We have a health care famine

[JaneBlow]

This is a great article...

America's health-care famine is slowly killing us

Clark Newhall

Salt Lake Tribune
Updated:


We don't have a health-care problem. We don't have a health-care crisis. What we have is a health-care famine.

I realized this when a friend told me that she was not in favor of universal health insurance. She was opposed to paying for health care for all. She has a little boy with cancer. She was afraid that universal health care would mean her little boy would not be able to get an appointment with the oncologist.

"But all those other children with cancer deserve treatment, too, don't they?" I asked. "I guess so," she grudgingly admitted, "but I have to worry about my little boy."

Too many other people's children would be trying to get appointments and treatment. Too many other people would be competing for a scarce resource -- the time of a doctor.

It is a health-care famine.

Perhaps you know the story of Jacob, who predicted seven years of plenty and seven years of famine. When famine came, he was prepared with full granaries. His brothers, who had sold him into slavery, begged him for grain for their starving families and he gave them grain. We are like Jacob's brothers in the famine, begging for health care. But for us, there is no Jacob. There is only the for-profit medical-industrial complex, gate-keeping us out of the health-care system.

When too many people are fighting to get the scarce stuff to stay alive, whether the scarce stuff is food or health care, that is a famine.

When those of us who have barely enough are willing to sacrifice those others of us who have too little or none at all, that is a famine.

When our own situation is so desperate that we turn a blind eye to the more desperate situation of others, that is a famine.

When dog-eat-dog surpasses "do unto others" as the Golden Rule, that is a famine.

A famine never strikes everyone equally. In a famine, the have-nots become the have-nothings while the haves become the have-barely-enoughs. And, as always, the wealthy survive, even thrive, even profit, from the shortages that are killing others.

This famine is not new -- it has been slowly building for years.

The price of our privately run, profit-driven medical-industrial complex has caused this famine. About one-third of every dollar going to health care pays for administrative costs -- for utilization reviewers, for computer programmers, for advertising, for sales managers, for executives of all kinds, for billing clerks, for coding clerks, for CEO bonuses in the millions and hundreds of million -- and for profits.

We are not talking about government waste. We are not talking about the cost of actually treating the sick and nurturing the healthy. We are talking only about the cost of running our profit-making health insurance industry.

One third of the health-care dollar -- that amount is far more than enough to give excellent medical care to everyone in the nation. It is far more than enough to fund the (privately-owned) surgical centers and imaging centers and Lasik centers that sprout up on every corner. It is even more than the amount we have given to Wall Street to bail out financiers and bankers from their hubristic near-demise.

The famine has grown while insurance companies charge higher premiums and reduce coverage, while employers cut their contributions and increase deductibles, while legislators reduce Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program budgets, and on and on.

We are in a health-care famine. Millions of us are suffering and millions more will suffer soon. More than 20,000 people die each year in this famine because they cannot afford the price of for-profit health insurance.

The famine will not end until, like Jacob, we open the granaries and give aid to the starving. The health-care famine will not end until we end the money-hoarding that health insurance companies call "reserves" and "administrative costs" and "profits."

It will not end until we open our blind eye and see the plight of our neighbor. It will not end until we learn that tolerating a profit-making middleman in the health-care system builds a wall between patient and doctor. It will not end until we learn that good things for everyone can only be accomplished by the will of everyone.

It will not end until we pay for health care in the same way that we pay for everything else that we value highly -- our security, our freedom, our laws. It will not end until we have a national health-care system that covers everyone equally and is paid for by everyone equitably.

It is time for national single-payer health insurance. It is time to remove the profit-making middleman from medical care. It is time to see health care for the public good that it is and not for the profitable business it has become. Support Medicare for all.

Clark Newhall is a physician and attorney in Salt Lake City.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11357007

[J.Q. Citizen]

This is a great article...

America's health-care famine is slowly killing us

Clark Newhall

Salt Lake Tribune
Updated:


We don't have a health-care problem. We don't have a health-care crisis. What we have is a health-care famine.

I realized this when a friend told me that she was not in favor of universal health insurance. She was opposed to paying for health care for all. She has a little boy with cancer. She was afraid that universal health care would mean her little boy would not be able to get an appointment with the oncologist.

"But all those other children with cancer deserve treatment, too, don't they?" I asked. "I guess so," she grudgingly admitted, "but I have to worry about my little boy."

Too many other people's children would be trying to get appointments and treatment. Too many other people would be competing for a scarce resource -- the time of a doctor.

It is a health-care famine.

Perhaps you know the story of Jacob, who predicted seven years of plenty and seven years of famine. When famine came, he was prepared with full granaries. His brothers, who had sold him into slavery, begged him for grain for their starving families and he gave them grain. We are like Jacob's brothers in the famine, begging for health care. But for us, there is no Jacob. There is only the for-profit medical-industrial complex, gate-keeping us out of the health-care system.

When too many people are fighting to get the scarce stuff to stay alive, whether the scarce stuff is food or health care, that is a famine.

When those of us who have barely enough are willing to sacrifice those others of us who have too little or none at all, that is a famine.

When our own situation is so desperate that we turn a blind eye to the more desperate situation of others, that is a famine.

When dog-eat-dog surpasses "do unto others" as the Golden Rule, that is a famine.

A famine never strikes everyone equally. In a famine, the have-nots become the have-nothings while the haves become the have-barely-enoughs. And, as always, the wealthy survive, even thrive, even profit, from the shortages that are killing others.

This famine is not new -- it has been slowly building for years.

The price of our privately run, profit-driven medical-industrial complex has caused this famine. About one-third of every dollar going to health care pays for administrative costs -- for utilization reviewers, for computer programmers, for advertising, for sales managers, for executives of all kinds, for billing clerks, for coding clerks, for CEO bonuses in the millions and hundreds of million -- and for profits.

We are not talking about government waste. We are not talking about the cost of actually treating the sick and nurturing the healthy. We are talking only about the cost of running our profit-making health insurance industry.

One third of the health-care dollar -- that amount is far more than enough to give excellent medical care to everyone in the nation. It is far more than enough to fund the (privately-owned) surgical centers and imaging centers and Lasik centers that sprout up on every corner. It is even more than the amount we have given to Wall Street to bail out financiers and bankers from their hubristic near-demise.

The famine has grown while insurance companies charge higher premiums and reduce coverage, while employers cut their contributions and increase deductibles, while legislators reduce Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program budgets, and on and on.

We are in a health-care famine. Millions of us are suffering and millions more will suffer soon. More than 20,000 people die each year in this famine because they cannot afford the price of for-profit health insurance.

The famine will not end until, like Jacob, we open the granaries and give aid to the starving. The health-care famine will not end until we end the money-hoarding that health insurance companies call "reserves" and "administrative costs" and "profits."

It will not end until we open our blind eye and see the plight of our neighbor. It will not end until we learn that tolerating a profit-making middleman in the health-care system builds a wall between patient and doctor. It will not end until we learn that good things for everyone can only be accomplished by the will of everyone.

It will not end until we pay for health care in the same way that we pay for everything else that we value highly -- our security, our freedom, our laws. It will not end until we have a national health-care system that covers everyone equally and is paid for by everyone equitably.

It is time for national single-payer health insurance. It is time to remove the profit-making middleman from medical care. It is time to see health care for the public good that it is and not for the profitable business it has become. Support Medicare for all.

Clark Newhall is a physician and attorney in Salt Lake City.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11357007

I don't get it. Why didn't he just say, it won't end until we adopt Socialism?

[JaneBlow]

I don't get it. Why didn't he just say, it won't end until we adopt Socialism?

Probably because he is not advocating the country become socialist - i.e., where the state owns and manages the means of production and distribution of goods. The tendency to label a proposed solution to a complicated problem with a single word (especially one that carries as much emotional baggage as "socialism") is a tactic that helps people justify several unhelpful behaviors, including blocking any detailed analysis of the problem or participating in a debate about the alternative solutions. In fact, the only thing that tactic accomplishes is further division.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Probably because he is not advocating the country become socialist - i.e., where the state owns and manages the means of production and distribution of goods. The tendency to label a proposed solution to a complicated problem with a single word (especially one that carries as much emotional baggage as "socialism") is a tactic that helps people justify several unhelpful behaviors, including blocking any detailed analysis of the problem or participating in a debate about the alternative solutions. In fact, the only thing that tactic accomplishes is further division.

There are increments of Socialism, baggage or not. Social Security is a component of Socialism and it's the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of man.

Labeling justifiable opposition to certain things as a "tactic" is a tactic often used to diminish that opposition.

[JaneBlow]

There are increments of Socialism, baggage or not. Social Security is a component of Socialism and it's the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of man.

Labeling justifiable opposition to certain things as a "tactic" is a tactic often used to diminish that opposition.

I'm simply pointing out that your "justifiable opposition" consists of a single word/label -- no recognition of a problem -- no alternative solutions -- just a word -- which is not helpful.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I'm simply pointing out that your "justifiable opposition" consists of a single word/label -- no recognition of a problem -- no alternative solutions -- just a word -- which is not helpful.

Well, as much as I'd like to think that any particular solution that I might suggest would be considered by the government, I don't really hold out that hope. Even if I could come up with a solution with with the majority of people who read this might agree, I suspect that we would be too few to make a difference and even if word were to spread the concept would get lost in the translation. Furthermore, even if I had no opinion whatsoever as to how to fix or improve health care in this country, it would not diminish the significance of certain aspects of my opposition. As an example: I am not a doctor, however, if I had an ingrown hair on one of the knuckles of my hand, I would reject, absolutely, the amputation of my arm to solve the problem. I might not know the best solution, but I would reject amputation as a generally bad idea.

Similarly, I might not know the absolute best solution to our health care issues. And yes, I do and have acknowledged that our health care system needs significant improvement. I would not, however, put it into the category of a "famine" just because one journalist chooses to attempt to make that correlation. But, that is not my point. My point is this: I may not know the best solution but I am capable of recognizing those solutions that are unacceptable. Furthermore, while it may be a "single word/label" I believe it is one that fits and that people should be aware of what it is they may be supporting. I understand that you support Socialism in at least some of its forms while I absolutely do not. I do not believe that the government is the answer to virtually anything simply because it's the government. I simply have not seen the evidence to support that belief. I firmly believe that the free-market is the overall best solution to everything economic. There is no cure-all. However, in the absence of one, I believe that a free-market unencumbered the by intrusions of a federal government will produce the best results for the most people. Unfortunately, I don't believe we've really experienced a truly free-market since FDR.

[McKinneyRes]

I'm simply pointing out that your "justifiable opposition" consists of a single word/label -- no recognition of a problem -- no alternative solutions -- just a word -- which is not helpful.

Jane, I agree with you and this article %100!!!

This article brings up a great point! Do we consider protecting our freedom a socialist act? Of course we don't.. Why not protect our own from illness and debt?!

Having health care for all would be the first step in fixing this economy for the long term.

The number 1 reason Americans file for bankruptcy is because of debt incured by Health Care expenses or lack of insurance coverage.

If you can prevent people from filing for bankruptcy, then this helps more businesses get more money, businesses get more money, this helps them keep more jobs..

I think you fix this economy from the bottem up, NOT the top down!!

[J.Q. Citizen]

Jane, I agree with you and this article %100!!!

This article brings up a great point! Do we consider protecting our freedom a socialist act? Of course we don't.. Why not protect our own from illness and debt?!

Having health care for all would be the first step in fixing this economy for the long term.

The number 1 reason Americans file for bankruptcy is because of debt incured by Health Care expenses or lack of insurance coverage.

If you can prevent people from filing for bankruptcy, then this helps more businesses get more money, businesses get more money, this helps them keep more jobs..

I think you fix this economy from the bottem up, NOT the top down!!

There is a significant difference between protecting our freedom and protecting our health and debt. The federal government spending money to protect our freedom/liberty is not even comparable to it spending money on health care or debt. I don't believe health care has even been raised as a contributing factor to the current economy. I could be wrong on that.

Your solution is, in fact, socialistic in nature. How can you grow the economy from the bottom up? By definition, it's the bottom. They don't have the money. The only way to get the money to them is to TAKE it from those who do have it. That is redistribution of wealth and one of the tenets of Socialism. How many poor people do you think create jobs? How many poor people have you ever worked for?

The number one answer to your question however is this: What does it say in the Constitution about the responsibilities of the federal government regarding:
1. Protection of liberty?
2. Protection of health (from illness)?
3. Protection from debt?

If you'd like, I can answer the questions but I believe they are either self-evident or easily researched.

[JaneBlow]

J.Q., it seems as though you believe that terrorists pose a bigger threat to the American dream than does sickness, poverty and debt. Would that be a fair assessment?

[J.Q. Citizen]

J.Q., it seems as though you believe that terrorists pose a bigger threat to the American dream than does sickness, poverty and debt. Would that be a fair assessment?

I would think that, going by appearances, it would seem as if I believe that terrorists pose a bigger threat to American security than does sickness, poverty and debt.

However, I believe that if you qualified your statement to say that terrorists and the US supporters of terrorism pose the biggest threat to the American dream, I might agree that that is a fair assessment. I'll have to think about that but I'm fairly comfortable with it so far.

I might also say that the far left in this country is a huge threat to the American dream.

If you are sick, poor or in debt it's always possible to overcome. If you are killed by a terrorist attack, your chances of attaining the American dream are much slimmer.

[JaneBlow]

I would think that, going by appearances, it would seem as if I believe that terrorists pose a bigger threat to American security than does sickness, poverty and debt.

However, I believe that if you qualified your statement to say that terrorists and the US supporters of terrorism pose the biggest threat to the American dream, I might agree that that is a fair assessment. I'll have to think about that but I'm fairly comfortable with it so far.

I might also say that the far left in this country is a huge threat to the American dream.

If you are sick, poor or in debt it's always possible to overcome. If you are killed by a terrorist attack, your chances of attaining the American dream are much slimmer.

I think this is a fundamental reason for our disagreement on many issues. I want to elaborate on this, but I think it makes sense to do it in a separate thread. I hope more people will participate in the discussion. I also hope to find out more about what you mean by "US supporters of terrorism".

[McKinneyRes]

There is a significant difference between protecting our freedom and protecting our health and debt. The federal government spending money to protect our freedom/liberty is not even comparable to it spending money on health care or debt. I don't believe health care has even been raised as a contributing factor to the current economy. I could be wrong on that.

Your solution is, in fact, socialistic in nature. How can you grow the economy from the bottom up? By definition, it's the bottom. They don't have the money. The only way to get the money to them is to TAKE it from those who do have it. That is redistribution of wealth and one of the tenets of Socialism. How many poor people do you think create jobs? How many poor people have you ever worked for?

The number one answer to your question however is this: What does it say in the Constitution about the responsibilities of the federal government regarding:
1. Protection of liberty?
2. Protection of health (from illness)?
3. Protection from debt?

If you'd like, I can answer the questions but I believe they are either self-evident or easily researched.

JQ,

I gave an example of how you can grow the economy from the bottem up. A huge problem in this country is consumers and business's who file for bankruptcy.

According to the US Court Bankruptcy statistics Bankruptcy went up in 2008 by 28.9 %..

Do you see any corralation between that and our economy?

The #1 reason for bankruptcy in America, responsible for more than half of bankruptcies filed nation-wide, happens to be ill or failing health. Medical and health problems cause a legion of other issues such as unemployment and large medical bills that can easily cripple your bank account. These are other events that can wipe you out even if you are reasonably well off: accidents, natural disasters, economic shifts, even crime. A loss of income brought about by any sudden event can do that damage.

If you could cut Bankruptcies by half in the United States, that would make a multi-billion $$ impact on our economy and put money in the hands of business owners thus creating MORE JOBS!!!

[J.Q. Citizen]

JQ,

I gave an example of how you can grow the economy from the bottem up. A huge problem in this country is consumers and business's who file for bankruptcy.

According to the US Court Bankruptcy statistics Bankruptcy went up in 2008 by 28.9 %..

Do you see any corralation between that and our economy?

The #1 reason for bankruptcy in America, responsible for more than half of bankruptcies filed nation-wide, happens to be ill or failing health. Medical and health problems cause a legion of other issues such as unemployment and large medical bills that can easily cripple your bank account. These are other events that can wipe you out even if you are reasonably well off: accidents, natural disasters, economic shifts, even crime. A loss of income brought about by any sudden event can do that damage.

If you could cut Bankruptcies by half in the United States, that would make a multi-billion $$ impact on our economy and put money in the hands of business owners thus creating MORE JOBS!!!
Then, based on that reasoning, it makes sense that that is where the majority of growth in this country thus far has been derived. Perhaps you could provide some evidence to support that? I would point out that technically, what you are promoting is preventing a loss which is not the same thing as growth.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I think this is a fundamental reason for our disagreement on many issues. I want to elaborate on this, but I think it makes sense to do it in a separate thread. I hope more people will participate in the discussion. I also hope to find out more about what you mean by "US supporters of terrorism".

That's fine. And you're right, it is off-topic for this thread.

I can tell you now that my fundamental theory will be that there is nothing inherent in our system of government that prevents any legal citizen of the US from attaining virtually any goal or dream to which they put their mind. Conversely, there is a fundamental threat posed to American security and the American Dream by terrorism. Do you realize how lucky we were, economically, following the 9/11 attacks?

US supporters of terrorism? Have you seen the news lately? Anyone involved in the anti-Israel/pro-Hamas "protests" that you see in the news would qualify. Anyone who believes that more closely scrutinizing natives of the Middle East between their early twenties and late thirties is "racial profiling" would qualify. Essentially, anyone who doesn't recognize the threat posed by radical Islam might qualify but some of that can also be chalked up to ignorance.

Possibilities:
Maybe anyone who wants to shut down Gitmo.
Maybe the entire left side of the Congressional aisle.
I'll have to think about those :)
Definitely Al, the left-wing loon, Franken. If he actually wins, I suggest you rethink your belief in God because you will definitely have just seen the handiwork of the devil.

[McKinneyRes]

Then, based on that reasoning, it makes sense that that is where the majority of growth in this country thus far has been derived. Perhaps you could provide some evidence to support that? I would point out that technically, what you are promoting is preventing a loss which is not the same thing as growth.

Correct me if I am wrong. But, my idea would trickle down to put more money in the hands of business's who have debt. Would this not be GROWTH? The end result would be more money to business owners.

But, with this bailout, we have seen what happens when you give large business's lots of money.. Take for example, AIG, they took a vacation at a luxury resort in Arizona and racked up $500k in expenses while they where getting bailed out..

Also, some of the money from the bailout went to pay for Executive Compesation to those Exec's who make 6/7 figures!!

NOT TO MAKE MORE JOBS!!!

Corporate Greed is out of control. You won't find many CEO's of large corparations that will take a pay cut or sell a Corporate Jet to save 100 jobs that pay $40k a year..

[JaneBlow]

Correct me if I am wrong. But, my idea would trickle down to put more money in the hands of business's who have debt. Would this not be GROWTH? The end result would be more money to business owners.

But, with this bailout, we have seen what happens when you give large business's lots of money.. Take for example, AIG, they took a vacation at a luxury resort in Arizona and racked up $500k in expenses while they where getting bailed out..

Also, some of the money from the bailout went to pay for Executive Compesation to those Exec's who make 6/7 figures!!

NOT TO MAKE MORE JOBS!!!

Corporate Greed is out of control. You won't find many CEO's of large corparations that will take a pay cut or sell a Corporate Jet to save 100 jobs that pay $40k a year..

Thank you so much McKinneyRes for speaking up with very logical arguments! I can't tell you how disgusted I am at the CEOs and Execs that took trips and bonuses paid for with tax money from their own employees who are now left jobless. There is no convincing evidence that, in this economy, the wealthiest 1% of the country will take on the risks of creating new jobs. But there is every reason to believe that the bottom 25% would spend money if they had a little left at the end of the month (i.e., if they enjoyed the same tax breaks the top 1% enjoy or if health care wasn't their second largest expense -- only exceeded by rent/mortgage).

[J.Q. Citizen]

Correct me if I am wrong. But, my idea would trickle down to put more money in the hands of business's who have debt. Would this not be GROWTH? The end result would be more money to business owners.

I'm not sure what you mean by "debt"...owed by consumers or owed by someone else or owed by them? But technically no. Payment of a debt is not growth. A debt is offset. It's a gain of zero. They are already out of a product or service. I'd have to know more about the argument you're trying to present.

But, with this bailout, we have seen what happens when you give large business's lots of money.. Take for example, AIG, they took a vacation at a luxury resort in Arizona and racked up $500k in expenses while they where getting bailed out..

Also, some of the money from the bailout went to pay for Executive Compesation to those Exec's who make 6/7 figures!!

NOT TO MAKE MORE JOBS!!!

Corporate Greed is out of control. You won't find many CEO's of large corparations that will take a pay cut or sell a Corporate Jet to save 100 jobs that pay $40k a year..
Oh, on some of that I agree. The avarice of some of those who drove their company into the ground and then benefited from the bail out disgust me. That's one reason I was against the bailouts...no strings and no accountability. Personally, I'm for the plan to give the remaining money to US in the form of 100% tax cuts for several months. No income tax, no SS tax. But your example of selling corporate jets is just a feel good measure. Very few of them actually own the jets, they OWE on them. If they sold them, they'd take the equity and the rest would go to pay off what's owed on it. I also do not believe that any executive who received a part of the bailout money should have received a penny in bonuses.

[J.Q. Citizen]

But there is every reason to believe that the bottom 25% would spend money if they had a little left at the end of the month (i.e., if they enjoyed the same tax breaks the top 1% enjoy or if health care wasn't their second largest expense -- only exceeded by rent/mortgage).
I have to say this again and I'm not trying to be argumentative but your argument has a fallacy. The bottom 25% pay $0 to very little in taxes. A tax break would not help them. The bottom 50% only pay about 2.9% of the burden. So, no tax break is going to help significantly there in any way. Unless by tax break you mean just give them money. But that wouldn't be a tax break, that would be welfare. If that's what you want, fine, say that. But it is not a tax break if you get more money than what you paid in income tax.

[McKinneyRes]

JQ, Business's and banks do make money on debt.. Its called a Interest Rate!! They don't loan the money out for free!!

[J.Q. Citizen]

JQ, Business's and banks do make money on debt.. Its called a Interest Rate!! They don't loan the money out for free!!

Ummm, true. But you were talking about money trickling down and business owners so I assumed you were talking about small businesses. Banks and other businesses that loan money don't typically have owners and they're at the top of the monetary food chain. From whom is the money trickling down to these people if your apparent goal is to put it in the hands of those at the bottom in the first place?

[McKinneyRes]

JQ, this applies to large or small business owners. Even the small Plumber has a line of credit at the local Plumbing Supply store.. Or perhaps he allow's consumers to finance a large plumbing Job.. Many do!!!

I know many small business owners whom themselves had to go out of business because their home builder or contractor could not pay their subs..

Banks loose a significant amount of money if one of their customers whom has a line of credit with them files for Bankruptcy. This is why they have to charge a Interest Rate to others to offset this cost..

Perhaps if you could limit the amount of Bankruptcys in the US you would also see Interest Rates go down quite a bit!!

I could go on and on!! Trust me, the way to fix the economy is from the bottem up!!


It starts with Health Care!!

[J.Q. Citizen]

JQ, this applies to large or small business owners. Even the small Plumber has a line of credit at the local Plumbing Supply store.. Or perhaps he allow's consumers to finance a large plumbing Job.. Many do!!!

I know many small business owners whom themselves had to go out of business because their home builder or contractor could not pay their subs..

Banks loose a significant amount of money if one of their customers whom has a line of credit with them files for Bankruptcy. This is why they have to charge a Interest Rate to others to offset this cost..

Perhaps if you could limit the amount of Bankruptcys in the US you would also see Interest Rates go down quite a bit!!

I could go on and on!! Trust me, the way to fix the economy is from the bottem up!!


It starts with Health Care!!

Interest rates are at record lows.

As for health care, where is that money going to come from exactly? Are you suggesting that our economy will be healthier if we go deeper in debt in order to pay for health care? I'm just wondering because it's obvious we don't have it right now so there are basically three ways to get it. We can either borrow it and go deeper in debt along with deficit spending. We can print the money bringing about huge inflation. Or we can tax the **** out of the people who have the money and give it to those who don't have the money. Exactly which of these are you proposing regarding health care? That's a HUGE expense.

[McKinneyRes]

Interest rates are at record lows.

As for health care, where is that money going to come from exactly? Are you suggesting that our economy will be healthier if we go deeper in debt in order to pay for health care? I'm just wondering because it's obvious we don't have it right now so there are basically three ways to get it. We can either borrow it and go deeper in debt along with deficit spending. We can print the money bringing about huge inflation. Or we can tax the **** out of the people who have the money and give it to those who don't have the money. Exactly which of these are you proposing regarding health care? That's a HUGE expense.

Interest rates are at an alltime low out of fear and a need to "jump start" the ecnomey and make it easier to lend money.

I would just rather spend this money on Health Care then these large corporatations whom could stand to TRIM the Fat of their own budgets..
I have more empathy for the auto industries then AIG and the companies that got the first round of bail outs. Ford, Chrysler and GM employee alot of hard working Americans whom could not stand to loose their jobs.

With the amount of money we spent on Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction..We could have had this health care problem fixed by now!

Unfortunatly Pres. Bush has spent out of control money and it looks like taxing the **** is going to happen to pay for the War and the decisions made by Mr. Bush..

[J.Q. Citizen]

Interest rates are at an alltime low out of fear and a need to "jump start" the ecnomey and make it easier to lend money.

I would just rather spend this money on Health Care then these large corporatations whom could stand to TRIM the Fat of their own budgets..
I have more empathy for the auto industries then AIG and the companies that got the first round of bail outs. Ford, Chrysler and GM employee alot of hard working Americans whom could not stand to loose their jobs.

With the amount of money we spent on Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction..We could have had this health care problem fixed by now!

Unfortunatly Pres. Bush has spent out of control money and it looks like taxing the **** is going to happen to pay for the War and the decisions made by Mr. Bush..

McKinneyRes, I understand why interest rates are down but you said that if bankruptcies were reduced that we might see them drop quite a bit and I was simply pointing out that they don't have a lot to drop.

Yes, many large corporations could stand to be much more efficient and effect...starting with our government. As for the corporations, it is not the responsibility of government to trim them up or tell them what to do regarding daily operations in any way, shape or form. Nor should we be bailing them out. They either sink or swim on their own.

Technically, President Bush hasn't spent a single dime of taxpayer money. I'm not sure who you're saying is going to get taxed because the filter blocked out that word. The Congress, on the other hand, both Democratic and Republican have spent like drunken sailors. Aside from the war, what other decisions has he made that you feel like have cost us money?

Regarding health care, I would still like to know from where you expect us to get the money?

I have some empathy for the auto industry. Unions and government have combined to kill the golden egg laying goose. Notice that it's only the American companies in the US that have to beg for money, not the foreign ones even though their sales are hurting too. Government needs to stop telling them how to make cars and every state needs to become a right to work state.

Regarding health care, I've heard it stated that it's the second highest monthly cost for lower income Americans. Why isn't it being suggested that their highest monthly cost be covered by the government first? Wouldn't you agree that more people on the streets would make our population the most unhealthy? So, shouldn't their houses be paid for too? And isn't food and water more important than even health care? Shouldn't that be covered for all Americans as well? Where exactly does it end?

[McKinneyRes]

JQ, I will just post this article in response to your comment about what Pres. Bush has spent.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31


Part of the reason I voted for Obama, is that I felt he has the best Health Care plan.. Obama will make it happen!! I am not worried about that..

I have empathy for the auto workers whom bust their but in a factory.. I don't have empathy for the unethical car dealers that sell them..

I guess, I just have a heart to do whats good for people and the poor.. I am tired of the RICH get RICHER and the poor get poorer. It's actually biblical to target and help the poor. God did!

I was glad to see Obama do this-- read this article--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama


So far I give Obama an A+

Already he has made some VERY positive steps in the right direction!

[J.Q. Citizen]

JQ, I will just post this article in response to your comment about what Pres. Bush has spent.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31


Part of the reason I voted for Obama, is that I felt he has the best Health Care plan.. Obama will make it happen!! I am not worried about that..

I have empathy for the auto workers whom bust their but in a factory.. I don't have empathy for the unethical car dealers that sell them..

I guess, I just have a heart to do whats good for people and the poor.. I am tired of the RICH get RICHER and the poor get poorer. It's actually biblical to target and help the poor. God did!

I was glad to see Obama do this-- read this article--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama


So far I give Obama an A+

Already he has made some VERY positive steps in the right direction!

And again you prove my point about how Democrats want to come up with emotional arguments and reasons for doing things while Republicans, theoretically, have logical arguments and reasons. You have the "heart" to do what's good for people. That's great but that's not the job of government. If you, as an individual citizen, want to target the poor, that's commendable but that does not translate to a responsibility of the federal government. Based on that theory, we should just let all of the illegal aliens who have managed to avoid the law all of these years just go ahead and stay here without repercussion. What is biblical for individuals has nothing to do with how government should function of behave.

We are either a nation of laws or we are not. We are either going to follow the Constitution or we are not.

Regarding President Bush: Are you aware that he cannot spend a dime of taxpayer money? It requires the Congress. Just because he is the leader in the Executive branch does not mean he has control over the Legislative branch. He has influence, he can propose legislation but it is Congress that must carry it out.

Again, I have to ask you, from where is the money for Obama's health care plan going to come? What? You're not worried about it simply because he talks the best plan? I don't get it. What does that mean?

What do you have against car dealers? You don't think it's a tough job trying to sell cars? And, do you understand how much the unions and government have contributed to the crisis of auto manufacturers?

Since he has not even taken office yet, I'm curious as to exactly what "positive steps in the right direction" you feel Obama has taken?

[McKinneyRes]

And again you prove my point about how Democrats want to come up with emotional arguments and reasons for doing things while Republicans, theoretically, have logical arguments and reasons. You have the "heart" to do what's good for people. That's great but that's not the job of government. If you, as an individual citizen, want to target the poor, that's commendable but that does not translate to a responsibility of the federal government. Based on that theory, we should just let all of the illegal aliens who have managed to avoid the law all of these years just go ahead and stay here without repercussion. What is biblical for individuals has nothing to do with how government should function of behave.

We are either a nation of laws or we are not. We are either going to follow the Constitution or we are not.

Regarding President Bush: Are you aware that he cannot spend a dime of taxpayer money? It requires the Congress. Just because he is the leader in the Executive branch does not mean he has control over the Legislative branch. He has influence, he can propose legislation but it is Congress that must carry it out.

Again, I have to ask you, from where is the money for Obama's health care plan going to come? What? You're not worried about it simply because he talks the best plan? I don't get it. What does that mean?

What do you have against car dealers? You don't think it's a tough job trying to sell cars? And, do you understand how much the unions and government have contributed to the crisis of auto manufacturers?

Since he has not even taken office yet, I'm curious as to exactly what "positive steps in the right direction" you feel Obama has taken?

First off, Some Car Dealers are some of the most unethical advertisers and sales tactics of any industry.. McKinneyNews.net caught one dealership "red handed" in an article they ran about Honda Cars of McKinney for example.
If everyone took the CAR MAX approach and just discounted cars from the start instead of having to haggle and negotiate with managers whom are in an upper office sales tower that are trying to play math equation game to screw you out of as much money as possible... Then the industry would be better off.

I love the way Obama has picked his cabinet.. He has made some very smart decisions. I love they fact that he is not interested in people telling him what he wants to hear, instead he is interested in getting the facts from his staff.

The fact is Pres. Bush did not VETO one single bill that came across his desk for a long, long time..

[J.Q. Citizen]

First off, Some Car Dealers are some of the most unethical advertisers and sales tactics of any industry.. McKinneyNews.net caught one dealership "red handed" in an article they ran about Honda Cars of McKinney for example.
If everyone took the CAR MAX approach and just discounted cars from the start instead of having to haggle and negotiate with managers whom are in an upper office sales tower that are trying to play math equation game to screw you out of as much money as possible... Then the industry would be better off.

I love the way Obama has picked his cabinet.. He has made some very smart decisions. I love they fact that he is not interested in people telling him what he wants to hear, instead he is interested in getting the facts from his staff.

The fact is Pres. Bush did not VETO one single bill that came across his desk for a long, long time..

Sure, many car dealers and many other dealers of other industries push the envelope of ethics. And, based on your comment, if everyone took the Only Sell Ford F-150's(or the one vehicle of your choice) then it would all be easier/better. It is up to us, the consumer, to be educated in our purchases and if we don't like the way a certain company does business then we take our business elsewhere and spread the word. Sales is a tough job. I know, I've had to do it. Some customers won't believe you even when you're telling the absolute truth. I don't think it's fair to blame dealerships for the state of the auto industry however. There are essentially 3 causes; the general state of the economy, the government and unions. I guess I have to take that back, there are essentially only 2 causes because the first and second cause I mentioned can be lumped into the general category of "government". It's their fault for the state of the economy and it's their fault for interfering with the engineering and manufacturing of automobiles. CAFE standards are killing the auto industry as have many of the government imposed regulations that have been implemented over the years. You're worried about a few add-ons by dealers but are you aware of how much the government has caused the average price of a vehicle to increase? And are you aware of how much money the government makes from taxing petroleum products? Still all of that is just your opinion and I only asked out of curiosity but it's not particularly germane to this discussion.

I'm curious as to what particularly smart picks Obama has made. How do you feel about Panetta as a choice to lead the CIA? What about Geitner, who has illegal employees and can't seem to pay his taxes, as the head of the department in charge of taxes? Why do you think he gets a pass when many people in the past with lesser infractions had to withdraw?

True, Bush didn't do much in the way of vetoes. What exactly do you think it would have gotten him besides icy opposition for any other bill he attempted to pass after that? We need a Constitutional amendment authorizing the line-item veto. That's all there is to it. Now, while I think he made some mistakes, Bush had a very difficult uphill battle since the day he took office. He has had to fight DBH's (Deranged Bush Haters) during his entire term. The morons on the left who thought he stole the election from the laughable buffoon Algore have made the last 8 years a monumental struggle. I'm surprised he was able to get anything done.

What I don't understand is this...you criticize Bush for his policies and how much money "he" spent so I don't understand how you can support someone who is promising the largest increase in federal spending since...ever.