Comments about ‘Health care rush is risky’

Rush? Health care reform has been debated and negotiated for almost a century.

Would you like 30 million people continue to wait. The perfect should not sabotage the good.

The urgency is created by the hard fact that this is our last chance at reform; peoples' lives depend upon reform. Neither you nor the Republican Party really want reform. That is the lesson of the nineties. It really comes down to whom one trusts. Do I trust the party which gave us social security and medicare, or the party which opposed both? For me the answer is easy - I trust the Democrats.

But make no mistake about it, if we don't get some degree of reform, its finished for at least another ten years, and without reform millions will die without care and our deficits will mushroom.

I certainly understand where the editorialist is coming from, but there needs to be some middle ground between rush and caution. Our nation's health care has languished in the name of caution for the past seventeen years. If no substantial progress is made this year, the political willpower of the fickle American electorate will cool even further and health care costs in our nation will continue to spiral out of control even as insurance benefits continue to diminish. We can't afford to ignore this problem for seventeen more years.

Yet more of the SAME from a President who promised change. I had high hopes, now I will give every penny my poor family -- yes, we are poor -- can spare to any opposition to this bill's supporters and any proponent of rescinding any health care legislation that passes.

I am also rather disappointed that the punishment (higher taxes) to those who choose not to acquire health insurance has not gotten more publicity. What we need from Washington is protection and regulation, not profiteering and requirements on the American People.

What ever happened to "...for the people..."

Thomas Jefferson said it best, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule where %51 of the population takes away the rights of the other 49." Demosocialisticrats are all for this...

G'day to the Mob, one and all
The problem with this bill is the Government is taking over health care, the silly buggers can't even run the Country, do you really want them to tell you which doctors that you May or May not use.

Always remember We the People have the power to say No..Not that the duffers would listen...I suggest that you read the bill...your losing a lot as far as health care goes...and not gaining a thing.

seem to have the attitude of, "DO SOMETHING EVEN IF IT IS WRONG." If Nancy Pelosi were really proud of this bill it would be posted and she would not be trying to figure out a way to pass it without the cowards in her party actually having to vote on it. How stupid do they think we are.

Well, let's see.... it's been 15 years since we last took up the issue - and the ironic twist on this story is that what the Ds have proposed mirrors what many Rs offered up in the early 1990s, a largely moderate / centrist approach.

So why all the resistance? It's not as if we haven't realized that sitting on hands, twiddling fingers, head in sand is gonna solve the problem. Sure, there's no easy answer, and the current legislation has flaws, but something has to be done, get us moving in the right direction. The pushback among Rs is largely a deliberate political move (obstruct, defeat Obamacare) rather than a principled resistance.

To end, in the case of health care - affordable (insurers currently do not compete, excluded from antitrust regs so they can collude on price, behave as monopolies), accessible (not yet, millions go w/o, and the collective "we", well we pay for it), portable (anchored to employment status) - it truly is NOT a case of good things come to those who wait.

you are right Lew - I do not want this type of reform - I do not want the government in charge of my health care, I do not want the intolerant left running my life, I do not want to bankrupt the nation and I do not want Obama in office - I have the right to not want those things and to work to make them happen

This law is the FOUNDATION of the future of healthcare_reform. It's worth taking the time to make SURE you get the foundation right.

If you've ever constructed a house and discovered there was a serious mistake in the foundation... You know that can be a BIG_DEAL, and is VERY expensive and time consuming to fix.

Usually it's worth trying to find a way to just live with the foundation the way it is already instead of retrofitting it to support the actual structure.

Problems and oversights in the foundation can follow you the rest of the process.



Of course we all know that laws aren't concrete. They can and must change over time, so the analogy isn't perfect, but the point is... it IS worth taking the time_required to make sure we get this right before just slam_dunking it into law.

While laws are not concrete... if you have observed history and politics (especially where entitlements, nation_wide benefits and social_services are concerned)... it CAN seem like the law is concrete and unchangeable. Especially when the people tell their_representatives, "You change my healthcare_benefits and_you_are_history).

So in a way... social_services like these become virtually untouchable/unchangable.

"What's the rush...?"

More than a year of exhausting, exhaustive debate and analysis?

What would you consider a more reasonable pace? Decades, perhaps?

"reforms polls have consistently said [Americans] don't like"

Actually polls find that Americans consistently like prit'much all the reforms, as well as some (e.g.: single-payer, public option) that weren't even considered or didn't make the political "cut."

Desperate, relentless Republican mendacity and demonizing has irresponsibly "poisoned the well" on the public's perception of the overall package, but when an individual component is polled without the toxic "health care reform bill" label, it gets an overwhelming "thumbs-up."

Even Republicans strongly support many of the individual reforms when they are objectively described in opinion polls.

You mean rushed thru like Bushes Pham bill? where the only witnesses were congressional staffers, hundreds of lobbyists, and a few U.S. representatives.

"Let see the pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill, it was over 1,000 pages. And it got to the members of the House that morning, and we voted for it at about 3 a.m. that morning.

Former President George Herbert Walker Bush
(one-time member of the Eli Lilly board of directors)

Former CEO of Enron, Ken Lay
(one-time member of the Eli Lilly board of directors)

George W. Bush’s former director of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels
(a former Eli Lilly vice president)

George W. Bush’s Homeland Security Advisory Council member, Sidney Taurel (CEO of Eli Lilly)

We should trust that the republicans have a plan...cause they do.

What's the rush;

If this bill is actually the same thing that didn't pass in the 90's... What makes you think it should pass now?

If it was the wrong approach THEN... it's probably STILL the wrong approach, don't ya think?

Or do you think legislation gets better with age?

Or that the legislation was perfect back then too, but the people were just to stupid to know it? And now that they've had 15 years to learn... they should finally have the wisdom to pass this recycled garbage from the 90's?


NO! If it was wrong then, it's probably still not the right_approach.



Personally I disagree that this bill is the same thing proposed 15_years_ago. It's WAY WORSE!!! So why pass it? Just because we can?

Is ANYONE willing to guarantee that it will reduce the COST of healthcare??? NO!

Is anyone willing to guarantee it will improve the quality of healthcare? NO!

We CAN guarantee it will expand coverage to some without insurance. And THAT is a good thing. But we CAN do that WITHOUT killing_private_insurance and fining/taxing those who don't want gov_issued healthcare.

FirstThree7:18-"'DO SOMETHING EVEN IF IT IS WRONG.'"

Actually, it's "Do something even if it's not perfect."

And your dissing of parliamentary procedure is meaningless. What you should be concerned with is the content, not the process; and the American public overwhelmingly approves of much of the content.

8:28-"I do not want the government in charge of my health care,"

Not to worry.

If the Gummint sets standards for a health insurance policy, they aren't "in charge of [your] health care."

Do you think bureaucrats are "in charge of your grocery store" 'cos they set a standard definition of a pound of butter?

8:28-"I do not want the intolerant left running my life,"

Earth to Anonymous: Get real.

8:28-"I do not want to bankrupt the nation"

I'm sure, then, you're in full support of a plan that will actually reduce the deficit.

Or are you simply mouthing a provably false assertion to cover your real, presumably much darker, motives?

This MYTH that there are millions of people dieing in the streets every day because they can't get healthcare is just that... A MYTH!

Lew says, "without reform millions will die".

Can you back that up? Will millions die each day? Each year? Throughout the remainder of history? What actual statistic is this "1 million will die" number based on?

It's just a hype-number if you ask me.


And Lew says, "without reform... deficits will mushroom".

1. Obviously healthcare cost increases are out of control and need to moderate. But HOW DOES THIS BILL DO THAT? It doesn't! It just sets the stage for the eventual destruction of Private HealthInsurance. But it does NOTHING to limit the increases in actual medical_expenses that are driving Insurance prices higher!

2. If you are so against skyrocketing deficits... why not tell Obama/Congress to quit SPENDING like sailors on leave, instead of just pretending this gov_takeover approach is always the solution?

When Government takes over any BIG_business that struggles, pay mortgages for families that jumped into debt, and takeover whole industry sectors (like healthcare) and bail out anyone who fails, that does NOT decrease the deficit you know.

What's the rush?

America has record unemployment.
Odds are, if you are unemployed, you cannot afford healthcare.
If you go the ER (and you will at some point) and do not have health insurance you are twice as likely to never make it back out.
OR:
If you are lucky enough to have insurance...
your premiums will go up 110% in the next 10 years so you will..
not be able to AFFORD health insurance and if you USE it for any reason...
health insurance, as it stands now, has every option to drop you. At any time, for whatever reason.

Would you like an example?

I have two.

*Alex Lange. 4 months old. Denied health insurance from Rocky Mountain Insurance. (Fox News 10/16/09)
*Jerome Mitchell, awarded $10 million because Assurant Health dropped him when he needed his health insurance. He was 17. (MSN 03/17/10)

There are many, many, many more.

We need more time on this? I say enough time and lives have been wasted.

How about letting Congress and the people read the bill before voting? Give us at least one hour per page to see what is proposed. Is that too much to ask? At eight hours of reading per day, that's a full year of reading.

Would you sign a contract that took 18% of your income without reading it and debating it and verifying it?

This effort by the Democrats is proof that they do not represent the people of this nation. The majority of the people do not want any health-care bill that has yet been proposed by Congress. Any effort to pass any bill that has less than 50% of the people calling for its passage is unAmerican.

If the Democrats pursue their course and pass it against the wishes of the people, especially if they continue to play games with the rules, this legislation will end up before the Supreme Court. THEY will not approve the methods used to pass the bill. Then, with a Supreme Court ruling against it, what hope will the Democrats have of ever passing health-care legislation?

Connect the dots | 8:48 a.m.

Did ANYONE say the Pham bill Bush passed was an example of good legislation OR process?

I don't think so.

If they did... could you point that posting out? Otherwise you are barking at an imaginary opponent that doesn't actually exist. So naturally nobody's going to respond to your hypothetical arguement.


I don't think anyone would point to that bill as something we want to repeat.

And the usual leftist-logic of, "well BUSH passed bad legislation and rushed it, so WE should be allowed to pass bad legisltaion and rush it through too"... just doesn't make sense to logical thinking people.

Come up with a better argument.

is nothing other than tax bill, 4 years worth of taxes before this bill is declared unconstitutional by a challenge from the states against a mandate and by challenge to the process, the senate is made irrevelavent by this process. The sixty votes by a body appointed by the states was meant in the constitution to slow down the process to keep a party from grabbing power and ramming through programs and laws. The next bill up for approval under this process will be the amenesty bill. Obama needs the 20 million new voters on the rolls to elect him in 2012. He can get it with this process.

Red

1. How will this bill reduce the deficit? Can you explain how that is assured so we can see if you have sound logic behind that assertion, or if it's just an assumption based on Obama said so, or some government accountant said it would.

2. You mock people for not wanting the government influencing_or_controling their healthcare. And act as if that's an obsurd thing to even THINK about.

Can you see past the end of your nose? This legislation is NOT the end (and most people know that). It also won't solve the problem (even Obama has said that). This is just the first step of MANY we must take to get where Obama wants us to be in the future. Some people are actually thinking about THAT "future". The one Obama has talked about in many of his speaches to Unions, leftist supporters, etc. The speaches where he says, "I actually PREFER a single_payer system (Hint: That single payer IS the government). He goes on to say, "I know we can't get there overnight, but that MUST be our ultimate goal and we WILL get there".

Those speaches concern SOME people.