Democrat care (H.R. 3200) will not deliver what the Democrats claim, even with a moving price tag betwwen $856 billion to $1.5 trillion. And the latest Senate panel version released by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) falls equally short.
Although it does not contain the hotly contested "public option" it does contain major provisionsof the House version, such as:
1. Mandates on individuals to have health insurance.
2. No mandate on employers, but employers will be assessed a fee (It's a tax!)
3. Fees levied on healthcare companies and insurers.
4. Mandates on insurance companies regarding coverage for all.
As usual, the government mandates and fees will ultimately be borne by consumers and taxpayers through more new government bureacracies. The Senate panel plan, however, does specifically prohibit the use of federal funds for abortions, and specifies illegal immigrants will not be covered.
While I for the most part agree with you Funky, there are some points I want to exaim. As I have said elsewhere, I'd rather pay for an illegal alien get health care than a rapist or murder. If you don't give them health care will you allow them to die in the streets? As a mother I could not look another mother in the face and tell her that her sick child wasn't going to get medical
treatment. As for federal funds paying for abortions (not taking a pro/anti stand here), the federal government has been paying for abortions for at least 20 years, including late term abortions, through Medicaid.
I am much against the Obama plan but have resigned myself to the fact that they will pass it no matter what the people have to say about it. If you speak out against Obama policy (not against the man) you are a racist. If you advocate peaceful civil disobedience then you can be labeled a terrorist and be tried as one. We no longer have any personal freedoms. I shutter to think what this country will become in the next 10 years.
Thank you, up2sumptin for factual insight in this debate. Trust, but verify is what we all need to do to ensure we are trying to do what's best for the Country and our families. Anyone, including illegals can receive care at any Emergency Room, so we are not without any compassion for those without personal care. Hr 3400, focuses on free market solutions that will allow the un-insured to procure coverage. I haven't done any research on coverage for illegals, but the first step would be to apply for citizenship, and once they are on the books, they should be afforded all privileges to aquire healthcare as we. They would have to realize also that if citizenship is denied that they would have to leave the country.
The World Healthcare Rankings is centered upon Socialized Healtcare, which was initiated in June 2000, by Director General Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland of Geneva.
In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th out of 191, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie “Sicko.”
But there’s less to these studies than meets the eye. They measure something other than quality of medical care. So saying that the U.S. finished behind those other countries is misleading.
The WHO judged a country’s quality of health on life expectancy. But that’s a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That’s not a health-care problem.
When you adjust for these “fatal injury” rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.
Another reason the U.S. didn’t score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it’s crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how “fairly” health care of any quality is “distributed.” The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but “unequal distribution” would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.
It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.
The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people 45 million without medical insurance. Our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.
Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.
For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.
Funkentelecky, you need to start crediting the articles and blogs you copy the information from that you pass off as your original thoughts. There is a word for this ... plagiarism.
Thank you, BlogWatcher2008:
For your keen research an insight, Trust but verify is still the lesson of the day. I need to continue crediting any articles, or blogs that I may copy as I have done so in previous blogs. Herman Cain, Larry Elder, John Stossel, H.R. 3400, and The U.S. Constitution, along with my own personal comments,has contributed to fair representation of what is developing before our very eyes. A huge Government takeover of about 1/6 th of our economy. I made a mistake for not crediting them on this issue, and it will not happen again, What say you regarding the debate?
ER visits are far more costly than visiting their PCP. Still the tax payer would have to pick up the bill. I'd rather pick up the cheaper bill.
U are right again up2sumptin. I would hope that upon registration the illegals would be afforded all options that we have, which would also be the cheaper bill, with H.R. 3400.
Lol...prepare for the backlash Funke. Larry Elder? Herman Cain? 2 African Conservatives that are considered sellouts by their own? Black Republicans are considered oxymorons, right? It doesn't matter that the head or the RNC is Michael Steele. Don't you know that if most African American views don't go along with views of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the ACLU and the NAACP that we are all kooks? John Stossel? A Libertarian? They are anit-Americans that want to the infrastructure torn down by getting rid of the IRS and putting in that ridiculous "Fair Tax" that favors only the rich. Next thing, you will be telling us that we should be listening to Glenn Beck, watching the fair and balanced Bill O'Reilly or that our charasmatic, dynamic President didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for his many, many accomplishment during is 8 months in office. You can't expect us to believe sources such as these can you? We'd much rather have credible sources like John Stewart, David Letterman, Keith Olberman or the indisputable facts of that profilic filmaker Michael Moore. Even better would be the information coming right from the White House. After all, they have nothing but our best interest at heart.
Thank you and thank you, Patriotic Bloggers!!, "I get a chill running up my leg", Chris Matthews. Lholmes, that piece of yours noted above is classical. up2sumptin, I would have bet my life that the Nobel Peace Prize was nominated to someone who had conducted Great Humanitarian Services to a just cause. Maybe they changed the Standard, which is their option. I've heard it was awarded based upon his vision of peace and appeasement to other nations.
A Poem for the Factor
Bill is the watchdog we know,
how can you disagree without watching the show.
He is Garrulous, Truculent and Wiley,
what else would you think of an O'Reilly.
And the last thing I would like to say, which is not the most Ridiculous item of the day.
Bill is not a Popinjay.
Funky when I think of the NPP I think of people like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Mandela and Ghandi. Not people like Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Arafat. The NPP has become a joke w/o a punchline. His vision? I got a vision too, give me a million dollars.
Looking at the original post, the most interesting statement is about the Demoncrats making "just another attempt at hijacking more of our liberties." The biggest hijack of our liberties occurred under a Republican President and Republican Congress known as the USA Patriot Act, which ultimately led to the government granting itself permanent new powers to invade and upend civil liberties and freedom.
But I guess that is neither here nor there, in the healthcare debate.
The argument that the government can not get involved in granting healthcare is just ludicrous, no matter what you read into the Constitution. From this perspective, Medicare should be illegal and subject to revocation. Of course, a simple search on the internet will show that conservatives do indeed support such a view. http://www.theamericanview.com/index.... Since Medicare has now been around for close to 45 years, the challenge to it as unconstitutional is just about forgotten, at least by the mainstream population.
But let me address HR 3400 as it is posted in the original post. I will only address 1 issues: mandates.
Mandates. For some reason, the Rupblicans have always been about "voluntary" compliance. Like voluntary compliance with global warming fixes. And self-policing of the financial industries (you all know where that led to). Requring health insurance coverage is no worse than requiring liability insurance for car owners. We all do it, we don't scream about government interventions and constitutional rights (well, I don't scream, don't know about Funkentelecky). If a person has a right to be seen at any emergency department without money in his pocket, then there has to be a compensation for this right. That compensation can be in higher tax dollars, or mandated health insurance. Take your pick. Or just do away with the first right, and say that hospitals have a right to request payment before they see you in the emergency department. I hate to say it, but that's not likely to happen.
When it comes to voluntary vs mandated, you just have to remember that some things just have to be required or too many people will skip out. We don't have a voluntary social security tax, we don't have voluntary medicare payroll taxes, and healthcare coverage in this day and age should not be voluntary either.
Just my 2 cents.
Thank you theBigTruth,
For you keen and fair research regarding healthcare. The ACLU is a partisan organization, which apposes all different point of views, regardless of the results. Give me an example of where your liberties were hijacked, I cann recall none for my family or me. I do recall no more attacks on American installations or Amercan soil during the last seven or eight years. Are yiu aware that in 2006 when the Patriot Act was made permament the House vote was 280-138, with 218 votes needed for approval, and the Senate vote was 89-10, with 60 votes needed for approval. These numbers prove that the President had significant Democrat support. The fact that the government should not get involved in the healthcare issue is confirmed within the Constitution, but not ackknowledged by liberals. If you conduct some more research you will find out that once a Government program has been initiated and on line, it would take an almost an act of God to Terminate it. That is the main reason that it is not revoked. FDR instituted Social Security with good intentions, but it is a failure. It was supposed to be a locked box of financial support for retirees 65 and above. It will go bankrupt in 2017 and totally depleted in 2038-41. Medicade and Medcare, bankrupt in 2016. These programs account for approximately 58% of our economy. About 85% of Americans are satisfied with their current healthcare, why would anyone want to gut a system with this favorability, for a Government system that has failed us all before?
Can we say consumer protection, stop pimping out the customers and just taking their money and giving bad service. Treatment is prolonging and expensive. Cure is better. You guys are only thinking about those who can afford. What about the down and out who show up at the hospital and must be treated. We all pay !!!! Let's look at this from a point of view, let us keep a steady payment, for the next ten years and give all coverage. Can we think about all of America, for a change. Tunnel vision kills.