Monday, November 9, 2009

Bankrupt Government Takes on More Burden --Health Care

House of Reps Passed their version of a Health Care Bill.

My husband says we are going to be sorry when we have to depend on a bankrupt government to provide our healthcare --and have no choice of private health insurance. He thinks the private companies will go out of business with gov't. promising a cheaper version and unlimited coverage.

Gov't health care already operates in the red. Why would we vote for them to be in charge of 1/5 of the nation's economy --the healthcare industry?

I read a Blade article that said only 2% of the nation would use the private option --and they took that to mean that the private option wouldn't make a dent in private insurance companies' business. But what did the question mean? Call me and ask me if I'll use a private option from the gov't --and I might say NO because I now have insurance --or because I am opposed to the public option. In truth, if the private option is offered and made attractive with unlimited care paid for by tax monies, then I predict that more than 2% of the people will sign up for it, saying "I pay taxes, so I'm going to get the cheaper gov't health insurance!"

The problem is, the gov't is broke. But that never stops the party of Pelosi and Franks.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


steve said...

If the Gov is broke, why aren't you demanding they bring the legions home and stop with the bank busting 750 billion dollar pentagon budget? Why are we chasing down muslims, trying to change them into Britney Spear's loving westerners, when they obviously don't want to be that way? Why are we still defending Europe, whos GDP as a group is larger than our GDP? Why are we still defending Japan and S. Korea, when the N. Koreans are fielding a 1950's vintage armed forces?

Britain learned the hard way that you can't rule the world.. Remember when Britania ruled the waves?

Barb said...

America's goal is not to "rule the world" as the British Empire did but to provide security for ourselves. We learned that ignoring the middle east was not a good idea! And obviously it doesn't matter if your armed forces are of 1950's vintage --if you have a handful of terrorists taking over a couple of airplanes.

I believe our entitlement programs altogether cost more than national defense --now!

Who is going to pay your salary in the future, Steve? They say 1/5 of work force and related costs are health care. And then there is this huge and growing populace on the dole. Who is left to pay for everything??? if our money comes from taxes, the taxes the health employees will pay back will be a comparative drop in the bucket.

Legislators should have waited until the level of unemployment was a lot lower and business back on solid footing and the economy truly thriving --instead of building up another investment bubble about to burst again--before committing us to this massive public health boondoggle.

Barb said...

BTW --think of all the people paid by the 750 billion dollar pentagon budget --it's just like FDR's Public Works programs! Employs our young people --and many of them feel good about the "nation building" they've attempted --the infrastructure labor they've done. The peace-keeping they've attempted and even accomplished (as my nephew did among some tribal leaders in the north) between Islamic warring factions. They also have taken health care teams to help both our soldiers and the locals caught in crossfire.
Hopefully, they are learning a lot of practical skills, in addition to defending themselves and others.

Security forces are the constitutional responsibility we do have --not the banking, auto and health industries.

Social security is taking us into bankruptcy all by itself --and medicare/medicaid. The new Pelosi plan will bury us. We should've built economy up FIRST --and got our manufacturing and trade imbalances corrected. And meanwhile, let charity and free care by health teams fill in the gaps -not tax-supported with taxes we do not have.

steve said...

"We learned that ignoring the middle east was not a good idea!"

Switzerland (choose any modern democracy you like) ignores the middle east, they seem to do just fine.

"believe our entitlement programs altogether cost more than national defense --now!"

Didn't famous republican Dwight Eisenhower say something like: every bullet, every battleship takes food out of the mouths of the needy, education away from those that need it?

"Who is going to pay your salary in the future, Steve? They say 1/5 of work force and related costs are health care."

Taxes will more equitably aggregated across the full spectrum of citizens if everyone is required to have health coverage and pay a modest premium on it.

"We should've built economy up FIRST --and got our manufacturing and trade imbalances corrected."

The Clinton Administration did just that, remember at the end of his administration, the gov was running a surplus, Unemployment was like 3%, I remember seeing stories on the news about fast food resteraunts having such trouble holding onto employees because of the low unemployment, that they were sending new hires on cruises. But then we went and elected you know who. We elected Bush, not because Bush was great, but to punish the Dems for Clinton's daliances, of which Gore had nothing to do with. So in a way I guess you could say Monica Lewensky ruined the world. If Clinton hadn't dishonered the Presidency, Gore would have rode in on Clintons heels. Gore might have payed more attention to the AlQueada threat rather than cutting brush, Gore might have stopped 9/11. Gore would not have invaded Iraq. Gore would have immediately began shifting to alternative energy while oil was cheap, possible blunting the Oil Price runup last year. Would Gore have stopped the derivitive bubble? Probably not, but it's effects would have been blunted by a much stronger economy.

mud_rake said...

Steve- she likes wars, especially those perpetrated on Muslim nations. It's just as Rev. Robertson said- they are infidels and we need to kill them off so that we can convert those who are left to the 'true' faith.

That's why she voted for George Bush twice-- the wars, the expansion of christianity, the Crusades once again, in her lifetime.

Barb said...

You are commiting libel here, again, Mudrake. Does that mean, by the Golden Rule, that you want someone to do that to you you?? Do unto Barb as you would have Barb do unto you??

But I'm not even tempted to commit libel; you make yourself look as unkind and angry as you are.

Barb said...

Steve, haven't you heard about the Muslim uprisings in England, France, Denmark, Somalia --and wherever that cartoonist was who disrespected Mohammad? Haven't you heard of the terrorism all over the world --not just to the USA? Haven't you heard of the demands made in Europe for Muslims to be able to live by Sharia law as part of their religious freedom? Four wives and honor killings, etc. We had a Danish exchange student and he was worried about the Muslim immigration to Denmark at the time and its impact on his nation.

Of course, it's a shame that we have to have national defense or ever go to war. Of course, we'd rather spend the money on food for the hungry--but actually, we're doing both!

Taxes will more equitably aggregated across the full spectrum of citizens if everyone is required to have health coverage and pay a modest premium on it.

Dream on, Steve, if you think our economy can sustain this tax burden and not go into serious economic decline-- or healthcare decline. Everyone will not be required to have health coverage--because there are too many unemployed who cannot pay--and too many on medicaid/medicare and state programs as it is. So there is not enough new money there. We need tort reform and other reforms the dems don't care about --REAL change in health care.

I have said myself that Clinton is the reason Gore isn't president --because he would have had the edge of incumbancy if Clinton had stepped down like he should have.
The economy was good because of the legacy of Reagan policies and the optimism after the Contract with America turned around the welfare burden --temporarily. It was then that manufacture started to leave the USA because of ever-unreasonable union demands. This was good for the rest of the world's poor --but not for us. And the stock market crashed in Clinton's last year and many fortunes of investors were lost. So the recession started in Clinton's last year --after his increased taxes and the stock market bubble burst the first time-- and I thought everyone knew that!!!

Bush picked us up after that and unemployment rolls dropped and economy and stock market were improving--but then we had 9/11, Katrina, numerous national disasters --unprecedented generosity for all --and Bush sent tremendous aid to Africa for AIDS, too --compassionate conservatism was expensive in the wake of a national defense need after 9/11.
Then Bush and Obama both bailed out the auto industries and Wall Street --without securing limits on their exorbitant bonuses at tax payer expense.

What presidential incompetency !!!

mud_rake said...

Libel? Quick, get an attorney!!

You are, at best, a brain ablation. I wonder what life and 'reality' is like in the daily World of Delusion. I wonder if there is a documentary about how life appears to the delusional? I'd enjoy seeing it as I have always been fascinated by the paranormal.