Letter to the Editor: People are ready for health reform

It is kind of comforting to know that in this world of change, some things you can just count on -- like U.S. Rep.

[Mayor of Greenvillage]

Social sercurity and medicare are in trouble and as the baby boomers retire it's going to get worse. Ms Wooley says nothing abour how Washington going pay for all this free hearth care. the tone of her LTE is Congress has a endless supply of money.

[bogie]

susan,you poor soul, did you never hear of tort reform.

[Grumpy]

Of course people are ready for health care reform. But to me that means reform of the cost structure not a surrender of my rights and privacy to the federal government. Interesting that you mention Medicare and Social Security as being programs that no one wants to abolish and you are correct. But both programs are in severe financial trouble and will require huge efforts to restructure. I personally would rather see government demonstrate that it can fix what it has before it attempts to take on another huge responsibility with a hastily conceived and not well understood piece of legislation.

[Uncle Wiggly]

Holding up Medicare and Social Security as shining examples of government run programs is a joke. Both are disasters and on the verge of bankruptcy. Besides, if Medicare is so good, why do Obama and the Democrats have plans to make deep cuts in the program as part of their socialized medicine scheme?
Shuster is representing his constituents, who are against socialized medicine by an overwhelming margin. In fact, the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, according to the Rasmussen polls, and Rasmussen is the most accurate pollster, having called the 2008 election and all of this year's elections right on the nose.

[Dave]

Good letter pointing out Shuster's party loyaly over the good of the people.

Medicare, as a program, needs to to be monitored & adjusted as our population ages. This has not been done. This is the problem not with the system, but with politics.

The idea that medical expenses are rising at a rate 2 or 3 times faster than incomes is what is driving the issue. For the past 10 - 20 years this has been the case.

No one said the healthcare was free. Just a different way of paying for it.

[Patriot]

Susan,

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to supply you with health care. If fact all the socail programs are in violation on the constitution. I would suggest you rise the question to Mr. Shuster "Why sir are you not fullfilling your oath to defend the constitution by bring forth bills to repeal these programs?"

If we wish to change the way our nation is structured to include these kind of cradle to grave plans there is a process for that. It's called a constitutional amendment. You will find it difficult to secure,(as intended).

Again I will point you all to:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.ht...

and here under section 8 you will see what powers congress is allowed. All other powers fall to the state.(again as intended)
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.h...

[Barry]

Dave wrote:

Good letter pointing out Shuster's party loyaly over the good of the people.
Medicare, as a program, needs to to be monitored & adjusted as our population ages. This has not been done. This is the problem not with the system, but with politics.
The idea that medical expenses are rising at a rate 2 or 3 times faster than incomes is what is driving the issue. For the past 10 - 20 years this has been the case.
No one said the healthcare was free. Just a different way of paying for it.

OBAMACARE - The efficiency of the Post Office and the compassion of the IRS

Not only will Obamacare add to the deficit, ration care, and put the goverbment in charge of your health but another myth about coverage for all is blown out of the water

Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait

WASHINGTON - You're afraid your cancer is back, and a health insurance company just turned you down.

Under the health care bills in Congress, you could apply for coverage through a new high-risk pool that President Barack Obama promises would immediately start serving patients with pre-existing medical problems.

Wait a second. Read the fine print. You may have to be uninsured for six months to qualify.

"If you are a cancer patient and have cancer now, you can't wait six months to go into a plan because your condition can go from bad to death," said Stephen Finan, a policy expert with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. He called the waiting period in the Senate bill "unacceptable."

Advocates for people with serious health problems, as well as some insurance experts, are raising questions about one of the most important upfront benefits in the Democratic health care legislation: a high-risk pool for the medically uninsurable.

Obama proposed the pool in his September health care speech to Congress. Intended to serve the most vulnerable as a temporary fail-safe, it would stay in place until 2013. That's when insurance companies would be banned from denying coverage because of medical problems.

Government subsidies to make coverage more affordable for millions of uninsured would also start that year.

Now, concerns are being raised about the design of the high-risk pools. In addition to the six-month wait, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough. The money would be used to help people in poor health pay premiums.

Obama credits his Republican presidential rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, for the risk-pools idea. But when the GOP candidate proposed it in 2008, the estimated cost was $7 billion to $10 billion a year.

The six-month wait is in the health care bill the Senate Finance Committee approved last month. To qualify for the pool, patients must be turned down for coverage because of a pre-existing condition and uninsured for at least six months.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/05/de...

[Termite]

Susan spams the lines of propaganda about scare tactics and socialized medicine. This monster bill is nothing but a power grab that, added to amnesty and cap and trade, will destroy what is left of our republic. Susan fails to name what clause in the Constitution empowers the govt. to take over health care. I agree that the cost of health care is outrageous, but having the clowns in D.C take it over will be a disaster.

[LIL JOHN]

Dave wrote:

Good letter pointing out Shuster's party loyaly over the good of the people.
Medicare, as a program, needs to to be monitored & adjusted as our population ages. This has not been done. This is the problem not with the system, but with politics.
The idea that medical expenses are rising at a rate 2 or 3 times faster than incomes is what is driving the issue. For the past 10 - 20 years this has been the case.
No one said the healthcare was free. Just a different way of paying for it.

''''No one said the healthcare was free. Just a different way of paying for it'''

Really ? A different way of paying for it!

Like ''subsidizing'' those that can't pay for it

Translation ---TAKING FROM YOU AND GIVING TO THEM!! Meanwhile you still have to pay for your own care!

A Socialist mandate !!!

BTW --- If you don't pay what they mandate , it's a $250,000 fine and/or 5 years in jail.

[Dave]

Barry wrote:

<quoted text>
OBAMACARE - The efficiency of the Post Office and the compassion of the IRS
Not only will Obamacare add to the deficit, ration care, and put the goverbment in charge of your health but another myth about coverage for all is blown out of the water
Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait
WASHINGTON - You're afraid your cancer is back, and a health insurance company just turned you down.
Under the health care bills in Congress, you could apply for coverage through a new high-risk pool that President Barack Obama promises would immediately start serving patients with pre-existing medical problems.
Wait a second. Read the fine print. You may have to be uninsured for six months to qualify.
"If you are a cancer patient and have cancer now, you can't wait six months to go into a plan because your condition can go from bad to death," said Stephen Finan, a policy expert with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. He called the waiting period in the Senate bill "unacceptable."
Advocates for people with serious health problems, as well as some insurance experts, are raising questions about one of the most important upfront benefits in the Democratic health care legislation: a high-risk pool for the medically uninsurable.
Obama proposed the pool in his September health care speech to Congress. Intended to serve the most vulnerable as a temporary fail-safe, it would stay in place until 2013. That's when insurance companies would be banned from denying coverage because of medical problems.
Government subsidies to make coverage more affordable for millions of uninsured would also start that year.
Now, concerns are being raised about the design of the high-risk pools. In addition to the six-month wait, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough. The money would be used to help people in poor health pay premiums.
Obama credits his Republican presidential rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, for the risk-pools idea. But when the GOP candidate proposed it in 2008, the estimated cost was $7 billion to $10 billion a year.
The six-month wait is in the health care bill the Senate Finance Committee approved last month. To qualify for the pool, patients must be turned down for coverage because of a pre-existing condition and uninsured for at least six months.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/05/de...

What a stupid argument. Under the current system, many have no insurance &, gee whiz, this plan is no good because it might take 6 months to get them insured.

Let me think which is better, wait 6 months or never. Ummmm.

Another brilliant argument from the feeble minded right.

Come on, can you guys get any freakin lamer?

[Barry]

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
What a stupid argument. Under the current system, many have no insurance &, gee whiz, this plan is no good because it might take 6 months to get them insured.
Let me think which is better, wait 6 months or never. Ummmm.
Another brilliant argument from the feeble minded right.
Come on, can you guys get any freakin lamer?

I know Obama and his supproters do not like to read or hear what is actually in the bill Dave - but the facts are the facts

Also the facts are coming out about the cost of Obamacare

'Fuzzy math' could drive health bill cost higher

The official $1.1 trillion price tag for the House Democrats' health care bill excludes dozens of unfunded programs that could drive up costs when future congresses look to fund them.

Republicans said the health care bill includes two dozen programs whose funding is listed as "such sums as may be necessary." That amounts to legislative jargon, they said, for "We'll bill you later."

The list of projects ranges from the "No child left unimmunized against influenza" project to 10 programs in the Indian health care system. There are also programs to encourage people to go into nursing and to spur states to restrain medical-malpractice lawsuits.

The tactic is far from new and has been used for years by Republicans and Democrats alike. The health reform examples are just the latest of what has become known as "fuzzy math" - the sort of budgeting that has been drawing extra scrutiny as the economy sputters, federal spending balloons and deficits deepen.

Republican leaders said leaving appropriations for a later date meant lawmakers were voting blind this weekend on health reform in the House. "How can members of Congress cast informed votes on a bill when there is no way to know the true cost to the American taxpayer?" said Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee.

But Democrats said leaving spending decisions up to future congresses is standard operating procedure under both parties and is the only way to let the appropriations committees weigh priorities. They said authorizing a program doesn't mean it will get money, and they pointed to a host of programs that have never gotten off the ground because Congress has never funded them properly.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/...

[Barry]

BTW, the voters do NOT support this massive tax increase bill passed off as a "health care reform" bill

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_conten...

As government revenues continue to slide (along with the economy) Dems keep spending and telling us the economy is improving

[Dave]

Barry wrote:

<quoted text>
I know Obama and his supproters do not like to read or hear what is actually in the bill Dave - but the facts are the facts
Also the facts are coming out about the cost of Obamacare
'Fuzzy math' could drive health bill cost higher
The official $1.1 trillion price tag for the House Democrats' health care bill excludes dozens of unfunded programs that could drive up costs when future congresses look to fund them.
Republicans said the health care bill includes two dozen programs whose funding is listed as "such sums as may be necessary." That amounts to legislative jargon, they said, for "We'll bill you later."
The list of projects ranges from the "No child left unimmunized against influenza" project to 10 programs in the Indian health care system. There are also programs to encourage people to go into nursing and to spur states to restrain medical-malpractice lawsuits.
The tactic is far from new and has been used for years by Republicans and Democrats alike. The health reform examples are just the latest of what has become known as "fuzzy math" - the sort of budgeting that has been drawing extra scrutiny as the economy sputters, federal spending balloons and deficits deepen.
Republican leaders said leaving appropriations for a later date meant lawmakers were voting blind this weekend on health reform in the House. "How can members of Congress cast informed votes on a bill when there is no way to know the true cost to the American taxpayer?" said Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee.
But Democrats said leaving spending decisions up to future congresses is standard operating procedure under both parties and is the only way to let the appropriations committees weigh priorities. They said authorizing a program doesn't mean it will get money, and they pointed to a host of programs that have never gotten off the ground because Congress has never funded them properly.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/...

You mean like a future Congress could change it so we better not enact it. Another great argument.

[scripto]

"The official $1.1 trillion price tag for the House Democrats' health care bill excludes dozens of unfunded programs that could drive up costs when future congresses look to fund them."

About the cost of the Iraq war. Where was the whining about the deficit then?

You can pretend to be hardheaded about the numbers all you want but the simple fact of the matter is that we are paying now. Nobody goes without emergency care in this country and the subsidized costs are reflected in ever increasing premiums for the rest of us. Complain all you want about Medicare but the fact of the matter is that it is overwhelmingly popular among those that have it. Single payer is the only way to get these costs out in the open so that we can have a meaningful national dialog about how to control them. The insurance companies are delighted to maintain the status quo. It's all just pass through costs to them.

[Barry]

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean like a future Congress could change it so we better not enact it. Another great argument.

Yea, the future CONSERVATIVE Congress can repeal this massive tax increase bill and get the Fedral government out of our health care decisions Dave

No comment on the lies and the actual cost of Obamacare Dave?

[LIL JOHN]

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
What a stupid argument. Under the current system, many have no insurance &, gee whiz, this plan is no good because it might take 6 months to get them insured.
Let me think which is better, wait 6 months or never. Ummmm.
Another brilliant argument from the feeble minded right.
Come on, can you guys get any freakin lamer?

Instead of your SOS , why don't you tell us what is good about waiting 6 months for treatment when you have a serious disease that you were turned down for !

Tell us what the democrats think is so good about that-- by the end of that 6 months you could be in the ''dead pool'' instead of the government pool?

You have enough lameness for all of us!

[scripto]

Barry wrote:

<quoted text>
Yea, the future CONSERVATIVE Congress can repeal this massive tax increase bill and get the Fedral government out of our health care decisions Dave
No comment on the lies and the actual cost of Obamacare Dave?

Right. Keep the health care decisions in the hands of the insurance companies, where they belong.

[Dave]

LIL JOHN wrote:

<quoted text>
''''No one said the healthcare was free. Just a different way of paying for it'''
Really ? A different way of paying for it!
Like ''subsidizing'' those that can't pay for it
Translation ---TAKING FROM YOU AND GIVING TO THEM!! Meanwhile you still have to pay for your own care!
A Socialist mandate !!!
BTW --- If you don't pay what they mandate , it's a $250,000 fine and/or 5 years in jail.

Like your Socialist Medicare mandate!

Another stupid argument from the feeble minded right.

Yes, a different way of paying for it. Look at single payor programs.

There have been several studies including some by the cbo in the late 90's and those working the issue currently in PA.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what_is_single_paye... In this plan, there would be a 7% payroll tax & a 2% income tax.

In PA, I think it would be primarily a 3.3% payroll tax paid by employees & 4.5% paid by employers. 0.25% tax on dividents and a supplemental tax on the wealthiest. http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/

If you make $50,000 a year, then it cost you $1750 a year. & your employer $2250 a year. Far less than you would pay for insurance & far less that your employer would pay.

All you do is go to the doctor & its basically free. Your doctor, your choice of hospitals - free.

Now, I guess that must be socialism! It is far better to form a pool within a private company (called an insurance company)where your payments subsidize those who utilize the system. If everyone utilizes thye system too much, your rates just keep going up. Sort of privatized socialism. Sounds so much better.

[Barry]

LIL JOHN wrote:

<quoted text>
Instead of your SOS , why don't you tell us what is good about waiting 6 months for treatment when you have a serious disease that you were turned down for !
Tell us what the democrats think is so good about that-- by the end of that 6 months you could be in the ''dead pool'' instead of the government pool?
You have enough lameness for all of us!

an few more facts about the bill passed by the House

the bill uses the command "shall" -- as in "you shall do this," "businesses shall do that" and "government shall do some other thing" -- 3,345 times

The bill would create 111 government agencies, boards, commissions and other bureaucracies -- all overseen by a new health-care czar bearing the Orwellian title "commissioner of health choices."

The government would force every American to buy health insurance and would control what benefits those policies must include.

Small businesses provide their workers with a government-devised minimum package of insurance benefits. This could cost hundreds of thousands of jobs -- and force some workers to accept insurance benefits rather than higher wages

Americans would have to pay nearly $730 billion in new taxes, fees and penalties over the next 10 years to fund this huge government expansion

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/fed_tak...

[Barry]

scripto wrote:

<quoted text>
Right. Keep the health care decisions in the hands of the insurance companies, where they belong.

Since a huge majority of people are happy with their coverage and benefits - seems like a good idea to me