Was the Senate Finance Group on Healthcare--
SETUP TO FAIL?
Everyone is waiting for the healthcare plan to emerge from the Senate Finance Committee.
One has to wonder if the Senate Finance Committee on healthcare was deliberately set up to fail. Three republican senators, Charles Grassley from Iowa, Michael Enzi from Wyoming, Olympia Snow from Maine and three democratic senators, Max Baucus from Montana, Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico, Kent Conrad from North Dakota compose the committee.
If you take a good look at the members you immediately notice that they all come from conservative rural states with small populations. All these states together don’t represent 10% of the population of the US. None of these states have large urban centers. This committee appears better suited to discuss farm, logging or water supply issues than healthcare.
What kind of a healthcare program that can be helpful to all the people of the US can we expect from the narrow selection of areas and viewpoints represented on this committee?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Has bi-partisanship spoiled
The chances for a good healthcare program?
Was the strong insistence on bi-partisanship a bad mistake that doomed the Healthcare bills from achieving the denocratic objectives of the legislation? For example, a program such as a go’vt healthcare plan to compete with the insurance co’s and to give an insurance option to those with very limited resources to buy insurance.
The strong insistence on bi-partisanship seems strange since the Republicans had shown no interest in bi-partisanship. The Republicans fought hard against any Democratic initative such as the bailout bills, the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sotomoyer, even the clunker auto program. Secondly the Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee appeared to use their discussions to stall Healthcare momentum and get provisions they did not like eliminated, Perhaps they hoped to use the promise of bi-partisanship to talk about the bill so long that the momentum for it would be exhausted. Certainly Senator Grassley’s comments have been very unencouraging.
Did the Republicans see the emphasis on bi-partisanship by Pres Obrama as a sign of weakness and a person unsure of himself, or lacking in conviction, whose need of bi-partisanship could be exploited to limit the bill or even to kill it?
Historically major changes in our gov’t have come with aggressive leadership over the strenuous objections of those against. a) Would Thomas Jefferson have written the Declaration of Independence if he sat down with the British for a bi-partisan discussion? Would Abraham Lincoln have written the Emancipation proclamation if he approached the Confederates to seek a bi-partisan solution? Would FDR have committed to Social Security if he sought out the Republicans for a bi-partisan program? Would Lyndon Johnson have pushed thru Congress a Medicare bill if he asked the Republicans for bi-partisan help?
Come on guys! Let’s get with it. Let’s pass the best democratic bill we can.
The chances for a good healthcare program?
Was the strong insistence on bi-partisanship a bad mistake that doomed the Healthcare bills from achieving the denocratic objectives of the legislation? For example, a program such as a go’vt healthcare plan to compete with the insurance co’s and to give an insurance option to those with very limited resources to buy insurance.
The strong insistence on bi-partisanship seems strange since the Republicans had shown no interest in bi-partisanship. The Republicans fought hard against any Democratic initative such as the bailout bills, the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sotomoyer, even the clunker auto program. Secondly the Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee appeared to use their discussions to stall Healthcare momentum and get provisions they did not like eliminated, Perhaps they hoped to use the promise of bi-partisanship to talk about the bill so long that the momentum for it would be exhausted. Certainly Senator Grassley’s comments have been very unencouraging.
Did the Republicans see the emphasis on bi-partisanship by Pres Obrama as a sign of weakness and a person unsure of himself, or lacking in conviction, whose need of bi-partisanship could be exploited to limit the bill or even to kill it?
Historically major changes in our gov’t have come with aggressive leadership over the strenuous objections of those against. a) Would Thomas Jefferson have written the Declaration of Independence if he sat down with the British for a bi-partisan discussion? Would Abraham Lincoln have written the Emancipation proclamation if he approached the Confederates to seek a bi-partisan solution? Would FDR have committed to Social Security if he sought out the Republicans for a bi-partisan program? Would Lyndon Johnson have pushed thru Congress a Medicare bill if he asked the Republicans for bi-partisan help?
Come on guys! Let’s get with it. Let’s pass the best democratic bill we can.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
WHAT ABOUT MEDICARE FOR ALL?
DOES A SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE PLAN MERIT
YOUR CONSIDERATION?
Would a single-payer Healthcare Plan similar to Medicare make sense for every one in the US? Remember MEDICARE is the best liked, most efficient, and least costly health plan we have.
Ms. Olive Johnson of Vancouver, Canada recently sent a letter to the Chicago Tribune entitled, “Gov’t-funded care”.
“I am writing from Canada because of my interest in the current debate about healthcare in the US. I think Americans would want to know how other countries handle healthcare coverage.
These are the facts about health care coverage in Canada.
1) Gov’t-funded health care is available to everyone. People are free to choose the doctor they want.
2) Individuals pay a modest amount for government-funded health-care(approximately $50 per month), which covers all of their doctor visits, hospital procedures(including surgeries) and laboratory tests.
3) Drugs for those over 65 are paid for, in part or in full, by the Gov’t. The amount paid is dependent on one’s income.
4) People younger than 65 may have their drugs paid for by their employers. Otherwise they can pay into a private insurance scheme to cover the cost of their drugs.
5) Contrary to rumors about long waiting lists in Canada most people are able to see a doctor without delay. The exception to this in rural areas where there are too few doctors. Medical specialists may also have waiting lists.
I can assure you that in Canada gov’t-funded health care is very popular. ALMOSTS ALL OF THOSE WHO DENIGRATE OUR PUBLIC HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO STAND TO PROFIT FROM ITS DEMISE. I URGE AMERICANS NOT TO BE FOOLED INTO ACCEPTING PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT HEALTH CARE, WHICH IS BOTH MORE EXPENSIVE AND LESS EFFICIENT THAN GOV’T-FUNDED CARE.
YOUR CONSIDERATION?
Would a single-payer Healthcare Plan similar to Medicare make sense for every one in the US? Remember MEDICARE is the best liked, most efficient, and least costly health plan we have.
Ms. Olive Johnson of Vancouver, Canada recently sent a letter to the Chicago Tribune entitled, “Gov’t-funded care”.
“I am writing from Canada because of my interest in the current debate about healthcare in the US. I think Americans would want to know how other countries handle healthcare coverage.
These are the facts about health care coverage in Canada.
1) Gov’t-funded health care is available to everyone. People are free to choose the doctor they want.
2) Individuals pay a modest amount for government-funded health-care(approximately $50 per month), which covers all of their doctor visits, hospital procedures(including surgeries) and laboratory tests.
3) Drugs for those over 65 are paid for, in part or in full, by the Gov’t. The amount paid is dependent on one’s income.
4) People younger than 65 may have their drugs paid for by their employers. Otherwise they can pay into a private insurance scheme to cover the cost of their drugs.
5) Contrary to rumors about long waiting lists in Canada most people are able to see a doctor without delay. The exception to this in rural areas where there are too few doctors. Medical specialists may also have waiting lists.
I can assure you that in Canada gov’t-funded health care is very popular. ALMOSTS ALL OF THOSE WHO DENIGRATE OUR PUBLIC HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO STAND TO PROFIT FROM ITS DEMISE. I URGE AMERICANS NOT TO BE FOOLED INTO ACCEPTING PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT HEALTH CARE, WHICH IS BOTH MORE EXPENSIVE AND LESS EFFICIENT THAN GOV’T-FUNDED CARE.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Desperate Republicans Fight Healthcare with
Desperate Republicans Fight Healthcare
with lies and meeting disruptions Part 1
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Recently Republican House minority leader John Boehner said that Reform Healthcare plans recommended euthanasia. Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin said that Reform Healthcare plans recommended euthanasia. Newt Gingrich republican leader said that Reform Healthcare plans recommended euthanasia. Newt also added, (clearly there are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia). Unfortunately Newt did not name names or organizations. Also UNFORTUNATELY THIS APPEARS TO BE THE REPUBLICAN party line, Also UNFORTUNATELY IT IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
The reform healthcare plans provides a voluntary option to discuss end of life options, such as living wills. If a patient chooses to discuss this with a doctor the reform plan will pay for the doctor’s time. Many of these issues should be discussed before a person is seriously ill. But a large number of people for a variety of reasons do not. The number of people including well to do educated people who do not even have a will is surprising.
Other republican false claims are: Medicare payments will be cut ,less freedom to choose your own Dr., lose health coverage, ration healthcare, gov’t takeover, etc Part 2 Disruptions.
with lies and meeting disruptions Part 1
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Recently Republican House minority leader John Boehner said that Reform Healthcare plans recommended euthanasia. Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin said that Reform Healthcare plans recommended euthanasia. Newt Gingrich republican leader said that Reform Healthcare plans recommended euthanasia. Newt also added, (clearly there are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia). Unfortunately Newt did not name names or organizations. Also UNFORTUNATELY THIS APPEARS TO BE THE REPUBLICAN party line, Also UNFORTUNATELY IT IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
The reform healthcare plans provides a voluntary option to discuss end of life options, such as living wills. If a patient chooses to discuss this with a doctor the reform plan will pay for the doctor’s time. Many of these issues should be discussed before a person is seriously ill. But a large number of people for a variety of reasons do not. The number of people including well to do educated people who do not even have a will is surprising.
Other republican false claims are: Medicare payments will be cut ,less freedom to choose your own Dr., lose health coverage, ration healthcare, gov’t takeover, etc Part 2 Disruptions.
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Defense Budget is NOT the NEW WPA
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Many members of the House of Representatives seem to be very confused. They think that the defense budget is the new WPA. As you probably know The WPA was FDR’s employment program during the “Great Depression”.
WPA was the largest New Deal agency, employing millions of people and constructing all types of different projects. It effected almost every locality in the United States, especially rural and western mountain populations.
However most of the people in the US realize that the Defense Budget is to provide the armed services with the equipment, personnel, and intelligence to carry out their missions to protect our country.
The recent action of the House in providing moey for large scale military equipment that the military experts say we do not need is clearly not in the public interest. The money spent on not needed items hinders our military. It could better be spent on needed equipment, or in other parts of gov’, or not spent at all (we have a large deficit. Granted that supplier companies are spread across the country partially to gain political support. If these industries or area’s need help the help should come from other legislative or private efforts not at the expense of the Defense Budget.
This is another glaring example that is happening too often. Legislation by the Congress is not in the best interests of the people. This is a problem that goes back along way. James Madison in essay 10 of the Federalist wrote aboutthe evils of ‘FACTION”. “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”. What to do? More to come
WPA was the largest New Deal agency, employing millions of people and constructing all types of different projects. It effected almost every locality in the United States, especially rural and western mountain populations.
However most of the people in the US realize that the Defense Budget is to provide the armed services with the equipment, personnel, and intelligence to carry out their missions to protect our country.
The recent action of the House in providing moey for large scale military equipment that the military experts say we do not need is clearly not in the public interest. The money spent on not needed items hinders our military. It could better be spent on needed equipment, or in other parts of gov’, or not spent at all (we have a large deficit. Granted that supplier companies are spread across the country partially to gain political support. If these industries or area’s need help the help should come from other legislative or private efforts not at the expense of the Defense Budget.
This is another glaring example that is happening too often. Legislation by the Congress is not in the best interests of the people. This is a problem that goes back along way. James Madison in essay 10 of the Federalist wrote aboutthe evils of ‘FACTION”. “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”. What to do? More to come
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)