WE CAN'T AFFORD TO WAIT VIGIL

And I bet the opposition organizes "We Can't Afford It" vigils.

Bea,
You mean you hope both sides are respectful, right?

Lets face it Bea, the overwhelming majority hates what is on the table right now.

http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=2459
"The Congressional Research Service confirmed yesterday that illegals would benefit under the House version of the Heath Care Bill. From a press release issued today by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR):"

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52750

Poll: Majority of Americans Say No Health Care Reform Better than Passing Current Bill

I don't have time for this anymore I have work to do so that I can pay for my house.

I can't believe the left had the audacity to accuse the right of astroturfing the healthcare debate when you look at the co-sponsers of the above vigil. Be careful of words Bea you indicated that the poll said "most Americans favor universal healthcare". The poll does not say that, in fact no polls have said that, that's why it caught my attention. It says a majority of Americans favor government guarenteeing health insurance for all, that is VERY different from universal healthcare. Almost all Americans think our system needs an overhaul, just not one that leads to government control of it all.

Do most people want and see a need for reform? Yes. Do most people want and see a need for government-sponsored universal health care? No.

First, this poll (the one from the article Bea posted) is from 2007, and therefore doesn't properly represent the current feelings towards health care due to the changes the government is currently proposing. This poll also doesn't exclusively deal with health care. You want to use this as ammo for your argument, so I'll use it for mine.

Second: "But many are dubious the government would do a better job providing health care coverage than private companies now do."

Third: "According to the public, there is a role for government when it comes to health care: Two-thirds say it is the responsibility of the federal government to guarantee that all Americans have health insurance... But only about half as many Americans – less than one in three - think the government can do a better job than private insurance companies at actually providing medical coverage."

Fourth: "But Americans are split on whether it would be fair for the government in Washington to require that all Americans participate in a national health care plan of some kind."

So, um, where exactly in that fine poll you posted does it say Americans want the federal government to provide universal health care?

John - you say "Bea, You mean you hope both sides are respectful, right?"

The organizers of this event have instructed the attendees to "stay cool, calm and respectful". These are silent vigils to put a human face on the health care crisis.

I promise I won't let Bea hit anyone with our sign:)

DFA: grassroots project founded by Howard Dean

Truemajority.org: a grassroots project that supports shifting budgets around to help provide more programs for kids. For example, why not cut 15% of the pentagon's budget to go toward more education programs?

Center for Community Change: their website is down, but they're around to supposedly help organize the poor to create better communities

Doctors for America: an outside organization attempting to bring doctors together for health care reform

SEIU: a union for blue-collar workers

So, somehow all of these teeny tiny little projects are supposed to bring together massive amounts of people to show our representatives how the "true majority" feel about health care? Like it makes a difference (the opposition does the same thing, and they get called "mobs")...

Bea, your Point of view on this topic is certainly in the minority around this area.

John, you hit a key point in this debate -- respect. In the event description as Beth just pointed out -- the organizers clearly want a peaceful respectful event.

And speaking of respect -- from personal experience, as I attended Congressman Massa's town hall in Victor last week. The reform opposition at this event was anything but. I have never seen a ruder more obnoxious group.
Believe me, there were plenty of proponents to health care reform in attendance, too, but the difference was in civility. The contrast between the tone of the two sides couldn't have been more different. At this particular event the opposition wanted no part of civil discourse. They wanted to shout down debate and perpetuate lies. I was embarrassed for them. When they did allow Congressman Massa to answer a question, which many times he simply found the page in H.R. 3200 and read the bill, they booed and heckled him.
The folks that lost out in Victor were the hundreds of people that came in good faith to actually listen, learn and have their legitimate questions and concerns addressed.
The town hall started off with the most ignorant display I have ever witnessed. It was the day Ted Kennedy died. After the Pledge of Allegiance, Massa asked for a moment of silence for Senator Kennedy. The opposition booed and heckled through the moment of silence.

I can assure you that this vigil will be quiet reflection and prayer, unless the opposition comes to disrupt. I went with a faith based organization to advocate for health care reform in DC a couple months ago. If disrespect is marching peacefully with pastors and lay people from every denomination and kneeling to pray for reform in front of the Chamber of Commerce than I beg you to take a good look at the two sides and ask which has been respectful.

This nation needs health care reform, I think even the polls show most people support that statement. So do we sit around and wait for the perfect bill to come to congress or do we start somewhere and modify it along the way? If we're going to keep debating forever then we might as well just shut up and forget about ever getting health care reform.

I believe the Walmarts and McDonalds of this nation should also be forced to insure their workers. They thrive on taking advantage of part time workers and the fact they can pretty much do as they please with them.

The socialist keep ranting "Nearly 50 million people who don't have health care." I am so tired of this line. There are people and business who choose to self-insure; there are people who are between jobs and between coverage on a short-term basis; there are illegal aliens who should not benefit from taxpayer-financed health care as a general matter; and there are people who simply choose not to pay for health care that make over 70K/yr. There are not 43 million, 47 million, or nearly 50 million people without health care.

Robert,
That is way some people think this is a socialist plan.

You want to force a private company to do something. The key word is "private".

That would be like you being forced to pay a fine for, at your own choice, not haveing insurance.

What business is it of mine what you do?

Tort reform, insureance reform, medical savings accounts and tax credits for health care would take care of most of the problems rather than ordering people and private companies to do what you say is right.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7YtcmmYOesk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7YtcmmYOesk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl…; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Bea, I didn't asy you cherry picked the article but "Most Americans believe government can play a role in fixing the health care system." is NOT NEARLY the same as "Most Americans Favor Universal Health Care" and would leave the reader believing that most people favor govt. run healthcare and that is simply not true

Chelsea, you referred to SEIU and DFA as "teeny tiny little projects", I don't know if that was sarcasm but it is stretch to call DFA an organization founded by the Democratic National Chairperson a self avowed political action committee with millions of members nationwide "teeny tiny" and SEIU is the largest public service employees union with over 1.1 million members.

Everyone is wasting time debating the ins and outs of what is in which bill(s). The overall prinicple that I believe in and most Americans believe in is that government is out of control. Yes, it started with Pres.Bushs "great" TARP program which basically open the door for Pres. Obama to ram rod anything and everything down our throats. This isn't just about health care but how the whole system is becoming what our founding founders didn't believe in. This was a country built on the foundation that as Americans we can choose and do what we feel is best for ourselves, not the government.
Plus why would u want the government to help reform or be involved with health care? They can't run it now i.e. medicaid and social security!All going bust. The well is going dry and taxpayer anger is growing. This isn't about the haves and have nots. Health care isn't a right just like anything else not spelled out in that great document, the US Constitution.

John,
The problem with "key word private" companies doing whatever they want is it leaves the rest of us picking up the bill. Why do you think medical costs are so high? It's because everyone with insurance has to make up the gap that's left when uninsured people need help. They're forced to use the emergency room as a doctor's office and the rest of the people get stuck with the bill.

And I'm forced to carry insurance on my car just in case I hit something. If I don't guess what, I've got to pay a fine. This should be the same for employers and their employees. They need to cover their employees just in case something happens.

"Tort reform, insureance reform, medical savings accounts and tax credits for health care would take care of most of the problems rather than ordering people and private companies to do what you say is right."

This stuff doesn't work. This is the same thing they've been trying for years. It's time for new ideas.

You can buy car insurance from companies anyhwere in the US. You can not for health insurance.

How do you know the suggested ideas will not work, when they are not allowed?

And it close to socialism when you tell private companies they have to offer something. Maybe that is why 2 to 1, people don't want Obama touching this.

Some facts from CBO(Congressional Budget Office)
-Historically compliance with government-ordered mandates range from 60-90%
-in 2008, roughly 160 million people under the age of 65 expected to have health insurance provided through an employer
-in 2008, employers contributed 73% of the cost of a family policy for their workers, for individuals it was 84%
-in 2009, 30% of uninsured will be offered but decline insurance through their employer
-in 2009, 17% of uninsured will have have family income about 300% of the poverty level(about 65,000 for a family of four)
-in 2009, 18% of uninsured will be eligible for but not enrolled in Medicaid.

I agree with you John with what real reform is.

First, we need to change the wording on this debate from Health Insurance to Medical Insurance. You can not insure your health - you can insure your medical treatment, or the cost of the medical treatment, I guess would be more accurate. Health is an emotional word - a word that conjures up feelings/emotion/anxiety. Medical is a 'fact word'- a word usually backed by sciences. I think both sides of the aisle have been using too many emotional words to get people involved in the 'debate.'

Secondly, tort reform, medical savings accounts, and less government meddling does work. Quite frankly, it's never really been tried in a true laissez-faire environment.

Thirdly, right now, neither side of the debate wants to calmly talk about other options. This is good example of a black and white issue. Less government or more government - it just depends on your views, which will more than likely not be changed.

Well Joe my friend, after all those discussions thru high school and all, I guess it's an appropriate time to restart them. You know that the Constitution is a living document, with the built-in ability to be updated for new concepts not thought of by the founding fathers... ie, ending slavery, women's suffrage, etc. The Constitution is not the issue, not spoon feeding a presidential victory in 3 years is the issue, which is what will happen if he succeeds (which he will if he abandons the bipartisan attempts and leads his own party for a change).

Medicaid is not the issue, no spending limits on it (being unbudgeted along with Medicare) is the issue.

Social Security isn't the issue either, the issue is that the average American senior who lives to 83 contributes $64,971 in Medicare taxes and receives $173,886 for a net gain of $108,915. This net gain comes from taxes imposed on working Americans (like both of us). In short, the most vocal group of opponents, the old people that collect Social Security, benefit from the "redistribution of wealth" yet continue to rally against "socialism" while taking advantage of younger generations.

Issues of tort and malpractice tend to go over my head a bit. I know not one person that has sued, although I have plenty of insurance company denial horror stories, I have no tort experiences. I've been lucky to catch up with an old classmate who is helping me to understand it better. After sharing many a grade school classrooms with Tom Baker, 30+ years ago (his Dad is a good friend and retired doctor from LeRoy) he is helping me to understand this complicated issue that is being bantered about as the health care reform battle rages on.

Tom wrote a fascinating book on tort reform -- The Medical Malpractice Myth. Tom's take on tort reform, which he calls a red herring, is that there is actually more malpractice that isn't being litigated, not less. Tom and I have exchanged a couple emails lately about tort reform. I ordered his book and am reading it now.

Tom is Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and coeditor of Embracing Risk: The Changing Culture of Insurance and Responsibility. Baker has also worked as a consultant to insurance companies and law firms. http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/thbaker/ I would call him a pretty heavy hitter in this field.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/036480.html

A couple of book reviews --

“Having worked with insurance companies, law firms and doctors, Baker brings experience and perspective to his book, which is sure to be important and controversial in future debates.”
—Publishers Weekly

“Citing major studies mostly from medical and legal literature, he debunks a litany of perceived myths around malpractice lawsuits and convincingly makes the case that malpractice lawsuits actually improve patient care and that big payments are the rare exception, not the rule.…Well researched with more than ten pages of references, Baker’s timely book is appropriate for public, medical, and academic libraries.”
—Library Journal

The Consitution is not a living document. It is a contract between citizens and its government. The ability to change it is Article Five in the Consitution, its not a concept. Honestly, I feel the founding fathers were and will always be more intelligent then us. They put a lot of thought, blood, sweet, and tears into what they did. Slavery and womens suffrage were discussed at that time even thus most liberals will not admit the truth. It weighed heavy on the hearts of these great men but they know at the time to get all the colonies on board to not force the issue. I could go into great detail if you like on these facts but its not that hard to find out. Do some research and foremost read anything John Adams wrote.
About social security. Its a scam. Everyone was up in arms when President Bush wanted us taxpayers to be able to have the option of using up to 7% of what we put into social securtiy as a quasi 401k plan. I find it disgusting what I personally pay into it. Its my pay and I perfer to do what i want with it. I invest my money in all options available. Its not my fault or problem that others do not take advantage of what is out there for their own retirements.
Medicaid is a mess also. I don't even feel like getting into that really. The government doesn't take enough yet from me.
In the end my friend Tony, the government is broke.The taxpayer is losing more of their income to taxes and fees. Its not just about President Obama. Its the whole system. The local, the state and federal governments lost their definitions. Our country is becoming a centralized government since FDR's new deal program. I believe the percentage of our GNP government controlled is in the mid 30s. If healthcare passes it will be in the 40 percentile.

Yes Joe, it is a living document. It is what the Supreme Court judges say it is, and Justice Marshall has said it is, "intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." Health care was not discussed at the time of the Constitution signing because the concept simply did not exist yet. Please tell me where in the Constitution that spending money on going into space and landing on the moon is discussed. Please show me where they discuss the establishment of an Air Force. These things were inferred from other aspects of the Constitution. How about income tax, another thing not thought of until the Republican named Abraham Lincoln imposed one during the Civil War, and then the Republican William Howard Taft pressed Congress to pass the 16th Amendment to make a permanent income tax. These both can serve as the precedence for Health Care, either a new Amendment, like Republicans did for income tax, or just taken from the Commerce Clause and Article 1 that already exist. Article 1 says Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States. What is health care, other than both of these?

You want to talk about the Founding Fathers, well, Thomas Jefferson believed in that same concept as well, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."