Comments on: ReidCare

By: SAB

SAB — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:49:31 +0000

It was sickening watching Reid and Schumer try to contain their shit eating grins.

By: Artfldgr

Artfldgr — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:54:15 +0000

Party C is the forgotten man.

By: Artfldgr

Artfldgr — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:53:00 +0000

Party A (the state), and party B (elite people), decide what party C mid class (middle class) will lose and be forced to give to party A (the state) who will skim the money before they give it to party D (state created poor), who will have to give a portion of it back to party A (the state) when they use it to purchase items. Party A (the state) then gives it to family and friends (state social services), who skim more, returning some to party A (the state) in campaign support. All the while moving money from school (children of middle class) and support services and infrastructure to family and friends (state social services) while skimming some for party A (the state). They then cry poverty which then gets party A (the state) and party B (elite people), to decide that party C is not giving enough, because party D has not been erased from existence. Of course the reason is that so much has been skimmed off during transport that they live subsistence.

By: Dan Smith

Dan Smith — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:29:43 +0000

About six weeks ago out of my office window I watched in horror as an elderly woman, dropped off in the wrong place by her husband, attempted to step up a steep curb to a graded sidewalk. According to her husband, a US Postal Service truck was blocking the entrance to our medical building. How’s that for irony? In the space of about ten seconds, before I or anyone else could act, she lost her balance and fell, breaking her femur in the process. I’m happy to report she is recovering, slowly, at home at this point, after surgery to place a metal rod in the bone. But isn’t the vignette a micro version of the coming health care disaster? We can see it coming and are helpless to do anything when gravity takes over and smashes the bone?

By: Perfected democrat

Perfected democrat — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:01:08 +0000

10 HRS OF DEBATE ON SATURDAY; VOTE 8 PM
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/senate-dems-will-only-deliberate-10-hours-before-vote-to-nationalize-health-care/

Ten hours should pretty much cover this initially modest trillion dollar program, no reason to complicate passage of something basically simple with petty political bickering over small details…

By: J.L.

J.L. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:53:01 +0000

rickl Says:

Then there’s also the laziness about terminology: “Health care reform.” This is not reform, which would be focused on fixing clearly delineated problems. This is about the wholesale government takeover of health care.

I've taken to calling it "health care deform ." I think were in a race against time, with the end point being the November 2010 elections. I was caught by surprise by the House actually passing their version of health care deform, because I thought there were so many obstacles in the way to Dem unity, and because I thought the tide of public opinion against the bill would doom it. But the Dems have thrown caution to the wind, and the lack of public support may actually be making them that much more insistant to passing this thing. Thank God theres still a lot of obstacles in the way, and theres possibly a point where the clock will run out in November 2010. The next battle is the Senate, where hopefully some rational Dems like Lieberman (a Connecticut independent now) and Nelson (from Nebraska) may join the GOP in blocking this thing by fillibuster.

By: jon baker

jon baker — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:38:56 +0000

expat,
I also suspect the practice of folks thinking insurance should cover everything is part of the high price. As others have suggested around here, we would be better off if we thought of insurance for large cost, not something for every visit to the doc.

By: expat

expat — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:29:31 +0000

I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter: I think the biggest problems are the insurance costs for small businesses who lack bargaining power, inability to get insurance if you lose or quit your job and have a pre-existing condition, mandated coverage for care you don’t want, and high costs because privately insured patients subsidize care for the publicly insured and uninsured. All should be fixable without remaking the whole system.

By: rickl

rickl — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:25:56 +0000

Health care “reform” has nothing to do with health care. Or reform, for that matter.

It has everything to do with power and control.

The vast majority of Americans are pretty much satisfied with their access to health care, as well as their current insurance coverage. Are there problems? Yes. Do some people fall through the cracks? Certainly.

So clearly identified problems should be targeted in order to fix them. That can be done without smashing the whole system and rebuilding it under centralized control. But that’s not what this effort is about.

Then there’s also the laziness about terminology: “Health care reform.” This is not reform, which would be focused on fixing clearly delineated problems. This is about the wholesale government takeover of health care.

Even worse is calling it simply “health care”, as in “the health care bill.” “He voted for health care.” “She voted against health care.” You can see how the Left has defined the terms of debate.

To repeat: This has nothing to do with health care.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:45:20 +0000

If you want to understand why we need reform, look at cosmetic medicine, which is not covered by insurance.

Cosmetic care is low cost, due to actual price competition.

What we need is real reform, and a return to free markets.