bonds. They will then resell those bonds to investors, like big pension funds, who will receive the payouts when people with the insurance die.
The earlier the policyholder dies, the bigger the return -- though if people live longer than expected, investors could get poor returns or even lose money.
Either way, Wall Street would profit by pocketing sizable fees for creating the bonds, reselling them and subsequently trading them. But some who have studied life settlements warn that insurers might have to raise premiums in the short term if they end up having to pay out more death claims than they had anticipated.
The idea is still in the planning stages. But already ''our phones have been ringing off the hook with inquiries,'' says Kathleen Tillwitz, a senior vice president at DBRS, which gives risk ratings to investments and is reviewing nine proposals for life-insurance securitizations from private investors and financial firms, including Credit Suisse.
''We're hoping to get a herd stampeding after the first offering,'' said one investment banker not authorized to speak to the news media.
In the aftermath of the financial meltdown, exotic investments dreamed up by Wall Street got much of the blame. It was not just subprime mortgage securities but an array of products -- credit-default swaps, structured investment vehicles, collateralized debt obligations -- that proved far riskier than anticipated.
The debacle gave financial wizardry a bad name generally, but not on Wall Street. Even as Washington debates increased financial regulation, bankers are scurrying to concoct new products.
In addition to securitizing life settlements, for example, some banks are repackaging their money-losing securities into higher-rated ones, called re-remics (re-securitization of real estate mortgage investment conduits). Morgan Stanley says at least $30 billion in residential re-remics have been done this year.
Financial innovation can be good, of course, by lowering the cost of borrowing for everyone, giving consumers more investment choices and, more broadly, by helping the economy to grow. And the proponents of securitizing life settlements say it would benefit people who want to cash out their policies while they are alive.
But some are dismayed by Wall Street's quick return to its old ways, chasing profits with complicated new products.

Since: Aug 09

Englewood, CO

#5 Nov 1, 2009
''It's bittersweet,'' said James D. Cox, a professor of corporate and securities law at Duke University.''The sweet part is there are investors interested in exotic products created by underwriters who make large fees and rating agencies who then get paid to confer ratings. The bitter part is it's a return to the good old days.''
Indeed, what is good for Wall Street could be bad for the insurance industry, and perhaps for customers, too. That is because policyholders often let their life insurance lapse before they die, for a variety of reasons -- their children grow up and no longer need the financial protection, or the premiums become too expensive. When that happens, the insurer does not have to make a payout.
But if a policy is purchased and packaged into a security, investors will keep paying the premiums that might have been abandoned; as a result, more policies will stay in force, ensuring more payouts over time and less money for the insurance companies.
''When they set their premiums they were basing them on assumptions that were wrong,'' said Neil A. Doherty, a professor at Wharton who has studied life settlements.
Indeed, Mr. Doherty says that in reaction to widespread securitization, insurers most likely would have to raise the premiums on new life policies.
Critics of life settlements believe ''this defeats the idea of what life insurance is supposed to be,'' said Steven Weisbart, senior vice president and chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, a trade group.''It's not an investment product, a gambling product.''
After Mortgages
Undeterred, Wall Street is racing ahead for a simple reason: With $26 trillion of life insurance policies in force in the United States, the market could be huge.
Not all policyholders would be interested in selling their policies, of course. And investors are not interested in healthy people's policies because they would have to pay those premiums for too long, reducing profits on the investment.
But even if a small fraction of policy holders do sell them, some in the industry predict the market could reach $500 billion. That would help Wall Street offset the loss of revenue from the collapse of the United States residential mortgage securities market, to $169 billion so far this year from a peak of $941 billion in 2005, according to Dealogic, a firm that tracks financial data.
Some financial firms are moving to outpace their rivals. Credit Suisse, for example, is in effect building a financial assembly line to buy large numbers of life insurance policies, package and resell them -- just as Wall Street firms did with subprime securities.
The bank bought a company that originates life settlements, and it has set up a group dedicated to structuring deals and one to sell the products.
Goldman Sachs has developed a tradable index of life settlements, enabling investors to bet on whether people will live longer than expected or die sooner than planned. The index is similar to tradable stock market indices that allow investors to bet on the overall direction of the market without buying stocks.
Spokesmen for Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs declined to comment.
If Wall Street succeeds in securitizing life insurance policies, it would take a controversial business -- the buying and selling of policies -- that has been around on a smaller scale for a couple of decades and potentially increase it drastically.
Defenders of life settlements argue that creating a market to allow the ill or elderly to sell their policies for cash is a public service. Insurance companies, they note, offer only a ''cash surrender value,'' typically at a small fraction of the death benefit, when a policyholder wants to cash out, even after paying large premiums for many years.
Enter life settlement companies. Depending on various factors, they will pay 20 to 200 percent more than the surrender value an insurer would pay.

Since: Aug 09

Englewood, CO

#6 Nov 1, 2009
But the industry has been plagued by fraud complaints. State insurance regulators, hamstrung by a patchwork of laws and regulations, have criticized life settlement brokers for coercing the ill and elderly to take out policies with the sole purpose of selling them back to the brokers, called ''stranger-owned life insurance.''
In 2006, while he was New York attorney general, Eliot Spitzer sued Coventry, one of the largest life settlement companies, accusing it of engaging in bid-rigging with rivals to keep down prices offered to people who wanted to sell their policies. The case is continuing.
''Predators in the life settlement market have the motive, means and, if left unchecked by legislators and regulators and by their own community, the opportunity to take advantage of seniors,'' Stephan Leimberg, co-author of a book on life settlements, testified at a Senate Special Committee on Aging last April.
Tricky Predictions

Since: Aug 09

Englewood, CO

#7 Nov 1, 2009
In addition to fraud, there is another potential risk for investors: that some people could live far longer than expected.
It is not just a hypothetical risk. That is what happened in the 1980s, when new treatments prolonged the life of AIDS patients. Investors who bought their policies on the expectation that the most victims would die within two years ended up losing money.
It happened again last fall when companies that calculate life expectancy determined that people were living longer.
The challenge for Wall Street is to make securitized life insurance policies more predictable -- and, ideally, safer -- investments. And for any securitized bond to interest big investors, a seal of approval is needed from a credit rating agency that measures the level of risk.
In many ways, banks are seeking to replicate the model of subprime mortgage securities, which became popular after ratings agencies bestowed on them the comfort of a top-tier, triple-A rating. An individual mortgage to a home buyer with poor credit might have been considered risky, because of the possibility of default; but packaging lots of mortgages together limited risk, the theory went, because it was unlikely many would default at the same time.
While that idea was, in retrospect, badly flawed, Wall Street is convinced that it can solve the risk riddle with securitized life settlement policies.
That is why bankers from Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs have been visiting DBRS, a little known rating agency in lower Manhattan.
In early 2008, the firm published criteria for ways to securitize a life settlements portfolio so that the risks were minimized.
Interest poured in. Hedge funds that have acquired life settlements, for example, are keen to buy and sell policies more easily, so they can cash out both on investments that are losing money and on ones that are profitable. Wall Street banks, beaten down by the financial crisis, are looking to get their securitization machines humming again.
Ms. Tillwitz, an executive overseeing the project for DBRS, said the firm spent nine months getting comfortable with the myriad risks associated with rating a pool of life settlements.
Could a way be found to protect against possible fraud by agents buying insurance policies and reselling them -- to avoid problems like those in the subprime mortgage market, where some brokers made fraudulent loans that ended up in packages of securities sold to investors? How could investors be assured that the policies were legitimately acquired, so that the payouts would not be disputed when the original policyholder died?
And how could they make sure that policies being bought were legally sellable, given that some states prohibit the sale of policies until they have been in force two to five years?
Spreading the Risk
To help understand how to manage these risks, Ms. Tillwitz and her colleague Jan Buckler -- a mathematics whiz with a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering -- traveled the world visiting firms that handle life settlements.''We do not want to rate a deal that blows up,'' Ms. Tillwitz said.

Since: Aug 09

Englewood, CO

#8 Nov 1, 2009
The solution? A bond made up of life settlements would ideally have policies from people with a range of diseases -- leukemia, lung cancer, heart disease, breast cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's. That is because if too many people with leukemia are in the securitization portfolio, and a cure is developed, the value of the bond would plummet.
As an added precaution, DBRS would run background checks on all issuers. Also, a range of quality of life insurers would have to be included.
To test how different mixes of policies would perform, Mr. Buckler has run computer simulations to show what would happen to returns if people lived significantly longer than expected.
But even with a math whiz calculating every possibility, some risks may not be apparent until after the fact. How can a computer accurately predict what would happen if health reform passed, for example, and better care for a large number of Americans meant that people generally started living longer? Or if a magic-bullet cure for all types of cancer was developed?
If the computer models were wrong, investors could lose a lot of money.
As unlikely as those assumptions may seem, that is effectively what happened with many securitized subprime loans that were given triple-A ratings.
Investment banks that sold these securities sought to lower the risks by, among other things, packaging mortgages from different regions and with differing credit levels of the borrowers. They thought that if house prices dropped in one region -- say Florida, causing widespread defaults in that part of the portfolio -- it was highly unlikely that they would fall at the same time in, say, California.
Indeed, economists noted that historically, housing prices had fallen regionally but never nationwide. When they did fall nationwide, investors lost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Both Standard & Poor's and Moody's, which gave out many triple-A ratings and were burned by that experience, are approaching life settlements with greater caution.

Since: Aug 09

Englewood, CO

#9 Nov 1, 2009
Standard & Poor's, which rated a similar deal called Dignity Partners in the 1990s, declined to comment on its plans. Moody's said it has been approached by financial firms interested in securitizing life settlements, but has not yet seen a portfolio of policies that meets its standards.
Investor Appetite
Despite the mortgage debacle, investors like Andrew Terrell are intrigued.
Mr. Terrell was the co-head of Bear Stearns's longevity and mortality desk -- which traded unrated portfolios of life settlements -- and later worked at Goldman Sachs's Institutional Life Companies, a venture that was introducing a trading platform for life settlements. He thinks securitized life policies have big potential, explaining that investors who want to spread their risks are constantly looking for new investments that do not move in tandem with their other investments.
''It's an interesting asset class because it's less correlated to the rest of the market than other asset classes,'' Mr. Terrell said.
Some academics who have studied life settlement securitization agree it is a good idea. One difference, they concur, is that death is not correlated to the rise and fall of stocks.
''These assets do not have risks that are difficult to estimate and they are not, for the most part, exposed to broader economic risks,'' said Joshua Coval, a professor of finance at the Harvard Business School.''By pooling and tranching, you are not amplifying systemic risks in the underlying assets.''
The insurance industry is girding for a fight.''Just as all mortgage providers have been tarred by subprime mortgages, so too is the concern that all life insurance companies would be tarred with the brush of subprime life insurance settlements,'' said Michael Lovendusky, vice president and associate general counsel of the American Council of Life Insurers, a trade group that represents life insurance companies.
And the industry may find allies in government. Among those expressing concern about life settlements at the Senate committee hearing in April were insurance regulators from Florida and Illinois, who argued that regulation was inadequate.
''The securitization of life settlements adds another element of possible risk to an industry that is already in need of enhanced regulations, more transparency and consumer safeguards,'' said Senator Herb Kohl, the Democrat from Wisconsin who is chairman of the Special Committee on Aging.
DBRS agrees on the need to be careful.''We want this market to flourish in a safe way,'' Ms. Tillwitz said.
PHOTOS: RATING THE NEW PRODUCTS: Jan Buckler and Kathleen Tillwitz of DBRS, which is reviewing proposals for lifeinsurance securitizations.(PHOTOGRAPH BY MICHAEL APPLETON FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)(pg. A24)
CHARTS: Looking to Profit From Life Insurance: Elderly and ill people with whole or universal life insurance policies can sometimes sell those policies back to insurance companies for cash, but tend not to get very much. Now Wall Street hopes to make big profits by buying those policies.; SECURITIZATION ..: A bank takes a large group of purchased policies and puts them together, a process called securitization, and sells them to investors. One of the ways the bank cuts risk is to combine policies from people with differing life expectancies and a variety of diseases.; Previous Boom and Bust: The market for mortgage securities has shrunk to less than a fifth of its peak size.(Source: Dealogic)(pg. A24)

Since: Aug 09

Denver, CO

#13 Nov 2, 2009
I want to apologize here, for being misleading, after some comments I received I found the following comment not to be truthful:

(A side note here Ed Perlmutter is a Congressman and probably won’t have to live in the same system he creates. Much like he doesn’t have to worry about getting paid if Social Security goes bankrupt.)

Though Ed is a member of Congress. All Congress, puts their fair share into social security, so they do get this benefit. They also get a special benefit under the "governement pension plan" they (and all federal employees put into) called FERS (I believe). Congress and their aids, because no one knows how long they will be re-elected, get an expedited time within which to qualify for this benefit. The amount they get in return is determined by the amount they put in and the formula FERS uses.

Most in Congress won't have to live under the Health care public option they create for a number of reasons, including their wealthand prestige.

I dpersonally believe that Mr. Perlmutter's plug for the health care plan is NOT because of his child (his child should be cared for and and I am sure loved by his family - oh by the way I support the C. A. R. E. S. act) but because of other special interests that Ed has in getting control of OUR health care. Unfortunately, I believe Ed uses his child's plight as a way to promote his own special interest (Machiavellian v Tocquevillian). I believe his special interest at this time is contrary to the best interest of his constituents.

I want to thank those who corrected me here.
cheapSKATE

Lewiston, ME

#14 Nov 3, 2009
$1,200,000,000,000 dollars 1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS

divided by 300,000,000 THREE HUNDRED MILLION AMERICANS

COMES TO $11 DOLLARS A DAY FOR HEALTH CARE FOR EVERY

MAN WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA.

I AM WILLING TO PAY 1 AND 1 HALF HOURS OF MY PAY

EVERYDAY , FOR HEALTH CARE
cjrian

Denver, CO

#15 Nov 3, 2009
JT, New thread with the first two posts on AHCAA. The next 5 are on "life settlements" and securitization.?????

Please, try to stick to a single topic per thread. Though these two topics may seem related, they are two distinct entities. Also, most often a thread (or response) is done in a single posting. Two occasionally, Three only in the most extreme and important cases. Seven postings is far too much. Come back later to add aditional thoughts (depending on how the thread evolves). Thx

cj
liftstation

United States

#16 Nov 3, 2009
We are hearing more and more each day about our own government trying to control the media and they are watching the internet like a hobo on a ham sandwich. There is a great deal at stake for the grand plan to come together. The current 1600 page health care bill is loaded to the rim with worthless garbage for the creation of multi level government departments where the biggest thing that get's done is deciding who is going to run for the morning coffee. The urgency is there for them because America is waking up and saying "hell no". They are counting on passing it and then America will forget. Our government IS the elephant in the room and it's growing. We now own 60% of General Motors and 10% of Chrysler and that's our money and we will never get a dime back from GM. The list goes on and on with bail outs. Bottom line, we are printing funny money and have our children in debt for $35,000/child. But here is the best part. Who is to blame for all this mess? And now they think we want more? Are they out of their minds. It's all about power and money. They are going to steal our money and if we let them, control us all by government invasion and regulation. You ask how can they take away our power when we can vote them out. How are we going to vote them out when millions of jobs are tied to the government, when people buy into the counterfeit crap "government is going to give us something", and when they control what we read and hear on the news. Government cannot give you one single thing unless they take it away from someone else.

Since: Aug 09

Denver, CO

#17 Nov 3, 2009
cjrian wrote:
JT, New thread with the first two posts on AHCAA. The next 5 are on "life settlements" and securitization.?????
Please, try to stick to a single topic per thread. Though these two topics may seem related, they are two distinct entities. Also, most often a thread (or response) is done in a single posting. Two occasionally, Three only in the most extreme and important cases. Seven postings is far too much. Come back later to add aditional thoughts (depending on how the thread evolves). Thx
cj
CJ,In response to your thoughts that these are unrelated I would say "follow the money". These securities make money when you shorten the lifespan of the people they represent. The bet here, I believe, is that the health care will pass and the life span of our population will decrease in such a proportion that the actuary tables are no longer accurate. Please note that one of the biggest "idea makers" here is the Swiss Bank that those in favor of the healthcare plan proport to be such a great plan.

Heck, they must no the effect they live in a system that takes care of the "peoples needs". I would also suggest looking at the problems of government healthcare in England and Canada. Or perhaps we can look right here at home with Medicare and Medicaid.

Thanks for your post.

Thaks for your response. My response to the bottom being about securitization. I would say "follow the money". It seems that in order to make money on these securitizations is to shorten the life
liftstation

United States

#18 Nov 4, 2009
Thank you for starting this post JT. I hope it keeps going. The current Nancy Please-shut-up plan is a stinking dung heap filled with the needs of special interest groups. If your health insurance rates have recently gone up, don't be surprised. The insurance companies are on board and sending us a message. Let's send a message back in 2010. Who do you think is going to run this great program Congress has planned? The government does not have insurance experts sitting in the wings waiting to jump into health care administration. THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL BE RUNING THE SHOW.
liftstation

United States

#19 Nov 4, 2009
Sorry for spelling....that's HEALTHCARE and RUNNING.

Sorry

Since: Aug 09

Englewood, CO

#20 Nov 7, 2009
Liftstaion thank you for your post.

Unfortunately the House of Representatives passed a bill that is certainly a long way from representing their constituents, us citizens. It passed by five votes. This bill in line with the Californization (see their economy) of our U.S. economy, the same economic ideas that led to what some say is the biggest recession since the Great Depression. I only hope that eventually wisdom and foresight prevail. Lo, though, I fear that our nations interests don't matter as much as our Congress' agenda.
cjrian

Denver, CO

#21 Nov 7, 2009
The House has just spit upon every Citizen and all generations of Citizens to come. These "people", who purport to represent us, have no shame. And come 2010, they will have no job. I don't they even begin to understand how angry they've made the electorate.

Since: Aug 09

Chicago, IL

#22 Nov 8, 2009
This "health care reform" comes as a surprise?

The wheeling and dealing has been going on since the election, this is the 'centerpiece" of Obama's legislative agenda... and it passes by a skin-thin margin. Remember, this is just step number one.

There still has to be a bill passed in the senate,(with anywhere between 500 - 1,000 amendments), and the a reconciliation between the house and senate bills.

It will likely be no earlier than February 2010 before this abomination is anywhere near final passage, and that puts us into the next political "silly-season". The question remains whether those who oppose this government take-over of health care will keep up the pressure.

The fact that the Democrats have a numerical majority is somewhat misleading.

The "horsetrading" that resulted in the squeak-by passage of this bill angered both the ultra-liberal and "conservative" wings of the Democrat party, while the Republicans suffered only one defection.

Will there eventually be some kind of "health care" law passed? Yes, and the Obama administration will trumpet this as a major victory.

Will this be a good thing for the American people? No it won't, but this is going to be just one more BOHICA,(Bend over, here it comes again) moment, brought to you by the politicians that the electorate keeps putting into office.

As long as folks keep believing that they can get "something for nothing" by paying for it out of public monies... and voting for the frauds that make those promises, we will get exactly the kind of government, Federal, State and local, that we deserve.

The only way to put a stop to the madness is to vote for whomever is running against the incumbent in next year's election, regardless of party. It's time to throw ALL the bums out and start over from scratch.

There are two chances of that happening, slim and none. Politicians have made themselves a nice living by following tow principles;

1) Contrary to all intelligent thought, you can always convince a majority of voters that there is such a thing as a free lunch,(especially if you make the "rich" pay for it),

2) You will never go wrong underestimating the stupidity of the majority of the "something-for-nothing " electorate.

Will the last American patriot standing please close the door... there's no point in turning out the lights because by that time the electricity will have been turned off anyway.
Level 3

Since: Sep 07

Golden

#23 Nov 8, 2009
You all have it right. This is SO not a newsflash- you knew the Dems wouldn't stand up to Obama for their constituents. And not just the Republican ones, but the ones who felt a stronger public option was important.

So, what's happening in Pakistan? In Afghanistan? In Iran, where Green Movement students are pleading with Obama for support while he continues to negotiate with a regime who hasn't told the truth for 35 years? How's it going on the job market? Have we made any real advancements towards becoming resource independent? Good grief- we have spent and committed to spending trillions, and for what? A man's pride and a party's goal to making everyone dependant on them? That's what I think.

Since: Aug 09

Denver, CO

#24 Nov 11, 2009
"tortminder" This "health care reform" comes as a surprise?
The wheeling and dealing has been going on since the election, this is the 'centerpiece" of Obama's legislative agenda... and it passes by a skin-thin margin. Remember, this is just step number one...QUOTE

What a great response. Thank you. I must agree in every aspect. The real problem comes as it did in England with the changes in the "direction" of our politicians and how they control all aspects of the market, how they can control population growth by determining what kind of people get care, how they can control the flow of money (they have already done it to the banks and Auto industry), it is strating to sound a lot like the 1950's and 1960's Russia that the U.S. at the time vowed never to become. Perhaps this philosophy comes from Hungary where the Dem's received a lot of their financial support the last few years?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Denver Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 4 min tbird19482 24,128
Lies and Poor Security Judgment but We Still Wa... 4 min Lanora 18
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Respect71 38,664
Mexicans (Mar '14) 12 hr Tom C 77
Democrats created and own racist Confederate flag Thu Terressa 3
last post wins! (Feb '11) Thu -Prince- 26,043
Best Bud Prices Wed truth 2

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages