Well...So it won't be Mitt Romney, Dave....and Obama is well...what he is. So...where does that leave us?
In all honesty, between the two (Just for an exercise) I don't trust Romney one spec. He embodies just about everything that is wrong with modern politics.
I'm not an Obama supporter, but Romney will never get my vote.
The economy is the most critical issue; all else, jobs, cost of living and security are dependent on a stable economy. A plan must be put in place to defray the national debt. The commodity markets must be insulated from manipulation by speculators. Incentives must be put in place to wean our nation from dependence on carbon-based fuel. All corporate public subsidy must be based on domestic job growth. No new jobs- no grants, tax deferrals or subsidies. The healthcare octopus needs to be untangled; no networks, no exclusive provider contracts, no regional markets. Healthcare service needs to be broken up and opened up to competition. Employers brokering health insurance needs to end. Businesses should be allowed to offer an employee benefit, pre-tax voucher to be applied to health insurance, but health insurance policies should be brokered by the provider independently contracting with the consumer. The government needs to be more aggressive in developing alternative health insurance programs, the self-funded groups provided for in "Obamacare" need to get off the ground. Corporations that move manufacturing overseas need to be penalized. It's time to level the playing field and promote domestic manufacturing. Retailers need to be rewarded for selling domestic products and produce. We need an amendment to the Constitution that separates politicians from corporate/special interest money.
Phil; It's the biggest issue I have right now with our friend Ron Paul, he is hoping to influence Romney's campaign to include some libertarian positions or at least to move that way and I don't understand why. They may say they're going to do something during the campaign, but once elected throw promises out the window. I'm not getting on that bandwagon. I most likely won't vote for either Romney or Obama. Between the time Obama was elected and inaugurated, he made a statement (paraphrasing here) "I'm not going to run my administration on campaign promises" Nice. I did not forget that, I didn't vote for him either, but still. We can probably dig up similar situations where campaign promises were ignored after the election by congressmen and senators. I'm still hoping for another candidate to show up for our congressional district, David Bellavia wants to help the republican party, well good luck with that, he is now another party hack politician. All the things in the poll are important to be sure and CM makes many great points, but if you can't trust the person making the promises, it don't matter.
I assumed that the poll is referring to our congressional rep., not President since choice #5 talks about representing constituents. Given that, my choice was repealing Obamacare since doing so would also go along way to fixing #1, #3, and #4.
I just can't bring myself to vote for Obama and I didn't vote for him the first time, either. I don't like Romney almost as much as Obama, but the choices are what they are. My frustration is that our political system is so geared towards giving the nod to the poorest choice to represent their party. By poorest, I mean for me and for us. They might be the best choice for special interests that influenced their nomination but certainly not for us.
I thought Obama promised transparency in government and to ban lobbyists. More empty promises to garner votes and more of the same ol' same ol' from both parties.
I know if Obama retains the presidency, his insane Obamacare will become a reality. I just can't willingly allow that to happen by wasting a vote on him. Every time I hear the echo of Pelosi's voice lamenting about how the bill has to be passed to see what's in it, I get nauseated.
Ron Paul, out of all of the possible nominees, he should've gotten the nod. Everyone says his foreign policy sucked but it can't be any worse than Obama apologizing to the rest of the world for who knows what and bowing to foreign dictators...what a tool! We need more common sense in the presidency and in government in general. Romney freely gets my vote and Obama couldn't buy my vote.
Why should we be weaned off of carbon based fuels? There's plenty of it to go around and to last for hundreds of years. There's more coal and oil than we know what to do with and if Obama would stop doing things like shutting down oil platforms in the gulf and shutting down job creating projects like the Keystone pipeline, our economy and job situation just might kick back into gear.
There's no good reason to shy away from carbon based fuels any time soon. We can't shy away from it until there's a viable replacement for creating electricity and for fueling automobiles. More nuclear facilities are a great idea and running vehicles on natural gas makes so much sense in this market. We're sitting on top of one of the largest known reserves of natural gas in the world.
Wind and solar energy all sound great but they're fads that can't be used on a widespread, industrial scale. The largest problem with both technologies is power storage. Lets get the oil and lets get the coal and lets use them to our advantage.
I don't want the government to be in the business of job creation or to be in charge of my health care. I want government to be much smaller than it is now and to get out of the way of progress and job creation. Our own government has spent us into impossible debt, unable to fiscally manage itself and we're crazy enough to put them at the helm of health care?
I just take deep breaths, sit in the hot tub (burning carbon fuel) and have a little bit of Jameson's on the rocks. Hopefully sanity will prevail, but I have my doubts.
I don't believe so, CM. They can reduce power consumption while the wind is in motion and while the sun shines but they can't produce anywhere near the full capacity needed.
If we could harness the power of fusion, our energy needs could easily be met. Here's a problem, however. If we find a replacement form of power that can produce more energy than we'll ever need, will that cause a financial disaster by putting an entire carbon fuel industry just about out of business?
CM, we can't force alternative energy choices by making a plentiful commodity so expensive that people can't afford it any more than the government can spend us into prosperity. The alternative energy choices of the here and now aren't viable choices because of their downfalls and because of their cost. Spending our way to prosperity is like a bandage on a gutshot wound caused by a canon. Eventually the blood and guts are going to spill anyway. We need major surgery to fix way too many problems.
This morning it was reported yet another stimulus funded solar factory is going to be shutting it's doors. We know for fact that developing fossil energy resources that we already possess will in fact create jobs, and yes wealth. The arguement against is almost always an environmental one, but common sense and solid engineering can always create a fair balance between resource utilization and the environment, in fact in the last 50 years we have done just that.
The fact is, the in the United States, we sit on one of the most sizable oil reserves, a massive natural gas supply and an unequaled coal reserve. All of these individually and collectively can be an almost limitless sources of employment and wealth. These don't even touch nuclear power knowledge that we have.
It is really time that political and politically correct thought be put aside and replaced with common sense and collective use of skills that we as a nation do possess. Too often, when the politicos speak new technology, they speak of the politically correct 'Green' thought (wind, solar etc.) but new technology, and much of it already exist, also applies to prudent use of our fossil resources.
When you have a full house in your hand, you don't throw it away in hopes of drawing four of a kind. We have the experience, the technology and the resources to develop oil and natural gas now, and that would result in a better economy in far shorter a time period than chasing the green dream. I am not saying just dismiss the solar and windmill development, I am saying we should place our stock on what will have immediate impact at this time in our history.
On the question of Obama Care, I have actually downloaded and read the bill, this was way before any of it was implimented. There are at least 14 taxes hidden in the bill itself, at first I thought those were talking points but they are not. What strokes me most is there is nothing in the bill that actually attacks the key drivers of health care cost. (Uncontrolled Malpractice suits, modernization and mandated reporting) in fact, certain mandated coverages in the bill are actual cost drivers.
The emotional retort from those that avidly support the bill such as universal coverage, keeping college students on parents insurance and pre-existing conditions could have all been addressed in different ways than this massive boondoogle, infact in New York State, many of those issue had already been addressed. The fact is that this bill, now law, can not work without increased taxation.It is just ridiculous to suggest otherwise. NOTHING IS FOR FREE!!!! Although supporters tout free birth control, free this free that none of it is free, someone has to pay for it.
To suggest businesses and the wealthy can support it without severely impacting the economy is equally ridiculous.
I support, like many in the medical profession do, Dr. Lee Hieb
Thanks for those 2 links, Howard. regarding the Reason article: This is exactly what Sen. Rand Paul meant when he said that just because a few Supreme Court Justices say something is Constitutional, doesn't necessarily make it so.
You are correct, we get the Gub'ment we deserve, Good job 40 and 50% turnout.
Try these if you liked that one, they are a little longer and have some of her same material only more in depth, Lot's of facrs to back her position up.
Mark, thanks for the links to these videos. I can only hope that proponents for Obamacare actually watch all of these videos in their entirety and hear the factual messages from Dr Hieb. What a smart, smart woman.
I could put up a bunch of factual arguments showing the merits of health care reform. I could put up a timeline showing the origins of this law coming from non other than the very conservative Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney, but frankly I know it isn't worth typing it all out on here.
I will just leave you with this op ed. It's not written by a pundent, a politician or even an activist. It's written by a real person who up until the ACA had no health insurance and was diagnosed with breast cancer. With the excising of the pre-existing condition component already in place she was able to buy affordable insurance and have life saving treatment. To me she is one of the faces of how ACA gives millions of people access to health care.
Just for those of you that may see this woman as a "taker", here is a paragraph of the article that proves otherwise --" I was uninsured not because I'm a lazy, freeloading deadbeat but because my husband and I are self-employed. We had been purchasing health insurance on the individual market along with 6 percent of the rest of the population. But after exhausting all of our resources trying to keep up with premiums of $1,500 a month, we had no choice but to cancel it."
In my life I have my own story. A daughter who at age 24 was uninsured and was faced with some expensive health issues. Putting her on our insurance was an absolute godsend. While I have always been a health care reform advocate, it was such a blessing to see how it actually works in my own family. How many that read this have taken advantage of that provision? How many would take advantage of that provision even if they were adamantly against health care reform?
"I was uninsured not because I'm a lazy, freeloading deadbeat but because my husband and I are self-employed. We had been purchasing health insurance on the individual market along with 6 percent of the rest of the population. But after exhausting all of our resources trying to keep up with premiums of $1,500 a month, we had no choice but to cancel it."
I don't know ... everything I've been following indicates this person will be among those 1 percent of Americans who will pay a tax penalty if they don't buy insurance.
And $1,500 might seem like a bargain going forward.
Howard, you missed this from the article -- " But luckily, the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan had already kicked in, and it made it possible for me to purchase insurance under a government program."
Lorie, but she had to cancel prior to getting the pre-existing condition, and that pre-existing condition became a strong motivation to get insurance. She doesn't say it suddenly became more affordable.
The fact is, the Affordable Healthcare Act does nothing to make healthcare more affordable for most people. That's one of the deficiencies I believe Kathy Hochul would like to address.
I don't believe the Affordable Care Act is actually going to reduce out of pocket costs for many people at all. Now that we know what we have known all along, that this is a tax, it has already been estimated to be the largest tax increase in history, anywhere. I am very interested in hearing more specifics on Kathy Hochul's issues with Obamacare. Given her record so far of independence, I would not be surprised to see her trying to eliminate the parts of the healthcare bill that most of us don't like. If that is the case, even with the Republican advantage in the redistricting, she may be hard to beat in November, and I certainly don't think Chris Collins is the one to do it.
What questions would you like to ask Hochul and Collins about the Affordable Healthcare Act?
I think it would be very interesting to put to both of them a series of questions about the law -- not general questions, but specifics about the act -- to try and understand their specific thoughts, not just broad brush.
I'd like to ask, "What do you think of the provision that ...does XYZ?"
So, Jeff and other readers -- what questions do you want answered?
My biggest problem with the law is the individual mandate. There are many parts of the law that should be saved or reworked in a replacement bill. I would be interested in hearing if Hochul is open to getting rid of the mandate in favor of alternative funding mechanisms. I would like to know if she would work on a bi-partisan replacement bill that would address tort reform, allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines, comprehensive entitlement reform.
Just once I would like a discussion by politians that DOES NOT try to play the emotion card, I believe everyone would like certain features of the Affordable Health Care Act, democrat and republican alike. Jeff is exactly correct, the AHC does not address cost drivers at all. I like the fact that KAthy Hockul recognizes that, as she has stated more than once. Therefore, it is safe to assume that she recognizes that fact.
What was lost in the entire debate, was the FACT that all healthcare cost are determined by the CPT, which is the uniform code list for medicare, insurance companies mark up a given percentage of that. Doctors and hospitals mark up to compensate for the below cost payment indicated by the CPT and the result is higher cost for the privately insured.
It really boils down to everything has a true cost, but when that cost is not met by government payment, it has to be recovered by private payment. The reason why an aspirin cost between $8 -$18 in a hosiptal(Depending on Region) has nothing to do with insurance company or hospital profit margins, it is actually a result a combination of sub cost payment by the government through medicare and the enormous amount of reporting required to satisfy MEDICARE reporting requirements, in other words 'Excessive regulation'
Now Kathy Hockul, a Democrat seems to recognize that, she also seems to realize that the cost drivers were not addressed and the additional cost as a result of the AHA do not reconcile. I could really support her because of her independance if she sticks to that, regardless, not a word spoken by either candidate this year is going to go unchecked by me this year, I intend to research evry staement before I commit a vote. That doesn't stop with healthcare, I truly believe that we as a nation are at a very critical point.
Howard, one of the reasons for reform. Maybe she wouldn't have had to let policy laps. And according to her op ed she was able to get insurance because of ACA.
While it is still a market driven system based on the middle man making a profit, what we will get is a regulated industry that can't deny care because of preexisting conditions and a sytem that moves from a focus on care after you get sick to preventive care by having provisions for no cost tests for colonoscopies and mammograms. Health system instead of a sick system.
I think one of the best provisions is that 85% of all premium dollars collected by insurance companies for large employer plans have to actually be used for health care services and 80% for small employers or individuals. When that number is not reached we get rebates instead of our money paying CEO bonuses.
My own opinion to save a whole boat load of money and lower costs is remove the middle man completely, but that was not the law that passed. Of course that would mean an entire industry would be eliminated. Remember that industry does not deliver even a minute amount of actual care or equipment for care.
I've always felt a certain discomfort with tort reform and watching some Milton Friedman videos this morning, I was reminded why I oppose it.
In a truly free market, the ability to sue a company for defective products is in fact part of the process.
Tort reform doesn't address the basic underlying imbalance in the medical community, where neither products nor services are really part of a free market system. Everything is so regulated and insurance companies are essentially government sanctioned monopolies, tort reform is both a band aid on a bullet wound and will more than likely only make matters worse.
Here's a search on YouTube for Milton Friedman and tort reform
I've watched none of these, but intend too now that I've found them.
Here's one of the key videos I watched this morning -- Milton Friedman schooling a very young Michael Moore (woe is us that Moore didn't heed the lessons) (and it's where he addresses the importance of tort law in a free market).
Laurie, There is no such thing as "no cost tests for colonoscopies and mammograms" The Mamographer must be paid, the internist must be paid, as well as thier nurses, technicians, the facility has cost.
Deeming them free for the recipient is in no way reducing cost, it is actually increasing them, and then shifting them.
It is also limiting the access, contrary to it's intent, in countries where these have already been deemed free, the 5 year survial rate is actually lower than it is in the US. That is a fact. It is not because of the test itself, The over all 5 year suvival rate in the US is 90%, In Canada 87% in Europe 47% in England 45%, the reason is because the only way to control the cost of the test you mention in a government mandated system, is to control the actual number and frequency of the test. Don't believe me, you can look the info up in the Onocology Journal yourself.
Everything is controlled by cost whether it be Government or Privately funded, the problem is when Government gets involved, it always cost more. Although we are usually told that it is free
Howard, read former LeRoyan Tom Baker's book The Medical Malpractice Myth. Tom is a law professor, I believe at University of Connecticut. His father is a beloved country doctor who practiced in LeRoy for 40+ years.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/…
"The best attempt to synthesize the academic literature on medical malpractice is Tom Baker's The Medical Malpractice Myth, published last November. Baker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who studies insurance, argues that the hype about medical malpractice suits is "urban legend mixed with the occasional true story, supported by selective references to academic studies." After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending. If anything, there are fewer lawsuits than would be expected, and far more injuries than we usually imagine."
Then why is it that the stats indicate that the nationas with national healthcare systems (And preventative care program sponsored by the government)in place have a MUCH lower 5 year survivabilty rate than we do Laurie when Obama care wasn't in place? And with the exemption of Canada, a tremendously lower survival rate, Again, readily available data from the Onocology Jopurnal each year and each year very consistant.
Why did 2 Premiers of Canada, who have government controlled healthcare, come to the US for treatment.
Why did Boris yeltsin bring a US Doctor to supervise the treatment of his CHF?
The list goes on of leaders from countries with Government healthcare coming to the US when it really mattered.
Even wikapedia recognizes, herdity + life Style is the determining factor.
The issue I have with the law is it still feeds the private insurance industry, and I am limited to purchasing from certain insurance providers. If insurance could be purchased across state lines, I believe competition would provide incentive for lower premiums, which in turn would up the focus on fraud and waste, 2 huge issues with our current broke system.
Laurie, I disagree with your assertion that the origins of the health care law came from the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney. The health care law was the brainchild of a woman named Liz Fowler.
I would even go so far as to say that Mitt Romney does not deserve to claim full credit for Mass. universal health care. It was a process that was started with sweeping welfare reform legislation, in 1995, by then Mass. Gov William Weld.
The state of Massachusetts effectively utilized a series of Medicaid Section 1115 Demonstration Waivers to experiment with alternative ways to deal with the problem of uninsured residents. It was a long process that culminated with their present mandated health care system that boasts 99+ % insurance coverage of Mass. citizens.
It can be debated that Liz Fowler copied the product of a decades long health care reform process in Massachusetts and rolled it up into the sweeping 2700 page bill that we know as Obamacare. She probably did.
But what Massachusetts did that Obamacare does not, is institute medicaid reform first and use the cost savings to implement the next steps in an incremental plan that took decades to accomplish.
I think that a timeline of the well documented origins of Obamacare are worth typing. Here it is:
Liz Fowler was the Chief Counsel for the Senate Finance Committee in charge of health and entitlement issues, i.e., legislation that primarily affected the healthcare industry.
In this capacity, she was responsible for overseeing health policy issues within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, health tax issues and initiatives to provide health coverage for the uninsured.
2003
She played a key role in the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act (MMA).
2006
She was hired by the health insurance giant WellPoint to serve as its Vice President for Public Policy and External Affairs — in other words, overseeing WellPoint’s lobbying and other government-influencing activities
2008
Once it was likely that there would be a Democratic President and thus a new, massive healthcare bill enacted, Fowler left WellPoint and returned to the Senate, as top aide to Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee Chairman who would oversee the drafting of the healthcare bill
Finance Chairman Baucus Unveils Blueprint For Comprehensive Health Care Reform
There is an exec summary of the Whitepaper on the above link. I have the full text of the Whitepaper on my old computer. I checked the properties of the full document, it lists Liz Fowler as the author.
Three articles on the connection between Sen. Max Baucus and three current and former Wellpoint executives/lobbyists, Liz Fowler, Stephen Northrup, and Michelle Easton.
There is a video on the above link of Max Baucus thanking Liz Fowler.
Part of what he said:
"I wish to single out one person, and that one person is sitting next to me. Her name is Liz Fowler. Liz Fowler is my chief health counsel. Liz Fowler has put my health care team together. Liz Fowler worked for me many years ago, left for the private sector, and then came back when she realized she could be there at the creation of health care reform because she wanted that to be, in a certain sense, her profession lifetime goal. She put together the White Paper last November–2008–the 87-page document which became the basis, the foundation, the blueprint from which almost all health care measures in all bills on both sides of the aisle came. She is an amazing person. She is a lawyer; she is a Ph.D. She is just so decent. She is always smiling, she is always working, always available to help any Senator, any staff. I thank Liz from the bottom of my heart. In many ways, she typifies, she represents all of the people who have worked so hard to make this bill such a great accomplishment."
July 16, 2010 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/white-house-defends-hirin_n_64…
This week, the White House hired Liz Fowler to serve as deputy director of the Office of Consumer Information and Oversight at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The post gives Fowler broad power to implement the recently-passed health care law, a piece of legislation with which she is intimately familiar since she helped write it in her previous post as chief health counsel for the Senate Finance Committee.
Howard, given the manner in which AHA was passed, the question I'd like to ask Hochul and Collins is:
Do you support "Read The Bill" legislation, H.Res. 554 and S.Res. 307, which seeks to increase transparency in the legislative process, giving Congress, as well as the American people, the opportunity to read legislation, formulate an informed opinion and let their reps know how they feel about it, prior to any debate or votes?
Both bills require that proposed legislation be posted online 72 hours in advance of debate or votes. The Senate version also requires scoring by the CBO.
Having worked in the Health care field since 1999 in several different areas, I fail to see how Obamacare is going to do anything but Negative for our economy and the citizens.
This isn't socialized healthcare like canada or European Countries. This doesn't mean you don't have to pay for insurance and employers don't have to pay for it. This Costs the people that work more money off the top of the already low wages employers are able to pay. And Socialized healthcare is garbage anyways. The wait times are insane.
This seems like a nice little way for the government to wrack up some fees for those that do not have coverage. Employers will just pay the small fine and not cover anyone because that is a lot cheaper than paying for everyones benefits.
Don't get me wrong, I think the healthcare field needs reforms. I however do not feel that current admin is educated enough and experienced enough to handle that. And if forcing this through is any accord to how he handles business he doesn't deserve a second term.
The government is supposed listen to the people and act on their behalf, not sneak stuff through and force it on us. The government should be encouraging people to work together, to work, and build a better country not divide the people and create a culture that thrives on dependence on the government handouts and rewarded for mediocrity.
I want someone in office that can make good decisions and accomplish something in 4 years. I don't want more taxes. No one should want more taxes.
Character matters the most.
Character matters the most.
Well...So it won't be Mitt
Well...So it won't be Mitt Romney, Dave....and Obama is well...what he is. So...where does that leave us?
In all honesty, between the two (Just for an exercise) I don't trust Romney one spec. He embodies just about everything that is wrong with modern politics.
I'm not an Obama supporter, but Romney will never get my vote.
The economy is the most
The economy is the most critical issue; all else, jobs, cost of living and security are dependent on a stable economy. A plan must be put in place to defray the national debt. The commodity markets must be insulated from manipulation by speculators. Incentives must be put in place to wean our nation from dependence on carbon-based fuel. All corporate public subsidy must be based on domestic job growth. No new jobs- no grants, tax deferrals or subsidies. The healthcare octopus needs to be untangled; no networks, no exclusive provider contracts, no regional markets. Healthcare service needs to be broken up and opened up to competition. Employers brokering health insurance needs to end. Businesses should be allowed to offer an employee benefit, pre-tax voucher to be applied to health insurance, but health insurance policies should be brokered by the provider independently contracting with the consumer. The government needs to be more aggressive in developing alternative health insurance programs, the self-funded groups provided for in "Obamacare" need to get off the ground. Corporations that move manufacturing overseas need to be penalized. It's time to level the playing field and promote domestic manufacturing. Retailers need to be rewarded for selling domestic products and produce. We need an amendment to the Constitution that separates politicians from corporate/special interest money.
Phil; It's the biggest issue
Phil; It's the biggest issue I have right now with our friend Ron Paul, he is hoping to influence Romney's campaign to include some libertarian positions or at least to move that way and I don't understand why. They may say they're going to do something during the campaign, but once elected throw promises out the window. I'm not getting on that bandwagon. I most likely won't vote for either Romney or Obama. Between the time Obama was elected and inaugurated, he made a statement (paraphrasing here) "I'm not going to run my administration on campaign promises" Nice. I did not forget that, I didn't vote for him either, but still. We can probably dig up similar situations where campaign promises were ignored after the election by congressmen and senators. I'm still hoping for another candidate to show up for our congressional district, David Bellavia wants to help the republican party, well good luck with that, he is now another party hack politician. All the things in the poll are important to be sure and CM makes many great points, but if you can't trust the person making the promises, it don't matter.
I assumed that the poll is
I assumed that the poll is referring to our congressional rep., not President since choice #5 talks about representing constituents. Given that, my choice was repealing Obamacare since doing so would also go along way to fixing #1, #3, and #4.
I just can't bring myself to
I just can't bring myself to vote for Obama and I didn't vote for him the first time, either. I don't like Romney almost as much as Obama, but the choices are what they are. My frustration is that our political system is so geared towards giving the nod to the poorest choice to represent their party. By poorest, I mean for me and for us. They might be the best choice for special interests that influenced their nomination but certainly not for us.
I thought Obama promised transparency in government and to ban lobbyists. More empty promises to garner votes and more of the same ol' same ol' from both parties.
I know if Obama retains the presidency, his insane Obamacare will become a reality. I just can't willingly allow that to happen by wasting a vote on him. Every time I hear the echo of Pelosi's voice lamenting about how the bill has to be passed to see what's in it, I get nauseated.
Ron Paul, out of all of the possible nominees, he should've gotten the nod. Everyone says his foreign policy sucked but it can't be any worse than Obama apologizing to the rest of the world for who knows what and bowing to foreign dictators...what a tool! We need more common sense in the presidency and in government in general. Romney freely gets my vote and Obama couldn't buy my vote.
Why should we be weaned off
Why should we be weaned off of carbon based fuels? There's plenty of it to go around and to last for hundreds of years. There's more coal and oil than we know what to do with and if Obama would stop doing things like shutting down oil platforms in the gulf and shutting down job creating projects like the Keystone pipeline, our economy and job situation just might kick back into gear.
There's no good reason to shy away from carbon based fuels any time soon. We can't shy away from it until there's a viable replacement for creating electricity and for fueling automobiles. More nuclear facilities are a great idea and running vehicles on natural gas makes so much sense in this market. We're sitting on top of one of the largest known reserves of natural gas in the world.
Wind and solar energy all sound great but they're fads that can't be used on a widespread, industrial scale. The largest problem with both technologies is power storage. Lets get the oil and lets get the coal and lets use them to our advantage.
I don't want the government to be in the business of job creation or to be in charge of my health care. I want government to be much smaller than it is now and to get out of the way of progress and job creation. Our own government has spent us into impossible debt, unable to fiscally manage itself and we're crazy enough to put them at the helm of health care?
I just take deep breaths, sit in the hot tub (burning carbon fuel) and have a little bit of Jameson's on the rocks. Hopefully sanity will prevail, but I have my doubts.
Here's an interesting piece
Here's an interesting piece from Reason on why Roberts ruled as he did:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/29/how-judicial-restraint-shaped-joh…
In other words, you get the government you deserve.
Doug, your wide-brush
Doug, your wide-brush characterization of wind and solar as "fads" is off the mark. http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23832
http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/dd8345923fba443da263dcfa16…
http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/upload/Minnesota.pdf
Here's another link along the
Here's another link along the lines of we get the government we deserve.
http://talkingliberty.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/why-roberts-is-right/
I don't believe so, CM. They
I don't believe so, CM. They can reduce power consumption while the wind is in motion and while the sun shines but they can't produce anywhere near the full capacity needed.
If we could harness the power of fusion, our energy needs could easily be met. Here's a problem, however. If we find a replacement form of power that can produce more energy than we'll ever need, will that cause a financial disaster by putting an entire carbon fuel industry just about out of business?
CM, we can't force
CM, we can't force alternative energy choices by making a plentiful commodity so expensive that people can't afford it any more than the government can spend us into prosperity. The alternative energy choices of the here and now aren't viable choices because of their downfalls and because of their cost. Spending our way to prosperity is like a bandage on a gutshot wound caused by a canon. Eventually the blood and guts are going to spill anyway. We need major surgery to fix way too many problems.
This morning it was reported
This morning it was reported yet another stimulus funded solar factory is going to be shutting it's doors. We know for fact that developing fossil energy resources that we already possess will in fact create jobs, and yes wealth. The arguement against is almost always an environmental one, but common sense and solid engineering can always create a fair balance between resource utilization and the environment, in fact in the last 50 years we have done just that.
The fact is, the in the United States, we sit on one of the most sizable oil reserves, a massive natural gas supply and an unequaled coal reserve. All of these individually and collectively can be an almost limitless sources of employment and wealth. These don't even touch nuclear power knowledge that we have.
It is really time that political and politically correct thought be put aside and replaced with common sense and collective use of skills that we as a nation do possess. Too often, when the politicos speak new technology, they speak of the politically correct 'Green' thought (wind, solar etc.) but new technology, and much of it already exist, also applies to prudent use of our fossil resources.
When you have a full house in your hand, you don't throw it away in hopes of drawing four of a kind. We have the experience, the technology and the resources to develop oil and natural gas now, and that would result in a better economy in far shorter a time period than chasing the green dream. I am not saying just dismiss the solar and windmill development, I am saying we should place our stock on what will have immediate impact at this time in our history.
On the question of Obama
On the question of Obama Care, I have actually downloaded and read the bill, this was way before any of it was implimented. There are at least 14 taxes hidden in the bill itself, at first I thought those were talking points but they are not. What strokes me most is there is nothing in the bill that actually attacks the key drivers of health care cost. (Uncontrolled Malpractice suits, modernization and mandated reporting) in fact, certain mandated coverages in the bill are actual cost drivers.
The emotional retort from those that avidly support the bill such as universal coverage, keeping college students on parents insurance and pre-existing conditions could have all been addressed in different ways than this massive boondoogle, infact in New York State, many of those issue had already been addressed. The fact is that this bill, now law, can not work without increased taxation.It is just ridiculous to suggest otherwise. NOTHING IS FOR FREE!!!! Although supporters tout free birth control, free this free that none of it is free, someone has to pay for it.
To suggest businesses and the wealthy can support it without severely impacting the economy is equally ridiculous.
I support, like many in the medical profession do, Dr. Lee Hieb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ffif1DTT8
medical 3 c's
Cash
Catostrophic Insurance
Charity
Thanks for those 2 links,
Thanks for those 2 links, Howard. regarding the Reason article: This is exactly what Sen. Rand Paul meant when he said that just because a few Supreme Court Justices say something is Constitutional, doesn't necessarily make it so.
You are correct, we get the Gub'ment we deserve, Good job 40 and 50% turnout.
Mark, Thanks for posting the
Mark,
Thanks for posting the link to the video. That should be required viewing for both sides of the healthcare debate.
Your Welcome Jeff. Try these
Your Welcome Jeff.
Try these if you liked that one, they are a little longer and have some of her same material only more in depth, Lot's of facrs to back her position up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpu9uWopo-k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSHpoiWr5V8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25yIRNGkvqA
Mark, thanks for the links to
Mark, thanks for the links to these videos. I can only hope that proponents for Obamacare actually watch all of these videos in their entirety and hear the factual messages from Dr Hieb. What a smart, smart woman.
I could put up a bunch of
I could put up a bunch of factual arguments showing the merits of health care reform. I could put up a timeline showing the origins of this law coming from non other than the very conservative Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney, but frankly I know it isn't worth typing it all out on here.
I will just leave you with this op ed. It's not written by a pundent, a politician or even an activist. It's written by a real person who up until the ACA had no health insurance and was diagnosed with breast cancer. With the excising of the pre-existing condition component already in place she was able to buy affordable insurance and have life saving treatment. To me she is one of the faces of how ACA gives millions of people access to health care.
http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/american-ignorance-about-health-care-…
Just for those of you that may see this woman as a "taker", here is a paragraph of the article that proves otherwise --" I was uninsured not because I'm a lazy, freeloading deadbeat but because my husband and I are self-employed. We had been purchasing health insurance on the individual market along with 6 percent of the rest of the population. But after exhausting all of our resources trying to keep up with premiums of $1,500 a month, we had no choice but to cancel it."
In my life I have my own story. A daughter who at age 24 was uninsured and was faced with some expensive health issues. Putting her on our insurance was an absolute godsend. While I have always been a health care reform advocate, it was such a blessing to see how it actually works in my own family. How many that read this have taken advantage of that provision? How many would take advantage of that provision even if they were adamantly against health care reform?
"I was uninsured not because
"I was uninsured not because I'm a lazy, freeloading deadbeat but because my husband and I are self-employed. We had been purchasing health insurance on the individual market along with 6 percent of the rest of the population. But after exhausting all of our resources trying to keep up with premiums of $1,500 a month, we had no choice but to cancel it."
I don't know ... everything I've been following indicates this person will be among those 1 percent of Americans who will pay a tax penalty if they don't buy insurance.
And $1,500 might seem like a bargain going forward.
Howard, you missed this from
Howard, you missed this from the article -- " But luckily, the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan had already kicked in, and it made it possible for me to purchase insurance under a government program."
Lorie, but she had to cancel
Lorie, but she had to cancel prior to getting the pre-existing condition, and that pre-existing condition became a strong motivation to get insurance. She doesn't say it suddenly became more affordable.
The fact is, the Affordable Healthcare Act does nothing to make healthcare more affordable for most people. That's one of the deficiencies I believe Kathy Hochul would like to address.
I don't believe the
I don't believe the Affordable Care Act is actually going to reduce out of pocket costs for many people at all. Now that we know what we have known all along, that this is a tax, it has already been estimated to be the largest tax increase in history, anywhere. I am very interested in hearing more specifics on Kathy Hochul's issues with Obamacare. Given her record so far of independence, I would not be surprised to see her trying to eliminate the parts of the healthcare bill that most of us don't like. If that is the case, even with the Republican advantage in the redistricting, she may be hard to beat in November, and I certainly don't think Chris Collins is the one to do it.
What questions would you like
What questions would you like to ask Hochul and Collins about the Affordable Healthcare Act?
I think it would be very interesting to put to both of them a series of questions about the law -- not general questions, but specifics about the act -- to try and understand their specific thoughts, not just broad brush.
I'd like to ask, "What do you think of the provision that ...does XYZ?"
So, Jeff and other readers -- what questions do you want answered?
My biggest problem with the
My biggest problem with the law is the individual mandate. There are many parts of the law that should be saved or reworked in a replacement bill. I would be interested in hearing if Hochul is open to getting rid of the mandate in favor of alternative funding mechanisms. I would like to know if she would work on a bi-partisan replacement bill that would address tort reform, allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines, comprehensive entitlement reform.
Just once I would like a
Just once I would like a discussion by politians that DOES NOT try to play the emotion card, I believe everyone would like certain features of the Affordable Health Care Act, democrat and republican alike. Jeff is exactly correct, the AHC does not address cost drivers at all. I like the fact that KAthy Hockul recognizes that, as she has stated more than once. Therefore, it is safe to assume that she recognizes that fact.
What was lost in the entire debate, was the FACT that all healthcare cost are determined by the CPT, which is the uniform code list for medicare, insurance companies mark up a given percentage of that. Doctors and hospitals mark up to compensate for the below cost payment indicated by the CPT and the result is higher cost for the privately insured.
It really boils down to everything has a true cost, but when that cost is not met by government payment, it has to be recovered by private payment. The reason why an aspirin cost between $8 -$18 in a hosiptal(Depending on Region) has nothing to do with insurance company or hospital profit margins, it is actually a result a combination of sub cost payment by the government through medicare and the enormous amount of reporting required to satisfy MEDICARE reporting requirements, in other words 'Excessive regulation'
Now Kathy Hockul, a Democrat seems to recognize that, she also seems to realize that the cost drivers were not addressed and the additional cost as a result of the AHA do not reconcile. I could really support her because of her independance if she sticks to that, regardless, not a word spoken by either candidate this year is going to go unchecked by me this year, I intend to research evry staement before I commit a vote. That doesn't stop with healthcare, I truly believe that we as a nation are at a very critical point.
Howard, one of the reasons
Howard, one of the reasons for reform. Maybe she wouldn't have had to let policy laps. And according to her op ed she was able to get insurance because of ACA.
While it is still a market driven system based on the middle man making a profit, what we will get is a regulated industry that can't deny care because of preexisting conditions and a sytem that moves from a focus on care after you get sick to preventive care by having provisions for no cost tests for colonoscopies and mammograms. Health system instead of a sick system.
I think one of the best provisions is that 85% of all premium dollars collected by insurance companies for large employer plans have to actually be used for health care services and 80% for small employers or individuals. When that number is not reached we get rebates instead of our money paying CEO bonuses.
My own opinion to save a whole boat load of money and lower costs is remove the middle man completely, but that was not the law that passed. Of course that would mean an entire industry would be eliminated. Remember that industry does not deliver even a minute amount of actual care or equipment for care.
If people want to see some of the good things in the law -- http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/
I've always felt a certain
I've always felt a certain discomfort with tort reform and watching some Milton Friedman videos this morning, I was reminded why I oppose it.
In a truly free market, the ability to sue a company for defective products is in fact part of the process.
Tort reform doesn't address the basic underlying imbalance in the medical community, where neither products nor services are really part of a free market system. Everything is so regulated and insurance companies are essentially government sanctioned monopolies, tort reform is both a band aid on a bullet wound and will more than likely only make matters worse.
Here's a search on YouTube for Milton Friedman and tort reform
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=milton+friedman+tort+reform…
I've watched none of these, but intend too now that I've found them.
Here's one of the key videos I watched this morning -- Milton Friedman schooling a very young Michael Moore (woe is us that Moore didn't heed the lessons) (and it's where he addresses the importance of tort law in a free market).
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg]
Laurie, There is no such
Laurie, There is no such thing as "no cost tests for colonoscopies and mammograms" The Mamographer must be paid, the internist must be paid, as well as thier nurses, technicians, the facility has cost.
Deeming them free for the recipient is in no way reducing cost, it is actually increasing them, and then shifting them.
It is also limiting the access, contrary to it's intent, in countries where these have already been deemed free, the 5 year survial rate is actually lower than it is in the US. That is a fact. It is not because of the test itself, The over all 5 year suvival rate in the US is 90%, In Canada 87% in Europe 47% in England 45%, the reason is because the only way to control the cost of the test you mention in a government mandated system, is to control the actual number and frequency of the test. Don't believe me, you can look the info up in the Onocology Journal yourself.
Everything is controlled by cost whether it be Government or Privately funded, the problem is when Government gets involved, it always cost more. Although we are usually told that it is free
Howard, read former LeRoyan
Howard, read former LeRoyan Tom Baker's book The Medical Malpractice Myth. Tom is a law professor, I believe at University of Connecticut. His father is a beloved country doctor who practiced in LeRoy for 40+ years.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/…
"The best attempt to synthesize the academic literature on medical malpractice is Tom Baker's The Medical Malpractice Myth, published last November. Baker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who studies insurance, argues that the hype about medical malpractice suits is "urban legend mixed with the occasional true story, supported by selective references to academic studies." After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending. If anything, there are fewer lawsuits than would be expected, and far more injuries than we usually imagine."
Mark, preventive care --
Mark, preventive care -- finding a cancer for example at an early treatable stage saves both lives and loads of $.
One line particularly grabbed
One line particularly grabbed me here.
Micheal Moore. "I am a supporter of abortion, therefore I do not believe that every human life is sacred."
Regardles how one things about the right to choose, or right to life, that line is telling.
Then why is it that the stats
Then why is it that the stats indicate that the nationas with national healthcare systems (And preventative care program sponsored by the government)in place have a MUCH lower 5 year survivabilty rate than we do Laurie when Obama care wasn't in place? And with the exemption of Canada, a tremendously lower survival rate, Again, readily available data from the Onocology Jopurnal each year and each year very consistant.
Why did 2 Premiers of Canada, who have government controlled healthcare, come to the US for treatment.
Why did Boris yeltsin bring a US Doctor to supervise the treatment of his CHF?
The list goes on of leaders from countries with Government healthcare coming to the US when it really mattered.
Even wikapedia recognizes, herdity + life Style is the determining factor.
The issue I have with the law
The issue I have with the law is it still feeds the private insurance industry, and I am limited to purchasing from certain insurance providers. If insurance could be purchased across state lines, I believe competition would provide incentive for lower premiums, which in turn would up the focus on fraud and waste, 2 huge issues with our current broke system.
Laurie, I disagree with your
Laurie, I disagree with your assertion that the origins of the health care law came from the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney. The health care law was the brainchild of a woman named Liz Fowler.
I would even go so far as to say that Mitt Romney does not deserve to claim full credit for Mass. universal health care. It was a process that was started with sweeping welfare reform legislation, in 1995, by then Mass. Gov William Weld.
http://www.masslegalservices.org/content/massachusetts-section-1115-wai…
The state of Massachusetts effectively utilized a series of Medicaid Section 1115 Demonstration Waivers to experiment with alternative ways to deal with the problem of uninsured residents. It was a long process that culminated with their present mandated health care system that boasts 99+ % insurance coverage of Mass. citizens.
It can be debated that Liz Fowler copied the product of a decades long health care reform process in Massachusetts and rolled it up into the sweeping 2700 page bill that we know as Obamacare. She probably did.
But what Massachusetts did that Obamacare does not, is institute medicaid reform first and use the cost savings to implement the next steps in an incremental plan that took decades to accomplish.
I think that a timeline of the well documented origins of Obamacare are worth typing. Here it is:
Beginning in 2001
http://www.salon.com/2010/07/15/fowler_4/
Liz Fowler was the Chief Counsel for the Senate Finance Committee in charge of health and entitlement issues, i.e., legislation that primarily affected the healthcare industry.
In this capacity, she was responsible for overseeing health policy issues within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, health tax issues and initiatives to provide health coverage for the uninsured.
2003
She played a key role in the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act (MMA).
2006
She was hired by the health insurance giant WellPoint to serve as its Vice President for Public Policy and External Affairs — in other words, overseeing WellPoint’s lobbying and other government-influencing activities
2008
Once it was likely that there would be a Democratic President and thus a new, massive healthcare bill enacted, Fowler left WellPoint and returned to the Senate, as top aide to Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee Chairman who would oversee the drafting of the healthcare bill
November 12, 2008
http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=a36a2265-d3…
Finance Chairman Baucus Unveils Blueprint For Comprehensive Health Care Reform
There is an exec summary of the Whitepaper on the above link. I have the full text of the Whitepaper on my old computer. I checked the properties of the full document, it lists Liz Fowler as the author.
September 25, 2009
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/wellpoint_really_di.php
Wellpoint "really did" write the Baucus health plan
Three articles on the connection between Sen. Max Baucus and three current and former Wellpoint executives/lobbyists, Liz Fowler, Stephen Northrup, and Michelle Easton.
March 29, 2010
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/29/baucus-thanks-wellpoint-vp-…
There is a video on the above link of Max Baucus thanking Liz Fowler.
Part of what he said:
"I wish to single out one person, and that one person is sitting next to me. Her name is Liz Fowler. Liz Fowler is my chief health counsel. Liz Fowler has put my health care team together. Liz Fowler worked for me many years ago, left for the private sector, and then came back when she realized she could be there at the creation of health care reform because she wanted that to be, in a certain sense, her profession lifetime goal. She put together the White Paper last November–2008–the 87-page document which became the basis, the foundation, the blueprint from which almost all health care measures in all bills on both sides of the aisle came. She is an amazing person. She is a lawyer; she is a Ph.D. She is just so decent. She is always smiling, she is always working, always available to help any Senator, any staff. I thank Liz from the bottom of my heart. In many ways, she typifies, she represents all of the people who have worked so hard to make this bill such a great accomplishment."
July 16, 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/white-house-defends-hirin_n_64…
This week, the White House hired Liz Fowler to serve as deputy director of the Office of Consumer Information and Oversight at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The post gives Fowler broad power to implement the recently-passed health care law, a piece of legislation with which she is intimately familiar since she helped write it in her previous post as chief health counsel for the Senate Finance Committee.
Howard, given the manner in
Howard, given the manner in which AHA was passed, the question I'd like to ask Hochul and Collins is:
Do you support "Read The Bill" legislation, H.Res. 554 and S.Res. 307, which seeks to increase transparency in the legislative process, giving Congress, as well as the American people, the opportunity to read legislation, formulate an informed opinion and let their reps know how they feel about it, prior to any debate or votes?
Both bills require that proposed legislation be posted online 72 hours in advance of debate or votes. The Senate version also requires scoring by the CBO.
Both bills are presently stalled in Congress.
Having worked in the Health
Having worked in the Health care field since 1999 in several different areas, I fail to see how Obamacare is going to do anything but Negative for our economy and the citizens.
This isn't socialized healthcare like canada or European Countries. This doesn't mean you don't have to pay for insurance and employers don't have to pay for it. This Costs the people that work more money off the top of the already low wages employers are able to pay. And Socialized healthcare is garbage anyways. The wait times are insane.
This seems like a nice little way for the government to wrack up some fees for those that do not have coverage. Employers will just pay the small fine and not cover anyone because that is a lot cheaper than paying for everyones benefits.
Don't get me wrong, I think the healthcare field needs reforms. I however do not feel that current admin is educated enough and experienced enough to handle that. And if forcing this through is any accord to how he handles business he doesn't deserve a second term.
The government is supposed listen to the people and act on their behalf, not sneak stuff through and force it on us. The government should be encouraging people to work together, to work, and build a better country not divide the people and create a culture that thrives on dependence on the government handouts and rewarded for mediocrity.
I want someone in office that can make good decisions and accomplish something in 4 years. I don't want more taxes. No one should want more taxes.
And I watched that Video,
And I watched that Video, that doctor hit the nail on the head.