Reader comments
Readers' forum: No to health-care reform

Granny | 5:48 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Liberals hope to pass their far-left agenda early in Obama's presidency, giving them three more years to convince the gullible American public it was the right thing to do.

Agki | 7:02 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Liar! All the polls reveal no such thing. Only the ones from Fox News.

Ditto | 7:29 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

We are in dire straights financially in this country. We shouldn't spend another dime of tax payer money until we get out of this mess. A simple solution would be to use the excess stimulus money to insure the 12 million that need it.

Also, there is no guarantee that those that are happy with their current plans will be able to keep them. Chances are that their employers will switch over to the cheaper government option, resulting in a lower quality of care.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 7:34 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

But Clarence, the polls say just the opposite, that reform is wanted by the majority. Don't parrot the right wing media and the party of NO (GOP). Open your eyes. Besides, even if health care reform was the minority view, it would still be right. The majority opposed civil rights reform. The majority elected Nixon, for crying out loud! Stand up for something better and greater.

Roland Kayser | 8:07 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

According to a poll published on 10/20/09 by the Washington Post, Americans favor a public option for health insurance by a majority of 57 to 40 percent.

RedShirt | 8:21 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

To "Agki | 7:02 a.m." let me educate you using some verifiable sources.

On August 20, 2009, the Huffington post ran the article "New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option" showing that 77% want a public option.

According to the Rassmussen report on Nov 2, 2009 titled "Health Care Reform" only 42% of Americans support the current health care reform bill being push by Obama and Pelosi. And that support is continually falling.

How do you explain the 77% that want it, yet 42% support what is being proposed?

Anonymous | 8:26 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

I love the do nothing beck listeners. So misinformed and yet so sure of themselves. Keep it up. Nothing could more insure Obamas reelection.

Keep my plan? | 8:46 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

My plan which I am very happy with is an HSA. They are being blackballed by the new healthcare. Too much personal control?

Put it to a vote. | 9:04 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Oh.
We did already.
Obama (and health care reform) won.

Simple Resolution | 9:05 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Most people want reform of health care.

Most people don't want the reforms being pushed by the Democrats.

There's nothing contradictory in those two statements. Both are very sensible and reasonable.

to red | 9:25 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Rassmussen gets it wrong every time. Perhaps going in with a clear bias isnt a good idea for a polling company. Perhaps that is why faux news uses them so much.

Anonymous | 9:27 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

I love the do nothing beck haters. So misinformed and yet so sure of themselves. Keep it up. Nothing could more insure (sic) Obamas (sic) downfall.

Ultra Bob | 9:37 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

President Obama was foolish to allow the Medical Industry to write the Medical Reform Legislation which indeed is not what the American people want for health-care reform.

The smart thing to do would be to VETO any medical reform bill that takes more than one sheet of paper and simply says:

The Government of the United States will pay all necessary and proper health care charges for all people in and of the United States of America.

Nothing in this legislation prohibits or inhibits any freedom that a person has for adding to his personal health care from other means and sources.

The cost of government sponsored health care shall be borne by the people of the United States in the manner of the personal income tax.

American wants and needs health care reform. But not a lot of gobbledygook created by unscrupulous businessmen.

Oh Please | 9:40 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

My neighbor had a mild heart attack and was confronted with a bill for $62,000. Fortunately he has Medicare. And for you Republicans who would scream at him for "freeloading" at the gov't trough, let me remind you that he paid his share in over 40 years' of Medicare taxes. Wouldn't it be great if the rest of us could stop worrying as he has?

Ultra Bob | 9:54 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

To RedShirt | 8:21 a.m.

Read my post at 9:37 a.m. There you will find the answer to your question.

Previously you ask “What rights do you see the US losing by puting the government 100% in control of the healthcare industry”.

I do not and don’t know of anyone who has proposed putting 100% of the control of health-care in government.

The reform that America needs would be for a single payer, not a single provider.

Health care would still be provided by private doctors and hospitals and other private means.

Only the payment would be controlled by the government which is us, not the private insurance companies.

No rights would be taken away from the public in general, however certain doctor unions and other organization may lose the right to restrict the number of doctors and health services to artificially cause high prices.

RedShirt | 11:17 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

To "Anonymous | 10:28 a.m. " we are starting seeing eye to eye on some things. Scarry isn't it.

If you read the current health care reform bills, the proposals being made will add to the cost of healthcare. Right now government mandates account for 20% to 50% of healthcare costs. Forcing insurance companies to accept people regardless of pre-existing conditions will add to costs, along with the other proposals that are included in the 1900+ page bill.

I agree, America needs a single payer system. In my point of view it should be us, the individuals. Once the government gets control of something they rarely let go. For an example of this, look at what happened when the citizens of Utah wanted to get rid of sales tax on food. The government said that they couldn't allow that because they may need to rais that tax again. Also, once the government controls payments, they also control what gets paid for, and that would be bad.

@Ultra Bob | 11:50 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Since the federal income tax, that you propose pay for the healthcare of all US citizens only covers half of the federal expenditures today, just how high is the income tax suppose to go? We need to get our federal house in order before we create another entitlement, when we are obviously broke. Methinks that you are one of the citizens that doesn't pay any federal income tax, so this is a great idea for you that the rest of us real taxpayers get to foot another one of your bills.

RedShirt | 12:06 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

My 11:17 am posting was for you "Ultra Bob | 9:54 a.m.". Sorry.

Ultra Bob | 3:03 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

To RedShirt | 11:17 a.m.

You seem to be saying that each individual person should pay in total for that persons health care.

That would be a good thing if health care was more equally distributed among individuals and in each persons life he could expect to pay out about the same as all other individuals.

There would be no need for insurance or other group sharing. However, health care costs can vary astronomically hence we do need group sharing.

We don’t buy insurance for food cost because each person’s cost is nearly the same. There are no unforeseen astronomically large food bills and so there is no need for group sharing.

All this is simply penny ante compared to the real war that is going on in our nation.

While we are distracted and argue about things we call rights and freedoms, the corporations and big business is at war with our Constitutional government for total control of America.

If the corporations win we will really have enslavement by our government (corporation).

Ultra Bob | 3:27 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

To “@Ultra Bob | 11:50 a.m.”

As horribly bad as it is, the federal income tax is probably the most fair tax there is.

If health care becomes a federal government “entitlement” we expect that the federal government will in effect act like a giant insurance group that shares the total cost back to its members.

To me the most fair way for all of us to share in the total health cost bill is to share in the same proportion as income tax.

Despite your insult to my character, I will tell you that I have paid income tax every year since 1953. I have never been audited because I simply pay what is asked.

I feel very lucky to pay so little for the good life that I have as an American.

RedShirt | 3:52 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

To "Ultra Bob | 3:03 p.m." imagine if you took all of the payments that you have made over the years to Medicaid, and had those collecting interest. Unless you had some sort of chronic illness, odds are that you would have more than enough money to cover yourself throughout retirement.

Actually food costs are not nearly the same. For example, during the summer, I eat out of my garden. During that time, for a family of 4, I spend $100/month or less. The rest of the year I spend $400 or more per month. A family with multiple teen-agers spends more per month on food than the same sized family with little children.

If the government wins, then we are enslaved by the government. Personally I would take corporations winning because if I don't like them I can always go over to their competitor.

We need to throw out all the politicians in Washington, and keep throwing them out as they get bribed into submission by corporations.

RedShirt | 3:54 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

To "Ultra Bob | 3:27 p.m." how is the federal income tax fair? The wealthiest pay the most, while the least wealthy get money back? That doesn't sound very fair for the wealthy.

Please explain why it is fair to tax one person more than another.

MormonDem | 12:49 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

RedShirt | 3:54 p.m.,

Seriously? Republicans since Teddy Roosevelt have at least recognized the need for a progressive tax code. The federal tax now is the lowest its been in decades. If Obama enacts the tax increases on the wealthiest Americans that he proposed during his campaign, it will still only put that tax bracket back up to Reagan-era levels.

"Please explain why it is fair to tax one person more than another."

If you have more assets, they cost more to protect. Costs more money to put out a mansion on fire than a shack. If you make your money from a business that ships goods overland, the source of your wealth puts more stress on roads and bridges. If your business relies on an educated workforce, you're drawing more financial benefit from the public education system than another person is. Your business, and the businesses that yours relies on and/or interacts with, have to be regulated to insure fairness and safety. If you are wealthy, you are at greater risk of being the victim of the kinds of fraud that government agencies like the SEC and FBI try to prevent...

RedShirt | 9:44 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

To "MormonDem | 12:49 a.m." you really are dumb aren't you.

It doesn't matter how high you put the income tax. History has shown that no matter how high that income tax is, there are always enough loop holes that the Federal government is only able to collect about 20% of the GDP in taxes.

I asked about income taxes, yet in your examples all you could find are examples from corporations, not individual income taxes.

If my company uses the roads more, I pay for it through fuel taxes, I pay my fair share that way. If I have a mansion, I pay more property taxes, so I pay my fair share that way. As for an educated work force, if I use your reasoning, if I depend on an uneducated work force I should be taxed less. If I am wealthy, I am not going to trust the SEC or FBI to protect my wealth, I will ensure that myself.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.