I consider myself to be of a Libertarian/Republican frame of mind, but the Republican stance on the health care debate has me flummoxed.
Call me confused or out of touch, but could a real Republican explain to me why Obamacare's mandate that all people purchase health insurance is wrong?
The government requires us to pay for Medicare and Social Security, which in effect, saves others the cost of having to support us in our dotage. What is so different? If Obamacare is struck down as unconstitutional, won't Medicare and Social Security be next?
The issue is that the government is requiring people to buy something, and that sticks in their craws. The idea here, it seems, is to get more people off the dole and to become responsible for themselves. This would seem to me to be an idea picked from a Republican's heart.
So, in one of their biggest hypocrisies yet, by being against the insurance mandate, Republicans are actually making it necessary for people to rely on either government services or hospital charity. That, in the end, costs every person with health insurance more money in the form of higher premiums or costs the government more money in subsidies paid to state for Medicaid and welfare programs.
See why I'm confused?
Ed McCaffrey, Rumford
Report a correction
A national health care plan
All this talk about how the government couldn't possibly manage a health care plan efficiently and what a nightmare of long lines we would have waiting for health care and nevertheless I am yet to see that nightmare materialize at the VA. I am waiting for the demonstrations urging us to dismantle that cruel and inefficient system called the Veteran's Health care System which is by the way run by the government and paid for by tax money.. There is also the state of Massachusetts. Notice you have not seen any popular movement to repeal their health care laws. These are the same laws the national health care law is based on. Personally I haven't heard a peep from those folks about how awful and expensive and inefficient this law is. The only complaints I'm hearing are from folks claiming the law is too long to read and who are evidently revving up an overactive imagination.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Thanks!
Thanks for Birthday greetings, fellow posters and Mike, I agree with your suggestions 100%.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'll join you in ...
... 1 year, 4 months. Happy Birthday!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Off topic issue #2.
I continue to find the newest-to-oldest ordering awkward and counterintuitive. I would much prefer oldest to newest. How do you feel?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The whole new layout and
The whole new layout and format bites. A text book example of fixing something that wasn't broken. How's that saying go? If it isn't broken, keep on fixing it until it is.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.This is off topic.
I guess I like the new online format. The old site took forever (for me) to load a page so that I could scroll down or up. This is much more responsive. I have two issues. Perhaps we can use the agree/disagree buttons for an informal poll.
First issue: The font size for system messages is way too large. There's no need for the words "Add comment" to take up nearly 0.75 inches of vertical space. Make them smaller.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ed, No need to be confused.
Ed,
No need to be confused. The Congress has constitutional authority to levy taxes. It does not have constitutional authority to mandate economic activity, as the Supreme Court will affirm. It may not seem like a big difference to you, but it would set an unwelcome precedence if left unchallenged.
If Congress and the President would have simply levied taxes, we would not be having this discussion. That being said, the President knew people would have little tolerance for new taxes, so he tried deception.
This deception will perhaps be his demise, as it should be for overstepping constitutional authority.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (6) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I don't think people are that stupid
A tax is the government saying that people have to give them money to support some program whether or not they agree with it. This mandate is the government saying that people have to give their money to an insurance company, if they can afford to, so that the rest of the country doesn't have to carry them any more. The payments will even be offset at the end of the year so you pay less income taxes.
The only difference I see here is that it's not the government getting the money and the people doing most of the complaining are the ones who don't have insurance but will now be required to buy it. Good! I'm tired of supporting other people who are perfectly capable of doing it themselves.
I'm probably being obtuse and stubborn here but this, or some program like it, needs to be implemented in this country to make everyone who is able, responsible for themselves. And not just in insurance matters either.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ed, I understand the point
Ed,
I understand the point that you making. That said, this issue has moved past merits of the law. The issue is now whether or not we want to give government power to mandate we buy goods or services from the private sector. For me, the answer is NO.
You should ask yourself why Obama too this approach rather than simply raise taxes, which would have been constitutional.
We should never stand idle when government violates the constitution.
Your argument indicates the end justifies the means – well, it doesn’t, and it shouldn’t.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You may not think that the
You may not think that the people are that stupid, Ed, but oBAMa does. That's why he pulls the stunts he pulls. He knows exactly how stupid the people are.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (6) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If you were truly a
If you were truly a Libertarian, you would probably love to see Social Security and Medicare struck down as well. What do you suppose your return on your Social Security "investment" will be? That's right...nothing. You could have done better with a savings account. If the government left us to our own devices, people would have more money to donate toward legitimate charities who would in turn support those who truly need it; not those who learned to play the system for generations. It's the first Friday of April. Go to Hannaford today and tell me the hordes there with heaping carts can't work. It's time to tell the government to leave us alone and if that means burning some of the chaff, so be it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or bashing me
The Preamble to the Constitution
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Notice in there, that word "promote". It doesn't say "provide". Social Security and medicare are paid for by working people, like ourselves, and are to be used as a SUPPLEMENT to other sources when we reach retirement age. Neither of them were ever intended to provide complete support for retirees. No, Doug, I wouldn't be happy to see them go, because they are doing exactly what they were intended to do and are paid for by working people. I do, however, take issue with people who have never worked being able to collect from those pots (and I won't even get into the non working horde at Hannaford, an entirely different subject) which brings me to the point of my letter. Get people off of the dole, make them pay for themselves.
I should not have to pay for medical coverage for somebody who chooses not to have any, even when they can afford to have it. If a person can pay they should be paying, and should they choose not to pay, they should be considered, as you said, chaff, and denied medical coverage, if for no other reason than being an idiot.
As far as a return on my social security investment is concerned, it's too late for me but anyone under 40 should be able to get whatever they have paid in transferred to an IRA of some sort so that they will have enough to retire on. Me? Well I have 15 years or so until I can retire and I think Social Security will still be solvent then and it will SUPPLEMENT my IRA nicely.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Cut out the profit.
I agree with Ed and Dan but I wish we would have gone one step further and nationalize health care just like Canada. By doing so there would be better control of obscene hospital charges and ridiculous hospital administrators salaries. We could totally cut out the incredible profit margins insurance companies generate on the backs of policy holders.
If the government can administrate Social Security and Medicare it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to administer national health care. Everyone would have to pay, but I believe, pay less and I really can't buy that it will lower the quality of health care.
If health care providers are paid an about average wage they'll continue to lead the world in quality health care.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The rate of bankruptcies
The rate of bankruptcies caused by medical disasters in America is 12%. In Canada it's 15%. I point that out only to suggest that Canada's system may not be all we're being told it is.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Where did you get that figure, Paul???
Where did you get that figure, Paul???
According to "Bankruptcy Canada" - see - http://www.bankruptcy-canada.ca/bankruptcy/causes-of-bankruptcy-in-canad...
"The last on our list of leading causes of bankruptcy in Canada, are medical problems; they often can and do lead to a lot of financial problems. Fortunately, in Canada most of our medical expenses, such as hospital care, are covered by the government, unlike in the United States where medical bills for uninsured Americans are a leading cause of bankruptcy in America."
Also http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf
Table 2 Medical Causes of Bankruptcy, 2007*
Percent of All Bankruptcies
Debtor said medical bills were reason for bankruptcy 29.0%
Medical bills $5000 or 10% of annual family income 34.7%
Mortgaged home to pay medical bills 5.7%
Medical bill problems (any of above 3) 57.1%
Debtor or spouse lost 2 weeks of income due to illness or became completely disabled 38.2%
Debtor or spouse lost 2 weeks of income to care for ill family member 6.8%
Income loss due to illness (either of above 2) 40.3%
Debtor said medical problem of self or spouse was reason for bankruptcy 32.1%
Debtor said medical problem of other family member was reason for bankruptcy 10.8%
Any of above 62.1%
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Bangor radio station newscast
Bangor radio station newscast several weeks ago. Was not elaborative.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I've also heard
I've also heard on the radio that "Life is just a bowl of cherries" ;)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.When I was a young boy, a
When I was a young boy, a radio program my parents and I were listening to was interrupted by a man who said he was the President of the United States. He told us that Japan had just bombed Pearl Harbor and that that day would live in infamy.
It turned out to be true. 0O:-)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Damn-
You are an old Cuss!!!!
I thought it was some scary shidt when Kennedy said an attack on the Western Hemisphere from Cuba would be considered an attack on the U.S. from the Soviet Union - and they were calling up USAF Reserves during the White Sox ball game....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Probably old enough to spell
Probably old enough to spell geeezer with three e's before the z.
Remember it well. Was in USNR. We were told to get our financial affairs in order and to get our gear packed for a trip. Ultimately, Krushchev backed down and we were never deployed, but it came close. I had a 22 year old kid tell me last year that he didn't know that stuff really happened. He thought it was just from a movie. So much for what they're teaching for history these days.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Martians are coming
Hey Paul, do you remember the Orson Wells broadcast called "The War of The Worlds?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Sure. I did not happen to
Sure. I did not happen to hear the original broadcast, but have heard replays of it. Really scared the daylights out of a lot of people.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Administrate Medicare?
Al,
Did you just really say, "If the government can administrate Social Security and Medicare it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to administer national health care."
The problem is that the government can't efficiently administrate anything. They take twice the labor, and twice the time, at three times the cost of a privately owned company.
I would give my left arm to be able to take myself completely out of the Social Security system, take the money that I've already given them, and invest it myself. I absolutely guarantee I would be getting an exponential return compared to the paltry benefit I 'may' get paid when I reach retirement age.
All we need to do is look in our own back yard to see how well our state government has administered Medicare/Medicaid.
Do you really trust the government to administer your health care too? While the socialized health care of Canada does provide cheaper medications, Where do Canadians go for major health concerns? The US. Ask a Canadian cancer patient where they'd rather be treated. Ask a pregnant Canadian about their prenatal doctor's visit schedule, and how long it takes to set appointments.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I have asked Canadians about their Health Care System
I have asked Canadians about their Health Care System numerous times when then come into my little book shop. Almost without exception, they much prefer their system over ours. Of course they pay for it with higher gasoline, cigarette, and alcohol taxes - but everyone's covered in a civilized and effective manner. I'd be glad to help pay for fellow Americans' care rather than all of you get screwed by Insurance Companies.
Would I trust the government to administer my health care? You bet your azz I do! As retired military, qualified veteran (and old Geezer), I have the choice of either going to a local physician and hospital (which we do have on the peninsula) or driving another thirty miles up to Togus Veterans Hospital. I make the drive - and receive some of the best, most effective and efficient care I have ever received - and in a most timely manner. When I required physical therapy after surgery, they even set it up so I could have that done locally after the surgery was performed at Togus.
So Jeff - your knowledge of health care delivery is described perfectly by your icon - Head Up Azz!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Oh, really?
Sorry, but my B.S. meter is sounding off. You state, " ...three times the cost of a privately owned company." That's just not so. In the army, people used to get training for different jobs they could get after they got out. Now, private companies like Halliburton or Blackwater (or whatever it calls itself now) have taken over many jobs. I believe there was quite a stink raised when it was found out that Halliburton was charging the government $20.00 per meal ( or more) to feed the troops in Iraq. And look at the shoddy work done by private contractors on the barracks they built for the troops - wiring, plumbing, you name it, that had to be redone at government expense.
Despite the scare stories we hear about Canada's health care system, I can say for sure that all my relatives in Canada wouldn't want our private system run by insurance and drug companies that deny coverage to people who have paid their premiums and then get sick. Insurance companies put profit before people all the time. And the drug prices here are much higher than in most of the world. Why is that? Profit.
Overhead for private medicine runs about 35%. Medicare and Medicaid, about 3%.
When presidential hopeful, Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he put through a plan just like this Obamacare you right wingers are always whining about. It is working for them. Of course, now, he is running away from that as fast as he can, the lying s.o.b.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The care for major medical issues
may not be as good in Canada as it is here, but when those Canadians are coming here for treatment, that national health care is still covering the procedures done in the U.S.
That's my only disagreement with your statement and then it's more of a clarification. Other than that you're completely right.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Points well taken, Jeff
The point I was trying to make is that our health care costs are through the roof, example: the cost for a two hour procedure to repair a simple hernia $18,000. My health insurance premium was $4,004 a year with a $6,000 deductible with a 20% co-pay. Pharmaceutical suppliers and health care providers are making outrageous profits. Last but not least, insurance companies are holding us hostage with their "take it or leave it" way of doing business.
The whole system simply sucks and I don't think Obama Care will fix it. The entire system needs major surgery and not just a band aid.
I'm OK with the way Social Security and Medicare is handled. I get my SS check every month and on time since I turned 62 and my Medicare premium is $1,200 a year with a 20% co-pay on some procedures. I turn 65 tomorrow and all my retirement benefits have come through without a hitch. Not bad for "The Government".
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Happy Birthday!
from Queenie.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Happy 65th, Al. You're still
Happy 65th, Al. You're still a young man. 65 is the new 55, isn't it?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Happy Birthday Al
Happy Birthday Al
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.There's no confusion, a
There's no confusion, a democrat supported and passed this bill so republicans MUST oppose it, so as not to give President Obama any credit. So walk away from the dark side and go to the light.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (11) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Dan, R, D, I, L, or other, we
Dan,
R, D, I, L, or other, we all must oppose bigger government.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (8)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'll take a stab at it, Ed, ...
... even though I'm not a Republican. Social Security and Medicare are funded by taxes; the mandate requires the purchase of "insurance" from a private company. If the unknown authors of ObamaCare had had the honesty to create a tax to fund it, today we could be discussing the bill's other merits, or lack of them - because nowhere in the Constitution is there one syllable enumerating an authority to force a citizen to buy anything - except for the liberal penumbras and emanations.
Instead they chose to invite this Constitutional controversy and created a pointless war among the three branches of government. My non-Republican cynicism suggests this decision was very deliberate for political advantage later this year.
Suppose SCOTUS leaves it alone. Forget what the MSM and their polls say, most Americans detest the ACA and would likely vote against the guy who shoved it down their throats.
Suppose SCOTUS strikes it down. Then BHO can campaign as the "underdog" being picked on by those nasty right-wing justices. Anyone with eyes and ears knows he has nothing else to campaign on.
You answered your own question with the phrase "That, in the end, ..." This entire kerfuffle is about the ends justifying the means.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (5) Disagree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If BHO's mandate is stricken
If BHO's mandate is stricken down by the court, he'll be right out there telling his minions how the conservative supreme court has just taken away from them the health insurance that he had given them.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Well said.
Well said.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3) Disagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Mike, I see your point
but had they called this thing a tax, it would have been just as vehemently opposed, and therein lies the rub (to paraphrase). The Republicans had be come so afraid of the Tea Party that any and all taxes were unspeakable evil and so this had to brought out in the form of a mandate. That mandate says that anyone who can afford to pay for insurance WILL pay for insurance, so that the rest of us don't have to pay for medical coverage that, sooner or later, everyone needs. There's even a tax break on the other end so that those poor people will get even more money back from the government at the end of the year after paying nothing in already.
I guess my point is this... If a man walked into a restaraunt and ordered a meal and then said he wasn't going to pay and walked out and the management decided to tack a potion of that meal onto everyone else's bill to cover his loss, eveyone would be very angry and refuse to pay. Well, this is what is happening in the insurance world, and frankly, I'm tired of paying for that other person.
I'd like to see a waiver, that everyone who chooses not to pay for insurance yet are able to, must sign. I'd like it to read --
" I choose not to participate in the mandatory insurance program. I do so with the understanding that should I need medical attention in the future I will not receive it unless I have cash or credit sufficient to cover the coast of that medical care. Should I not be able to pay for my medical care and I become sick, or die as a result, I will be the only one held responsible for this. No lawsuits will be brought against any medical facility on my behalf by anyone at any time because I chose to be an idiot."
I don't care about whether or not it's "technically" constitutional or not, or who will be blaming whom for it's survival or failure. I want to be able to pay decent rates for insurance that don't have built in fees to cover schleps who can afford to pay but would rather not because they know that they're covered just the same. Get them off of my dime and onto their own.
On a side note, when Romney does win the Republican nomination, BHO won't need anything to campaign on. That in itself will be enough for him to win. And if by some miracle Romney should actually become our next President, what will we have ? A white Obama RINO.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Can Romney be any worse?
Can Romney be any worse? Seriously....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ed, “I don't care about
Ed,
“I don't care about whether or not it's "technically" constitutional or not…”
We’ll some of us do for once precedence is set mandating one to buy a product, it is impossible to undo it.
Once we add up all the costs imposed due to mandates, such as insuring preexisting conditions, expanded coverage, tax credits for the poor (which will be about the bottom 50% of taxpayers according to the bill’s formula), I’m not sure that you’ll really be paying less. This is not to mention all those unknown new mandates that are sure to come. I’m sure the healthcare industry will lobby to expanded coverage, especially if we all are forced to pay for it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.