The word “liberal” is based on the same root as “liberty,” but the actions and policies of modern liberals including Obama do not advance liberty but instead advance greater government power and control over the individual and actually diminish liberty. Liberals are “statist,” because their goals are to increase state control over the individual and reduce his liberty. Thats all this so called health care reform is about. The fact is 80% of all americans have health insurance and their happy with what they have.
Well put Dennis. How many of us are one pink slip away from losing our health insurance? I know that there is no way that I could afford Cobra if I lose my job.
The fact is 80% of all americans have health insurance and their happy with what they have.
-Whoever says that all 80% of insured Americans are happy with what they have is either very poorly informed or an outright liar - perhaps both. The real fact is, we spend more of our GDP per person every year, more actual dollars per person per year, than any other industrialized nation in the world, with almost the worst results of all of them. We have a lower lifespan and higher infant mortality rate than all but a few of all the other industrialized nations. I guess Ben Franklin is right, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
As far as being statist.... perhaps you've never heard of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. That wasn't courtesy of us Democrats.
John, that's a question of availability. We have more hospitals and equipment per capita than any other nation in the world. All of that equipment, most of which is provided with *gasp* public money anyway, won't suddenly vanish should there be a public option.
And the notion that Canadians come here for treatment, which when it occurs is often paid for by the Canadian government, is laughable on the grand scale. As someone that works with many many Canadians, in a building that houses the Canadian Consulate, I've found almost everyone I ask laughs at our health system.
It's important and extremely relevant to consider the small business here - Western New York and Genesee County especially are riddled with small businesses who would benefit from being able to give their workers health insurance. Tax credits and a general health insurance exchange will make it easier for them to provide coverage to their employees.
Here's a few more statistics, Richard:
Small businesses make up 81 percent of New York businesses, only 51 percent of them offered health coverage benefits in 2006.
New York businesses and families shoulder a hidden health care tax of roughly $800 per year on premiums as a direct result of subsidizing the costs of the uninsured.
Roughly 11.2 million people in New York get health insurance on the job, where family premiums average $13,971, about the annual earning of a full-time minimum wage job.
Try and put yourself in the shoes of the uninsured - health care reform is necessary.
I hope you aren't insinuating that I'm an underachiever because I lack health insurance coverage.
I'm a college graduate. I'm forced to work as a waitress because jobs in my field are hard to come by in this area. Instead of applying for free insurance that is paid for by taxpaying "achievers" I have chosen to hope for a job opportunity that will extend me coverage.
If our health care system was reformed, I could have more options in my situation.
I use my employer's benefits but I'm not scared of losing it just because I lose my job (which I am also not scared of). I'm not afraid of bankruptcy to save my life. That's the difference.
Who pays for the business owners health insurance ..He or she does..And now the government wants to force him to insure his employees...No wonder all these company's go over seas to make their products..Wait for this cap and trade tax that they will throw at them...someone on here said you have to have car insurance so why shouldn't it be manatory to have health insurance...My employer isn't force to pay my car insurance .
I like this one..We spend more on health care than any other country in the world ,no kidding,,thats because we have the best in the world also...If you want to use that analogy,then apply it to welfare ,we spend the most of any country in the world on welfare and unemployment benefits..Were's all the demoncrats outrage on that...
Social Security is going bankrupt. Medicare is going bankrupt. Medicaid is going bankrupt. These mismanaged government programs and others have accumulated more than $50 trillion in IOUs due and payable by subsequent generations. This a trap the Statist has laid for future generations-which will steal their liberty, labor, opportunities, and wealth. Where does it say that it is the federal government's responsibility to steal money from corporations and individuals and provide health care for others that can't afford it.
Demoncrats? Aren't you clever? There's no outrage because 3/4 of the economy is CONSUMER driven, so WE are the wealth creators as the buyers. This corporate nonsense is just that. Nonsense. Without a market to sell to, there will be no jobs. So to maintain a market, there needs to be welfare and unemployment benefits, so that the potential market to sell a product to grows.
Oh, and we spend more on health care than any other industrialized nation because we have a private for-profit system that has seen it's profits go up over 400% this past decade. The insurance industry is willing to flatly GIVE AWAY 2 trillion, yes trillion, dollars to bring costs down. So if they have 2 trillion dollars of spare change sitting around that they can do without, then obviously they overcharged by 2 trillion dollars.... kinda funny when you consider that the industry as a whole brought in 3 trillion...
Tony,
You're another one who forgets needed tort reform.
Did you know that in Canada, it is almost impossible to sue the government over health care decisions. And of the court cases allowed, only 5% actually result in awards?
Now, if your willing to do tort reform, and allow insurance reform, and stop mandating what has to be covered, like Viagra for grandpa, maybe some of your ideas might work.
But right now, some of us look at the VA, a long term government run health care system that is not all that great, and get worried.
I continually hear about tax credits as the solution for businesses (specifically small businesses) to be able to afford to offer health insurance to their workers. Tax credits are generally a scam. Business week says that 39% of small businesses are operating at a loss and an additional 30% are break-even. They don't pay income taxes unless there is net income, therefore tax credits are worth absolutely nothing to about 70% of small businesses. Tax credits only go to those companies who make too much money for their accountants to hide. They are not the ones who need it.
Tort reform is catchall phrase for legislative measures designed to make it harder for individuals to sue businesses.
Which tort needs reform?
Intentional, negligent, or absolute liability?
Tort reform should have nothing to do with medical insurance. A medical insurance company that denies needed coverage that is covered by the policy held deserves to get sued, and for great sums of money at that. That is the very definition of neglect.
Tort reform for medical malpractice is not needed beyond limiting the overall ways one can be sued for it, most especially hypothetical outcomes (which is what is restricted in Canada and the UK) - ie, well Doc, you just amputated both of my arms and I was due to become the next great wide receiver in the NFL, that'll be 20 million dollars please... that's garbage, yes, and needs to be fixed. But the pain & suffering is very real. Doctors should have to pay for malpractice insurance. Frankly, having that insurance themselves allows them to take the chance and try something new - so long as the patient is on board and understands that as well. This is a science, after all. And there can be no innovation, or at least stunted innovation, if one has to worry about the full liability for attempting to advance the science.
And having watched a loved grandfather (and my only grandfather as the others passed before I was even born) grow older and pass while under the care of the state VA Home, I can't say enough good things. It was considerably cleaner than any other nursing home I've ever seen or been to, it did not smell like a nursing home, and the care was top notch. Edit: While I'm sure you mean the VA in its entirety and as an entity, and not the specific 2 buildings we have here in town; I feel it has its merits to highlight what can be accomplished when it's done right.
From a friend:
"When my husband was treating for throat cancer, we had a good insurance policy. After he passed away, I still had bills over $11,000 for what wasn't covered to pay off. I can't imagine what the hopelessness would feel like to not have any coverage at all and realize you don't even have a chance to fight the illness because there's no healthcare."
By the way her husband was not a smoker, so this was not a self induced disease.
For everyone of you who are comfortable and satisfied with the status quo, remember your life circumstances and change on a dime.
I don't think a single person here said that they were "satisfied with the status quo". Simply because other people want different changes than you does not mean they are satisfied. I despise how health care is ruled right now, but I certainly don't want anything proposed about the government running things to come to fruition.
Well, it is easy to highlight your dissatisfaction with the status quo and even easier to quickly shut down proposed solutions to the problem.
It is not quite as easy, however, to take into consideration the pros and cons of a solution and decide whether or not it would be worth it for you, for your family, for your state or for your country.
It is even more difficult to accept a compromise for the greater good even if that means you or your family or business will have to make a change.
Posted by Chelsea Dobson on September 3, 2009 - 1:55pm
I don't think a single person here said that they were "satisfied with the status quo". Simply because other people want different changes than you does not mean they are satisfied. I despise how health care is ruled right now, but I certainly don't want anything proposed about the government running things to come to fruition.
No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.
Posted by Brittany Baker on September 3, 2009 - 2:03pm
Well, it is easy to highlight your dissatisfaction with the status quo and even easier to quickly shut down proposed solutions to the problem.
It is not quite as easy, however, to take into consideration the pros and cons of a solution and decide whether or not it would be worth it for you, for your family, for your state or for your country.
It is even more difficult to accept a compromise for the greater good even if that means you or your family or business will have to make a change.
"It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope." - Robert Francis Kennedy
And the tort that needs to be reforms is punitive damages. No one should strike the lottery because a doctor cut off the wrong foot. Their foot was not worth millions of dollars and shouldn't be treated like it was.
Screw the greater good. You are talking about saving individuals at the expense of the greater good then you say it helps everyone? How? Me paying for you to live doesn't help me at all.
"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. "
Did I say that was how I wanted it? No. I have repeatedly talked about reforms. I may have different ideas from you, but that doesn't mean you can assume I'm ok with how things are now. You have no clue about what struggles other people have had with the system, and to assume anything about me and health care can easily offend me. (I've been in a hospital room with my 40-something year old mother on her death bed, how dare you claim I'm ok with how things are run)
How many on the batavian don't have health insurance..Would like to hear from the uninsured..are they offered it but don't take it .are they young..who are they..The welfare people have it,the old have it..Those in prison have it.So are you...What is your income level..
Posted by Chelsea Dobson on September 3, 2009 - 2:18pm
"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. "
Did I say that was how I wanted it? No. I have repeatedly talked about reforms. I may have different ideas from you, but that doesn't mean you can assume I'm ok with how things are now. You have no clue about what struggles other people have had with the system, and to assume anything about me and health care can easily offend me. (I've been in a hospital room with my 40-something year old mother on her death bed, how dare you claim I'm ok with how things are run)
Don't fight with me, talk to your betrothed:
Posted by Peter O'Brien on September 3, 2009 - 2:10pm
Screw the greater good. You are talking about saving individuals at the expense of the greater good then you say it helps everyone? How? Me paying for you to live doesn't help me at all.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on September 3, 2009 - 2:09pm
And a follow up why should I have to pay for you to have cancer treatment?
That could easily be your mothere he was talking about.
Compassion and care for others is lacking in some circles.
Trust me, it isn't in mine. I've gone through the care of a parent. I've sat at the bedside while the body slowly gave up. You talk about different solutions, but you offer none.
The difference is I would do everything in my power to save her mom, you I wouldn't lift a finger for. And that's not malice, thats taking care of your own. You mean nothing to me where Chelsea's mom does.
-- Allow purchasing of health care across state lines
-- Get rid of the ridiculous amounts of money people get for "malpractice", medical bills and lost wages should be enough, nothing will bring your arm/leg/son/brain back
I agree with Peter on a lot of things about health care reform, but I am not him. Continue to throw arguments in my face and not rebuttal my point because it continues to prove that those who want "universal care" have very little to stand on.
Posted by Mark Potwora on September 3, 2009 - 2:21pm
How many on the batavian don't have health insurance..Would like to hear from the uninsured..are they offered it but don't take it .are they young..who are they..The welfare people have it,the old have it..Those in prison have it.So are you...What is your income level..
Mark, I was uninsured the entire time I took care of my mother. I looked into policies, but couldn't afford any of them. The COBRA rates were way too high when there was little or no income. I prayed for the day I turned 65 in order to qualify for health insurance (which is why Peter calls me a moocher). I also prayed that I would stay healthy during that time and, thankfully, I was.
The frustration is the knowing there is a belief that everyone can get insurance if they want it. It isn't true.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on September 3, 2009 - 2:10pm
Screw the greater good. You are talking about saving individuals at the expense of the greater good then you say it helps everyone? How? Me paying for you to live doesn't help me at all.
--So if you catch a communicable deadly disease, say H1N1 Flu, from someone that doesn't have health insurance... just remember that helping them would've never helped the greater good, or you, from being spared catching it.
Why do you elect to get health insurance anyway? Isn't insurance, by definition, a small-scale form of the socialism you detest? Why should everyone else on that insurance plan pay for you? Why should you be paying for them? I think it's time you actually act upon what you say your ideology is.
If you are scared of the flu, then you really need to reevalute your life.
I get insurance because it is a benefit I am offered at work. To not take it would be to devalue the work I do here. And I think I should be paid more so why am I not going to take all the benefits that are offered to me?
In that sense I am acting on my ideology. I earn my lower rates.
oh I'm not scared of the flu. But not having people with communicable diseases of any name walking down the street, working next to me and shopping next to me sure does affect my life. It inherintly increases the chances of me not getting sick, which increases my quality of life, saves time off for work to use for vacation and spares me lost time otherwise recovering.
Do you think a doctor or any medical professional can fix the common cold? And do you think drug companies are going to work on new drugs if there is no financial benefit in doing so?
What as the last major drug that was produced in Canada?
Does it really matter what major drugs are produced in Canada? Because they sure do buy the same US made drugs we do.... at a severely discounted rate. Single payer health care means volume discounts and savings passed along to society. Must be they are still able to turn a profit in Canada, or they'd just not offer it there, by your logic.
These are the first three I found, there are more:
Drug Name: *Ebixa® (also known as memantine hydrochloride)
Drug Manufacturer: Lundbeck Canada Inc.
Proposed Action: Acts on the brain's N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, which respond to glutamate, one of the brain's chemical messengers involved in the formation of memories and other nerve functions. In Alzheimer's disease, glutamate leaks out of sick nerve cells and reaches levels outside the cells which are actually toxic to the cells. Ebixa prevents that excess glutamate from over-stimulating the NMDA receptors.
Phase of Development: Conditional approval for use in moderate to advanced Alzheimer's disease.
Drug Name: *ExelonTM (also known as rivastigmine)
Drug Manufacturer: Novartis Canada Inc.
Proposed Action: Inhibits acetylcholinesterase action which will increase the level of acetylcholine in the brain. There is a decrease of acetylcholine in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease. Exelon is available as a capsule or patch. The patch may be of particular benefit to people who are susceptible to gastrointestinal problems.
Phase of Development: Approved for use in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease.
Drug Name: *ReminylTM (also known as galantamine hydrobromide)
Drug Manufacturer: Janssen-Ortho Inc.
Proposed Action: Inhibits acetylcholinesterase action which will increase the level of acetylcholine in the brain. There is a decrease of acetylcholine in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease.
Phase of Development: Approved for use in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease.
Do you think a drug company is going to invest millions of dollars to produce a drug to sell it at a lower price and not make the money they can in the US market? Try again.
So all the drugs you found had be researched while I can name Viagra, Caduet, and Lipitor (the worlds #1 drug) without a google search. That tells me that the canadian drug industry sucks.
Insulin- invented in Canada
Penicillin- invented in England
Not drugs, but procedures:
Balloon Angioplasty - England
Mammography - Germany
The US does not lead the world in developing new drugs anyway... Europe still does. And that's a fact. And their motive would be to earn government grants for research, just as they do now... they don't foot as much of the bill as you'd like to believe... the US government spends more on medical R&D than it does on military R&D.
Mark - you wanted to know how many on the Batavian don't have health insurance. I have 2 adult children who both work in the services industry (one of their employers is a sponsor to this site). Neither one of them are offered health insurance and therefore have none. One has a neuromuscular disease but has received no treatment in 4 years because she has no health insurance.
When my children were younger and I was working at a small law office in Batavia, the employer did not offer health insurance because the cost was prohibitive. I had to wait for my income tax refund so I could bring my children to the doctor.
Would it though? I seem to remember a European Union being formed, you know, one single entity... where the costs for research and education is shared and the benefits pooled.
Ok fine, something more modern will require the same research that it took you to discover insulin came before WW2... so...........
-3TC - the most widely used drug today in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.
-The connection between HUS, E. Coli, and verotoxin to improve food safety worldwide.
-The Canadian discovery of the Neto1 brain protein, which is believed to be the key protein in learning and could possibly end learning disabilities.
-Mustard operation - named after Dr. Mustard. This created a new partition in the hearts of infant children who had malfunctioning hearts leaving them oxygen starved and with a high chance of death.
-Polio Vaccine - Jointly created between the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Toronto
-Rhogam - No matter what blood type you have, everyone has a Rhesus factor, if the mother and child do not match + to + or - to -, then Rhesus disease develops. This causes the mother to pass on antibodies into the baby that attack its own red blood cells. These children die in utero from hydrops fetalis (edema), suffer cardiac failure, or survive following blood transfusions, sometimes with cerebral palsy and deafness.
Can I stop now? I'd like to still be able to consider myself patriotic after today...
Peter,
Canadian invention of the electron microscope allowed them to discover liposomes and develop them as drug delivery tools. Very important in cancer treatment. Try thinking before spouting off. You might find it refreshing. Many other readers surely would.
Government-run health care is not about health care just like cap and trade is not about climate change… Twenty years from now, if these farses pass, …20 years from now you won’t recognize your country. If you have a severe illness, you will have to beg your Senator and Congressman for help. Ask any Canadian. That’s what they want you to do. They want you to beg them for help. They want you bent over with your hands grabbing your ankles. They want you to be completely and utterly disspirited. That’s what this battle’s over, government control of every single aspect of your life their gonna tell you how much you should weigh, what you eat, not to smoke, how much sugar is in your coke, on top of that what type of car you should drive, how much electricity you should use, and how much CO2 to put in the air, how are they gonna control how much you exhale, what about cow farts. Why all of sudden is everything a freaking Crisis - the finnacial crisis, climate change crisis, energy crisis, health care crisis. Have to sign this or that right now don't read it just sign it right now while we have da power. Its all just crap.
To hell with it all....we should all do something that puts us in prison,then we WILL have FREE HEALTH CARE!!!!I thought that hospitals had to treat anyone who came in,whether or not they could pay for it....don't worry H1N1,swine flu, whatever to hell you want to call,is our doomsday disease the way the newscasts are highlighting it every night....then maybe the bird flu will come back,hell,they'll probably invent a cat or dog flu to keep everyone scared.....health insurance rates keep going up,amount they cover keeps going down.Who cares??? This country is going down the toilet fast-
This is one reason why I would like to see less haste in pushing any version of the current proposal through. We need to know all there is to know about the bill, as do those who are voting for and signing the bill. We need to learn from what happened to the Hawaii short-lived health care plan and the Massachusetts plan.
"either very poorly informed or an outright liar - perhaps both.................As far as being statist.... perhaps you've never heard of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. That wasn't courtesy of us Democrats. "
Sir, the groundwork of the Patriot Act is incorporated from the legislation the was proposed by Bill Clinton in 1996.
I believe you're slightly mistaken - or giving those two items too much credit. The acts in 96 and 99 are to allow the military to involve itself on US soil, which is illegal (hence established bases), in the case of emergencies (ie, a terrorist attack). Or in the case of the 99 act, to allow the military to involve itself in non-emergency cases of biological and chemical weapons. The USA PATRIOT Act is a whole different beast. But that's not the point I'm going for, it's that the claim is akin to the pot calling the kettle black.
But of course that will go unnoticed in a city & town where a bunch of idiots have the Confederate Naval Jack on display at their homes or on their vehicles. I assume they are under some false impression they are flying the old Confederate Flag, nicknamed Stars & Bars... but instead they're displaying the Rectangular Southern Cross - which is the Naval Jack. The square Southern Cross is the flag of the CSA Army, the Battle Flag. Stars & Bars is identical the US flag, with 3 stripes instead of 13 (which are the bars), and 7 stars (eventually 13 stars) in a circle instead of what is today 50 and during the Civil War was 34. In case anyone is flying one and needs a history lesson.
Posted by Tyler Hall on September 4, 2009 - 2:55pm
Sir, the groundwork of the Patriot Act is incorporated from the legislation the was proposed by Bill Clinton in 1996.
The last time I looked, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's.
The USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Act allows federal officials greater authority in tracking and intercepting communications, both for purposes of law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering. It gives the Secretary of the Treasury regulatory powers to combat corruption of US financial institutions for foreign money-laundering purposes; it more actively works to close our borders to foreign terrorists and to detain and remove those within our borders; it establishes new crimes, new penalties and new procedural techniques for use against domestic and international terrorists.
There has been protest over certain sections of the Patriot Act, even resulting in some civil liberties suits brought by the ACLU and other groups.
Following are some of the more controversial sections of the Patriot Act:
•Section 215 modifies the rules on records searches so that third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it's trying to protect against terrorism.
•Section 218 amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), authorizing secret searches without public knowledge or Department of Justice accountability, so long as the government can allege a foreign intelligence basis for the search.
•Section 213 warrants -- "Sneak and Peek" -- extend the authority of FISA searches to any criminal search. This allows for secret searches of one's home and property without prior notice.
•Section 214 permits the removal of the warrant requirement for "Pen registers" which ascertain phone numbers dialed from a suspect's telephone and "Trap and trace" devices which monitor the source of all incoming calls, so long as the government can certify that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing investigation against international terrorism.
•Section 216 clarifies that pen register/trap-and-trace authority applies to Internet surveillance. The Act changes the language to include Internet monitoring, specifically information about: "dialing, routing, and signaling." It also broadens such monitoring to any information "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."
•Section 206 authorizes roving wiretaps: allowing taps on every phone or computer the target may use, and expands FISA to permit surveillance of any communications made to or by an intelligence target without specifying the particular phone line or computer to be monitored.
•Section 505 authorizes the use of an administrative subpoena of personal records, without requiring probable cause or judicial oversight.
•Section 802 creates a category of crime called "domestic terrorism," penalizing activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States," if the actor's intent is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."
•Section 411 makes even unknowing association with terrorists a deportable offense.
•Section 412 gives the attorney general authority to order a brief detention of aliens without any prior showing or court ruling that the person is dangerous.
The word “liberal” is based
The word “liberal” is based on the same root as “liberty,” but the actions and policies of modern liberals including Obama do not advance liberty but instead advance greater government power and control over the individual and actually diminish liberty. Liberals are “statist,” because their goals are to increase state control over the individual and reduce his liberty. Thats all this so called health care reform is about. The fact is 80% of all americans have health insurance and their happy with what they have.
Re: "The fact is 80% of all
Re: "The fact is 80% of all americans have health insurance and their happy with what they have."
Fact is, 99 % of Titanic passengers were have a great voyage just before the ship hit an iceberg. :)
Well put Dennis. How many of
Well put Dennis. How many of us are one pink slip away from losing our health insurance? I know that there is no way that I could afford Cobra if I lose my job.
Beth, Maybe you shouldn't
Beth,
Maybe you shouldn't rely upon your employer then for your health insurance.
The fact is 80% of all
The fact is 80% of all americans have health insurance and their happy with what they have.
-Whoever says that all 80% of insured Americans are happy with what they have is either very poorly informed or an outright liar - perhaps both. The real fact is, we spend more of our GDP per person every year, more actual dollars per person per year, than any other industrialized nation in the world, with almost the worst results of all of them. We have a lower lifespan and higher infant mortality rate than all but a few of all the other industrialized nations. I guess Ben Franklin is right, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
As far as being statist.... perhaps you've never heard of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. That wasn't courtesy of us Democrats.
Tony, We hear that line all
Tony,
We hear that line all the time, but then people, who can get here, come from all over the world to be treated.
While we have people here who go to Canada for lower priced drugs, they have people who come here to stay alive.
John, that's a question of
John, that's a question of availability. We have more hospitals and equipment per capita than any other nation in the world. All of that equipment, most of which is provided with *gasp* public money anyway, won't suddenly vanish should there be a public option.
And the notion that Canadians come here for treatment, which when it occurs is often paid for by the Canadian government, is laughable on the grand scale. As someone that works with many many Canadians, in a building that houses the Canadian Consulate, I've found almost everyone I ask laughs at our health system.
It's important and extremely
It's important and extremely relevant to consider the small business here - Western New York and Genesee County especially are riddled with small businesses who would benefit from being able to give their workers health insurance. Tax credits and a general health insurance exchange will make it easier for them to provide coverage to their employees.
Here's a few more statistics, Richard:
Small businesses make up 81 percent of New York businesses, only 51 percent of them offered health coverage benefits in 2006.
New York businesses and families shoulder a hidden health care tax of roughly $800 per year on premiums as a direct result of subsidizing the costs of the uninsured.
Roughly 11.2 million people in New York get health insurance on the job, where family premiums average $13,971, about the annual earning of a full-time minimum wage job.
Try and put yourself in the shoes of the uninsured - health care reform is necessary.
A little more reading
A little more reading material on the subject and how it relates to New York
;)
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/statehealthreform/newyork.html
(No subject)
<img src="http://patriotpost.us/images/broadcasts/humor/images/debt-star.jpg" width=400>
<img src="http://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/obama-socialist-po…; width=400>
Peter you say "Beth, Maybe
Peter you say "Beth, Maybe you shouldn't rely upon your employer then for your health insurance".
Who do you rely on for your health insurance? Not many of us can afford to go out and purchase health insurance.
I hope you aren't insinuating
I hope you aren't insinuating that I'm an underachiever because I lack health insurance coverage.
I'm a college graduate. I'm forced to work as a waitress because jobs in my field are hard to come by in this area. Instead of applying for free insurance that is paid for by taxpaying "achievers" I have chosen to hope for a job opportunity that will extend me coverage.
If our health care system was reformed, I could have more options in my situation.
I use my employer's benefits
I use my employer's benefits but I'm not scared of losing it just because I lose my job (which I am also not scared of). I'm not afraid of bankruptcy to save my life. That's the difference.
Brittany, The poll is about
Brittany,
The poll is about individual's opinions about Obama, those pictures show mine.
Who pays for the business
Who pays for the business owners health insurance ..He or she does..And now the government wants to force him to insure his employees...No wonder all these company's go over seas to make their products..Wait for this cap and trade tax that they will throw at them...someone on here said you have to have car insurance so why shouldn't it be manatory to have health insurance...My employer isn't force to pay my car insurance .
I like this one..We spend more on health care than any other country in the world ,no kidding,,thats because we have the best in the world also...If you want to use that analogy,then apply it to welfare ,we spend the most of any country in the world on welfare and unemployment benefits..Were's all the demoncrats outrage on that...
Social Security is going
Social Security is going bankrupt. Medicare is going bankrupt. Medicaid is going bankrupt. These mismanaged government programs and others have accumulated more than $50 trillion in IOUs due and payable by subsequent generations. This a trap the Statist has laid for future generations-which will steal their liberty, labor, opportunities, and wealth. Where does it say that it is the federal government's responsibility to steal money from corporations and individuals and provide health care for others that can't afford it.
Demoncrats? Aren't you
Demoncrats? Aren't you clever? There's no outrage because 3/4 of the economy is CONSUMER driven, so WE are the wealth creators as the buyers. This corporate nonsense is just that. Nonsense. Without a market to sell to, there will be no jobs. So to maintain a market, there needs to be welfare and unemployment benefits, so that the potential market to sell a product to grows.
Oh, and we spend more on health care than any other industrialized nation because we have a private for-profit system that has seen it's profits go up over 400% this past decade. The insurance industry is willing to flatly GIVE AWAY 2 trillion, yes trillion, dollars to bring costs down. So if they have 2 trillion dollars of spare change sitting around that they can do without, then obviously they overcharged by 2 trillion dollars.... kinda funny when you consider that the industry as a whole brought in 3 trillion...
With a unified health care
With a unified health care system, it will be more affordable for small businesses to provide health care to their employees.
Of course they will have to pay for it, but it will be cheaper because every business will have to pay for it as well.
Tony, You're another one who
Tony,
You're another one who forgets needed tort reform.
Did you know that in Canada, it is almost impossible to sue the government over health care decisions. And of the court cases allowed, only 5% actually result in awards?
Now, if your willing to do tort reform, and allow insurance reform, and stop mandating what has to be covered, like Viagra for grandpa, maybe some of your ideas might work.
But right now, some of us look at the VA, a long term government run health care system that is not all that great, and get worried.
I continually hear about tax
I continually hear about tax credits as the solution for businesses (specifically small businesses) to be able to afford to offer health insurance to their workers. Tax credits are generally a scam. Business week says that 39% of small businesses are operating at a loss and an additional 30% are break-even. They don't pay income taxes unless there is net income, therefore tax credits are worth absolutely nothing to about 70% of small businesses. Tax credits only go to those companies who make too much money for their accountants to hide. They are not the ones who need it.
Tort reform is catchall
Tort reform is catchall phrase for legislative measures designed to make it harder for individuals to sue businesses.
Which tort needs reform?
Intentional, negligent, or absolute liability?
Tort reform should have
Tort reform should have nothing to do with medical insurance. A medical insurance company that denies needed coverage that is covered by the policy held deserves to get sued, and for great sums of money at that. That is the very definition of neglect.
Tort reform for medical malpractice is not needed beyond limiting the overall ways one can be sued for it, most especially hypothetical outcomes (which is what is restricted in Canada and the UK) - ie, well Doc, you just amputated both of my arms and I was due to become the next great wide receiver in the NFL, that'll be 20 million dollars please... that's garbage, yes, and needs to be fixed. But the pain & suffering is very real. Doctors should have to pay for malpractice insurance. Frankly, having that insurance themselves allows them to take the chance and try something new - so long as the patient is on board and understands that as well. This is a science, after all. And there can be no innovation, or at least stunted innovation, if one has to worry about the full liability for attempting to advance the science.
And having watched a loved grandfather (and my only grandfather as the others passed before I was even born) grow older and pass while under the care of the state VA Home, I can't say enough good things. It was considerably cleaner than any other nursing home I've ever seen or been to, it did not smell like a nursing home, and the care was top notch. Edit: While I'm sure you mean the VA in its entirety and as an entity, and not the specific 2 buildings we have here in town; I feel it has its merits to highlight what can be accomplished when it's done right.
From a friend: "When my
From a friend:
"When my husband was treating for throat cancer, we had a good insurance policy. After he passed away, I still had bills over $11,000 for what wasn't covered to pay off. I can't imagine what the hopelessness would feel like to not have any coverage at all and realize you don't even have a chance to fight the illness because there's no healthcare."
By the way her husband was not a smoker, so this was not a self induced disease.
For everyone of you who are comfortable and satisfied with the status quo, remember your life circumstances and change on a dime.
I don't think a single person
I don't think a single person here said that they were "satisfied with the status quo". Simply because other people want different changes than you does not mean they are satisfied. I despise how health care is ruled right now, but I certainly don't want anything proposed about the government running things to come to fruition.
Well, it is easy to highlight
Well, it is easy to highlight your dissatisfaction with the status quo and even easier to quickly shut down proposed solutions to the problem.
It is not quite as easy, however, to take into consideration the pros and cons of a solution and decide whether or not it would be worth it for you, for your family, for your state or for your country.
It is even more difficult to accept a compromise for the greater good even if that means you or your family or business will have to make a change.
Posted by Chelsea Dobson on
Posted by Chelsea Dobson on September 3, 2009 - 1:55pm
I don't think a single person here said that they were "satisfied with the status quo". Simply because other people want different changes than you does not mean they are satisfied. I despise how health care is ruled right now, but I certainly don't want anything proposed about the government running things to come to fruition.
No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.
Posted by Brittany Baker on
Posted by Brittany Baker on September 3, 2009 - 2:03pm
Well, it is easy to highlight your dissatisfaction with the status quo and even easier to quickly shut down proposed solutions to the problem.
It is not quite as easy, however, to take into consideration the pros and cons of a solution and decide whether or not it would be worth it for you, for your family, for your state or for your country.
It is even more difficult to accept a compromise for the greater good even if that means you or your family or business will have to make a change.
"It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope." - Robert Francis Kennedy
Why shouldn't they have to
Why shouldn't they have to pay for care Bea?
And the tort that needs to be reforms is punitive damages. No one should strike the lottery because a doctor cut off the wrong foot. Their foot was not worth millions of dollars and shouldn't be treated like it was.
And a follow up why should I
And a follow up why should I have to pay for you to have cancer treatment?
Screw the greater good. You
Screw the greater good. You are talking about saving individuals at the expense of the greater good then you say it helps everyone? How? Me paying for you to live doesn't help me at all.
"No one should die because
"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. "
Did I say that was how I wanted it? No. I have repeatedly talked about reforms. I may have different ideas from you, but that doesn't mean you can assume I'm ok with how things are now. You have no clue about what struggles other people have had with the system, and to assume anything about me and health care can easily offend me. (I've been in a hospital room with my 40-something year old mother on her death bed, how dare you claim I'm ok with how things are run)
How many on the batavian
How many on the batavian don't have health insurance..Would like to hear from the uninsured..are they offered it but don't take it .are they young..who are they..The welfare people have it,the old have it..Those in prison have it.So are you...What is your income level..
Posted by Chelsea Dobson on
Posted by Chelsea Dobson on September 3, 2009 - 2:18pm
"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. "
Did I say that was how I wanted it? No. I have repeatedly talked about reforms. I may have different ideas from you, but that doesn't mean you can assume I'm ok with how things are now. You have no clue about what struggles other people have had with the system, and to assume anything about me and health care can easily offend me. (I've been in a hospital room with my 40-something year old mother on her death bed, how dare you claim I'm ok with how things are run)
Don't fight with me, talk to your betrothed:
Posted by Peter O'Brien on September 3, 2009 - 2:10pm
Screw the greater good. You are talking about saving individuals at the expense of the greater good then you say it helps everyone? How? Me paying for you to live doesn't help me at all.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on September 3, 2009 - 2:09pm
And a follow up why should I have to pay for you to have cancer treatment?
That could easily be your mothere he was talking about.
Compassion and care for others is lacking in some circles.
Trust me, it isn't in mine. I've gone through the care of a parent. I've sat at the bedside while the body slowly gave up. You talk about different solutions, but you offer none.
Ha! 77 to 296 at this point.
Ha!
77 to 296 at this point.
The difference is I would do
The difference is I would do everything in my power to save her mom, you I wouldn't lift a finger for. And that's not malice, thats taking care of your own. You mean nothing to me where Chelsea's mom does.
How about the others posts
How about the others posts I've talked about it?
-- Allow purchasing of health care across state lines
-- Get rid of the ridiculous amounts of money people get for "malpractice", medical bills and lost wages should be enough, nothing will bring your arm/leg/son/brain back
I agree with Peter on a lot of things about health care reform, but I am not him. Continue to throw arguments in my face and not rebuttal my point because it continues to prove that those who want "universal care" have very little to stand on.
Posted by Mark Potwora on
Posted by Mark Potwora on September 3, 2009 - 2:21pm
How many on the batavian don't have health insurance..Would like to hear from the uninsured..are they offered it but don't take it .are they young..who are they..The welfare people have it,the old have it..Those in prison have it.So are you...What is your income level..
Mark, I was uninsured the entire time I took care of my mother. I looked into policies, but couldn't afford any of them. The COBRA rates were way too high when there was little or no income. I prayed for the day I turned 65 in order to qualify for health insurance (which is why Peter calls me a moocher). I also prayed that I would stay healthy during that time and, thankfully, I was.
The frustration is the knowing there is a belief that everyone can get insurance if they want it. It isn't true.
You still haven't answered my
You still haven't answered my questions.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on
Posted by Peter O'Brien on September 3, 2009 - 2:32pm
you I wouldn't lift a finger for. You mean nothing to me
Peter,
You are such a gentleman.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on
Posted by Peter O'Brien on September 3, 2009 - 2:10pm
Screw the greater good. You are talking about saving individuals at the expense of the greater good then you say it helps everyone? How? Me paying for you to live doesn't help me at all.
--So if you catch a communicable deadly disease, say H1N1 Flu, from someone that doesn't have health insurance... just remember that helping them would've never helped the greater good, or you, from being spared catching it.
Why do you elect to get health insurance anyway? Isn't insurance, by definition, a small-scale form of the socialism you detest? Why should everyone else on that insurance plan pay for you? Why should you be paying for them? I think it's time you actually act upon what you say your ideology is.
You're missing the point Bea.
You're missing the point Bea. When it comes to you needing a kidney transplant, I am not going to pay for it. That is your responsibility not mine.
If you are scared of the flu,
If you are scared of the flu, then you really need to reevalute your life.
I get insurance because it is a benefit I am offered at work. To not take it would be to devalue the work I do here. And I think I should be paid more so why am I not going to take all the benefits that are offered to me?
In that sense I am acting on my ideology. I earn my lower rates.
oh I'm not scared of the flu.
oh I'm not scared of the flu. But not having people with communicable diseases of any name walking down the street, working next to me and shopping next to me sure does affect my life. It inherintly increases the chances of me not getting sick, which increases my quality of life, saves time off for work to use for vacation and spares me lost time otherwise recovering.
Do you think a doctor or any
Do you think a doctor or any medical professional can fix the common cold? And do you think drug companies are going to work on new drugs if there is no financial benefit in doing so?
What as the last major drug that was produced in Canada?
Does it really matter what
Does it really matter what major drugs are produced in Canada? Because they sure do buy the same US made drugs we do.... at a severely discounted rate. Single payer health care means volume discounts and savings passed along to society. Must be they are still able to turn a profit in Canada, or they'd just not offer it there, by your logic.
These are the first three I
These are the first three I found, there are more:
Drug Name: *Ebixa® (also known as memantine hydrochloride)
Drug Manufacturer: Lundbeck Canada Inc.
Proposed Action: Acts on the brain's N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, which respond to glutamate, one of the brain's chemical messengers involved in the formation of memories and other nerve functions. In Alzheimer's disease, glutamate leaks out of sick nerve cells and reaches levels outside the cells which are actually toxic to the cells. Ebixa prevents that excess glutamate from over-stimulating the NMDA receptors.
Phase of Development: Conditional approval for use in moderate to advanced Alzheimer's disease.
Drug Name: *ExelonTM (also known as rivastigmine)
Drug Manufacturer: Novartis Canada Inc.
Proposed Action: Inhibits acetylcholinesterase action which will increase the level of acetylcholine in the brain. There is a decrease of acetylcholine in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease. Exelon is available as a capsule or patch. The patch may be of particular benefit to people who are susceptible to gastrointestinal problems.
Phase of Development: Approved for use in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease.
Drug Name: *ReminylTM (also known as galantamine hydrobromide)
Drug Manufacturer: Janssen-Ortho Inc.
Proposed Action: Inhibits acetylcholinesterase action which will increase the level of acetylcholine in the brain. There is a decrease of acetylcholine in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease.
Phase of Development: Approved for use in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease.
Do you think a drug company
Do you think a drug company is going to invest millions of dollars to produce a drug to sell it at a lower price and not make the money they can in the US market? Try again.
No incentive, no innovation.
So all the drugs you found
So all the drugs you found had be researched while I can name Viagra, Caduet, and Lipitor (the worlds #1 drug) without a google search. That tells me that the canadian drug industry sucks.
What about my other questions Bea?
Insulin- invented in
Insulin- invented in Canada
Penicillin- invented in England
Not drugs, but procedures:
Balloon Angioplasty - England
Mammography - Germany
The US does not lead the world in developing new drugs anyway... Europe still does. And that's a fact. And their motive would be to earn government grants for research, just as they do now... they don't foot as much of the bill as you'd like to believe... the US government spends more on medical R&D than it does on military R&D.
Europe does, so it takes many
Europe does, so it takes many many many nations combined to beat us. That would mean the US is winning.
Mark - you wanted to know how
Mark - you wanted to know how many on the Batavian don't have health insurance. I have 2 adult children who both work in the services industry (one of their employers is a sponsor to this site). Neither one of them are offered health insurance and therefore have none. One has a neuromuscular disease but has received no treatment in 4 years because she has no health insurance.
When my children were younger and I was working at a small law office in Batavia, the employer did not offer health insurance because the cost was prohibitive. I had to wait for my income tax refund so I could bring my children to the doctor.
Insulin therapy (not insulin,
Insulin therapy (not insulin, god created that) was invented before the inception of universal health care.
Would it though? I seem to
Would it though? I seem to remember a European Union being formed, you know, one single entity... where the costs for research and education is shared and the benefits pooled.
Ok fine, something more
Ok fine, something more modern will require the same research that it took you to discover insulin came before WW2... so...........
-3TC - the most widely used drug today in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.
-The connection between HUS, E. Coli, and verotoxin to improve food safety worldwide.
-The Canadian discovery of the Neto1 brain protein, which is believed to be the key protein in learning and could possibly end learning disabilities.
-Mustard operation - named after Dr. Mustard. This created a new partition in the hearts of infant children who had malfunctioning hearts leaving them oxygen starved and with a high chance of death.
-Polio Vaccine - Jointly created between the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Toronto
-Rhogam - No matter what blood type you have, everyone has a Rhesus factor, if the mother and child do not match + to + or - to -, then Rhesus disease develops. This causes the mother to pass on antibodies into the baby that attack its own red blood cells. These children die in utero from hydrops fetalis (edema), suffer cardiac failure, or survive following blood transfusions, sometimes with cerebral palsy and deafness.
Can I stop now? I'd like to still be able to consider myself patriotic after today...
Peter, Canadian invention of
Peter,
Canadian invention of the electron microscope allowed them to discover liposomes and develop them as drug delivery tools. Very important in cancer treatment. Try thinking before spouting off. You might find it refreshing. Many other readers surely would.
Government-run health care is
Government-run health care is not about health care just like cap and trade is not about climate change… Twenty years from now, if these farses pass, …20 years from now you won’t recognize your country. If you have a severe illness, you will have to beg your Senator and Congressman for help. Ask any Canadian. That’s what they want you to do. They want you to beg them for help. They want you bent over with your hands grabbing your ankles. They want you to be completely and utterly disspirited. That’s what this battle’s over, government control of every single aspect of your life their gonna tell you how much you should weigh, what you eat, not to smoke, how much sugar is in your coke, on top of that what type of car you should drive, how much electricity you should use, and how much CO2 to put in the air, how are they gonna control how much you exhale, what about cow farts. Why all of sudden is everything a freaking Crisis - the finnacial crisis, climate change crisis, energy crisis, health care crisis. Have to sign this or that right now don't read it just sign it right now while we have da power. Its all just crap.
To hell with it all....we
To hell with it all....we should all do something that puts us in prison,then we WILL have FREE HEALTH CARE!!!!I thought that hospitals had to treat anyone who came in,whether or not they could pay for it....don't worry H1N1,swine flu, whatever to hell you want to call,is our doomsday disease the way the newscasts are highlighting it every night....then maybe the bird flu will come back,hell,they'll probably invent a cat or dog flu to keep everyone scared.....health insurance rates keep going up,amount they cover keeps going down.Who cares??? This country is going down the toilet fast-
An interesting article from
An interesting article from the U.K. I just came across:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death…
This is one reason why I would like to see less haste in pushing any version of the current proposal through. We need to know all there is to know about the bill, as do those who are voting for and signing the bill. We need to learn from what happened to the Hawaii short-lived health care plan and the Massachusetts plan.
Why the rush? I really want to know. Please?
"either very poorly informed
"either very poorly informed or an outright liar - perhaps both.................As far as being statist.... perhaps you've never heard of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. That wasn't courtesy of us Democrats. "
Sir, the groundwork of the Patriot Act is incorporated from the legislation the was proposed by Bill Clinton in 1996.
I believe you're slightly
I believe you're slightly mistaken - or giving those two items too much credit. The acts in 96 and 99 are to allow the military to involve itself on US soil, which is illegal (hence established bases), in the case of emergencies (ie, a terrorist attack). Or in the case of the 99 act, to allow the military to involve itself in non-emergency cases of biological and chemical weapons. The USA PATRIOT Act is a whole different beast. But that's not the point I'm going for, it's that the claim is akin to the pot calling the kettle black.
But of course that will go unnoticed in a city & town where a bunch of idiots have the Confederate Naval Jack on display at their homes or on their vehicles. I assume they are under some false impression they are flying the old Confederate Flag, nicknamed Stars & Bars... but instead they're displaying the Rectangular Southern Cross - which is the Naval Jack. The square Southern Cross is the flag of the CSA Army, the Battle Flag. Stars & Bars is identical the US flag, with 3 stripes instead of 13 (which are the bars), and 7 stars (eventually 13 stars) in a circle instead of what is today 50 and during the Civil War was 34. In case anyone is flying one and needs a history lesson.
Posted by Tyler Hall on
Posted by Tyler Hall on September 4, 2009 - 2:55pm
Sir, the groundwork of the Patriot Act is incorporated from the legislation the was proposed by Bill Clinton in 1996.
The last time I looked, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's.
The USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Act allows federal officials greater authority in tracking and intercepting communications, both for purposes of law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering. It gives the Secretary of the Treasury regulatory powers to combat corruption of US financial institutions for foreign money-laundering purposes; it more actively works to close our borders to foreign terrorists and to detain and remove those within our borders; it establishes new crimes, new penalties and new procedural techniques for use against domestic and international terrorists.
There has been protest over certain sections of the Patriot Act, even resulting in some civil liberties suits brought by the ACLU and other groups.
Following are some of the more controversial sections of the Patriot Act:
•Section 215 modifies the rules on records searches so that third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it's trying to protect against terrorism.
•Section 218 amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), authorizing secret searches without public knowledge or Department of Justice accountability, so long as the government can allege a foreign intelligence basis for the search.
•Section 213 warrants -- "Sneak and Peek" -- extend the authority of FISA searches to any criminal search. This allows for secret searches of one's home and property without prior notice.
•Section 214 permits the removal of the warrant requirement for "Pen registers" which ascertain phone numbers dialed from a suspect's telephone and "Trap and trace" devices which monitor the source of all incoming calls, so long as the government can certify that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing investigation against international terrorism.
•Section 216 clarifies that pen register/trap-and-trace authority applies to Internet surveillance. The Act changes the language to include Internet monitoring, specifically information about: "dialing, routing, and signaling." It also broadens such monitoring to any information "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."
•Section 206 authorizes roving wiretaps: allowing taps on every phone or computer the target may use, and expands FISA to permit surveillance of any communications made to or by an intelligence target without specifying the particular phone line or computer to be monitored.
•Section 505 authorizes the use of an administrative subpoena of personal records, without requiring probable cause or judicial oversight.
•Section 802 creates a category of crime called "domestic terrorism," penalizing activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States," if the actor's intent is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."
•Section 411 makes even unknowing association with terrorists a deportable offense.
•Section 412 gives the attorney general authority to order a brief detention of aliens without any prior showing or court ruling that the person is dangerous.