Ask Chuck: Health Care Bill, Keeping American Jobs

[sjcpal]

Senator Grassley has the third-worst voting record in the entire US Congress (both House and Senate combined) on veterans issues, according to the Disabled American Veterans, earning a 40 rating. Only 2 senators, both Republicans, have lower ratings.

[sstorminc]

health care lobby whore

[seluagehya]

Oh, well now, THAT comment certainly raised the level of political discourse! I'm sure we all benefited from that insightful, no doubt carefully considered comment. Please, hesitate to post again.

[sstorminc]

I will not hesitate to post again. what recourse does the american people have when we vote people into office and the lobbyist buy them off.

I do not live in this whores district but unfortunately i have voted for baucus several times in my past. i am sickened by our political process and if all i can do is exercise my freedom of speech when sobs like grassley and baucus sell their souls for money i am sorry. i will excercize that right. I would love to see real discourse. not an option

[seluagehya]

I do live in this man's district. Dis somebody you know something about, not one of the few senators that actually listens to, replies to, and works with his constituents. Can't be easy either, because we're a diverse lot but he does a good job of representing the mix. Personally, I wish he were more conservative but I'll settle for decent, honest, and moral.

[sstorminc]

how can you vote to go to war with a country that did not attack us spending trillions, vote for tax cut for the wealthy costing 780 billion, and lie about death panels, the united methodist church confronted him at townhall and stated thier moral stance in favor of public option. 3000 people killed by Bin Laden 44000 die each year according to harvard because of our health care system. Moral?

[seluagehya]

Wish my answers could be longer.

1. Smart to choose the battleground to fight Al Qaeda. There was military logic in drawing the enemy out in an area better suited to our army & not fight in Afghanistan.

2. Tax cuts for wealthy people are a better stimulus than tax cuts for people with no money. Spending creates jobs so those with no $ can get some.

A group gets to decide you're too old for lifesaving medical treatment. So what are they? A you don't get to live panel?

Try critical thinking

[sstorminc]

oh the trickle down economics of those bush tax cuts really made the economy boom now didnt it. Wow what a booming economy those tax cuts left us with. Try thinking at all

[seluagehya]

Wrong president. That was Reagan. It worked.

[sstorminc]

al queda wasnt in iraq. the trillions spent on those wars would be better spent on health care.

[seluagehya]

Actually, they were and we drew more of them to our preferred battleground. There was this really big airplane set up right in Baghdad -- which I even went so far as checking out on Google Maps because I don't take people's word for these things -- where terrorists trained for taking planes.

And, no, the government doesn't belong in health care at all. Read the US Constitution regarding the powers alloted to congress, Article 1, Section 8.

[sstorminc]

read the preamble. promote the general welfare

we are the only country that doesnt have single payer and we pay many much more because of it

a 44 cent stamp or a 40 dollar fedex envelope

our health care is a 40 dollar fedex envelope only

there were no al queda in iraq until we attacked iraq. even Cheney has admitted that.

Iraq and afganastan are only two of seven countries we were going to invade

[seluagehya]

I expected you to cite that. The preamble doesn't apply to the congress but to the authors... remember context.

Your stamp analogy is rather vague so I can't address it.

Cheney is a moot point to me. Remember? I did my own research.

As for who we were going to invade, I assume there were many contingency plans.  Want to cite your source for that one so I can check it out?

[sstorminc]

The US Post Office is a Public Option, it does a great job 44 cents vs 40 Dollars

The private option is up to 40 dollars for a letter.234 years old non-profit successful government run agency designed to bring low cost service to the citizens of the United States. In 2006 the post office moved 216 billion letters 73 billion dollars

vs  3 trillion 408 billion (private option)

[seluagehya]

The US Post Office has done better since it ceased being a government agency and became quasi-independent. I think the last time the USPS made an actual profit was under Benjamin Franklin.

The interesting thing about Fed Ex is that, despite the cost, people use it - it prospers. Clearly it offers something the USPS doesn't because given a choice, people use it. It is a bit like comparing apples and oranges because there are services only the USPS is allowed to offer; not the independents..

[sstorminc]

it is quasi independant, it never makes a profit which is the point. it is designed to keep costs low and it does it. it does not crush fedex. people pay extra for fedexes service. Every year i send out thousands of invoices and i am glad i have a low cost option.

i can spend 44 cents and go from fairbanks to miami. that is the kind of bargain i want in health care. not spending three times more and getting worse results

[seluagehya]

Post offices & post roads, congress IS allowed. Health care, no. The post office, when established, wasn't intended to be subsidized. Ben Franklin ran it at a profit. But government has a history of being unwieldy and corrupt so it mostly didn't run at a profit. The constitution doesn't guarantee you a bargain in health care. Government interference has increased insurance company costs and, as a result, ours, by dictating coverage, limiting choices, and restricting between state sales.

[sstorminc]

the preamble is defining the purpose of the constitution

[seluagehya]

Sorry for the mis-post.

I'll paraphrase: We, the people, are writing this constitution to do these things. In the following document we specify HOW these things are to be done.

It is quite specific about what congress is allowed to do; everything else is reserved to the states or to the citizens.

[sstorminc]

republicans like to PROVIDE FOR THE DEFENSE AT ANY AND ALL COST. BUT LIKE TO SKIP RIGHT OVER THE PROVIE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE our health care system kills not the terrorists.

we are the moral laughing stock of the world and your defense of for profit health system is laughable.

we have universal health coverage now. it just cost three times more then the efficent. systems 236 billion spent from our pockets to politicians via health care lobbyists. enlighten me about the morality

[seluagehya]

The federal government is to do what the states or citizens cannot do best for themselves. We have certain inalienable rights - life, liberty, and to pursue happiness - not given by men, but the creator. Citizens - not the federal govt - are to have the intelligence and fortitude to take care of themselves and the moral integrity to treat their neighbors as they themselves would like to be treated. And you have a right NOT to act in your best interests, tho govt is encroaching there.

[sstorminc]

do i have a right to say my tax dollars should not be used to militarily control the world.

So a mother of three working at mcdonalds that contracts cancer is excercising her right to die, because health insurance would cost her twice what she made.

you are right that the the government should do what citizens can not do for themselves

Republicans dont like to raise the minimum wage and they like to let the poor die off quickly and decrease the surplus population.

[seluagehya]

Have you tried withholding the portion of tax used for war as some have? The govt will prosecute you. The constitution gives congress the right to declare war.

The mother of 3 can get treated without insurance. Not only are there already govt programs, but many communities come together to support persons in such need. It is my belief that If govt stopped meddling with coverage options and competition such programs would be privately available ... rather like the auto insurance industry.

[sstorminc]

should the government treat this woman or should she beg?

is it appropriate for the government to treat her or should she die

please give me your moral guidence,

[sstorminc]

is the government overstepping its constitutional responsibility to give this woman medical care?

[seluagehya]

The federal govt would be overstepping; the state govt may depending upon the state constitution, as may local govt, or community members. It is my contention that it is govt that has forced costs of insurance beyond what this woman could afford. It is also govt that, by taxing us and changing rules at whim, removes our incentive to save and invest our own money to enable us to care for ourselves. Perhaps you are too young to recall when savings wasn't taxed.

[sstorminc]

if the government has no moral obligation to protect her medically do we let her die?

or will the corporations and the churches pay for her treatment or should she just die and decrease the surplus population

should tiny tim just die

i am asking you for moral guidence

[seluagehya]

Actually, Dickens got it right. It was incumbent upon Scrooge, as the story implies, to pay a living wage to his employee - or as near to that as possible had Scrooge been a less successful businessman. For the laborer is worth his hire; it is wrong to keep his wages from him.

Flip side is, the laborer has a right to work for low wages if he chooses to do so. Sometimes, forcing a less thriving business to pay higher wages causes that position to go unfilled.

Choose? Low pay? Or no job?

[sstorminc]

there is no moral or rational justification for our system, we are the only country with for profit and our results are by far the worst and you can deny the independant third party studies all you want but

Dickens was right but schrooge was not

our country is acting like scrooge especially republicans

[sstorminc]

What do you believe that the founding fathers would have thought of a public option?

Ben Franklin?

[sstorminc]

The interstate hiway system is nice and the government collets taxes painlessly and provides the service. it has the ability to do this and a moral justification to do it.

i dont give a damn about a plane in IRAq where they train terrorists. i dont care if north korea invades south korea

I want to pay taxes and not worry about my insurance company denying me a heart transplant because thier stock would drop. or would cut into the

ceos 24 million dollar salary or my senator bribe

[seluagehya]

The primary justification for an interstate highway is DEFENSE mobility. If it were merely for economic purposes, it would be, as most roads are, left to the state. It is a matter of opinion if those road taxes, tolls, and gas taxes are painless.

And if you will read any of the recently proposed health bills - Reid or Pelosi or previous version - you will see that the govt system reserves the right to refuse you treatment as well and denies you recourse to the courts to force them.

[sstorminc]

Defend our health system please. Sell me on the features and benefits. one point at a time. I will listen. I would then like to sell you one point at a time on the features and benefits of the system that i visualize

[sstorminc]

we are number one in cost and 37th in quality

in all the other countries of the world it is moral for the government to manage taxes to provide this service. only here is it moral to let people die

I am ashamed of our country and i am ashamed of our politians and americas commitment to the corporations.

Grassley and Baucus are symbolic of the cancer that has spread through the body of law makers

[seluagehya]

I dispute your assertion that we are first in cost and 37th in quality. If you examine some of the studies or data closely you will find they are again comparing apples to oranges. It is easier, for example, to have a lower infant mortality rate if you choose not to count infants below a certain birth weight. And I find some other countries treatment of their patients abominable; citizens are denied a private option; 8 weeks is a common wait, etc.

[sstorminc]

Does the government have a responsiblilty to provide the population with swine flu innoculations, or protect us from pandemics?

[nsureit1]

If you are so ashamed, move to one of those countries that you hold in such high regard.

This country does not let people die and every person does get treatment if needed. If our healthcare system is so horrible, why are people from other countries coming here to get treated??

[sstorminc]

instead of studying justifications of going to war with Ira,q. Please study some of the practices of the health insurance companies. i will supply you with links to cspan congressional hearings that will shock and sicken you as well

there is a basic moral flaw in our system

the system profits by cutting the sick from the herd. You are provided low cost health insurance

Government has a moral duty to protect IE Swine flu etc. I

[seluagehya]

I wasn't the one who brought up the Iraq War. I just countered your commentary.

The proposed health bills plan to cut costs by reducing care, in your words cutting sick (or elderly) from the herd. Don't take my word. Read the bills.

Govt running a CDC if far different from their running their own public option or forcing persons to buy insurance or deciding who gets what care.

Of course there are shyster companies but you have alternatives & recourse to court action - not so with govt.

[sstorminc]

your insurance company denies someone coverage for a pre existing condition and gives you low cost coverage.

please enlighten me

What should become of that person, go bank rupt? go on medicade? Die

you are enjoying low cost and the insurance company is making a profit.

lets say this person is a mom with three kids

what is the answer for this person

please i am serious tell me what should we do as a society?

[seluagehya]

I am serious in suggesting that health care insurance should model itself on auto insurance. Even drivers with horrid records can get High Risk Insurance. You can get liability or full coverage or something between. And you can buy from a company in another state! Aside from keeping industry honest, govt should stay out of private enterprises; it has a long track record of making a mess of things.

[nsureit1]

You are apparently only listening to the anti-insurance propaganda and not really learning about the industry itself. Insurance companies do not set the rate as to what a doctor or hospital will charge. They are simply the middle-man between the patient and the provider. The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk - not take it all on at a cost that is only convenient to the patient.

[sstorminc]

why dont you give us the pro insurance propoganda. Please enlighten us about the public good the health insurance companies does for us.

please tell me anything positive the insurance companies brings to the table.

by the way the lobbyist for the health industry has paid 238 billion dollars to buy lawmakers like grassley and baucus.

is this a good use of our money. i get to vote and insurance gets to purchase the grassleys of the world