Should Congress be required to use the healthcare plan they are creating?
There is a movement out there to try to force Congress to be required to use whatever healthcare plan is created by them for those who do not have insurance. I received an e-mail forward yesterday from a friend who is a conservative, and I noticed there is a new facebook group created by someone who is a liberal on the same issue.
While the e-mail forward is a bit misleading since the vote and the amendment referenced actually took place in July of 2009 the content is still relevant as far as people on both sides of the political aisle making this an issue. Of course the motivations are different, but? I believe this is something that should be pointed out and if you want to take action? You’ll have your choice of a facebook group to join and a link to vote at or both.
The text of the e-mail forward:
On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. It took me less than a minute to sign up to require our congressmen and senators to drink at the same trough!
Three cheers for Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana!
Congressman John Fleming ( Louisiana physician) has proposed an amendment that would require congressmen and senators to take the same healthcare plan they force on us (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt).
Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go on his Website and Sign his petition (very simple – just first, last and email). I have immediately done just that at: Link to Fleming’s website
Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!
If Congress forces this on the American people, the Congressmen should| have to accept the same level of health care for themselves and their families. To do otherwise is the height of hypocrisy!
Please pass this on!!
The text of the material from the Facebook page created by Subodh Chandra:
No public option for us? Then NO HEALTHCARE FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
We respectfully request that Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and his colleagues amend the pending health-insurance-reform bill to BAR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FROM PARTAKING OF PUBLICLY SPONSORED HEALTHCARE UNTIL EVERY OTHER AMERICAN HAS THAT OPTION.We believe that as part of health-insurance reform–to keep private-insurance companies accountable–Americans should have the OPTION of joining a publicly sponsored health-insurance plan. This is known as the “public option.”
Senator Brown believes so as well. Indeed, Senator Brown is one of the few, if not the only, member of Congress who, since the beginning of his congressional career, has refused to partake of any congressional healthcare plan until every American has access to quality, affordable healthcare.
We are proud that Senator Brown on December 4, 2009 offered to co-sponsor a GOP-initiated amendment requiring all members of Congress to join the public option should one be a part of health-insurance reform.
While Republicans offered the amendment thinking it it would deter their congressional colleagues from supporting healthcare reform, Senator Brown called their bluff.
WE URGE SENATOR BROWN to take one more step and sponsor an amendment to the healthcare bill that would MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OR THEIR FAMILIES TO HAVE PUBLICLY SPONSORED HEALTH INSURANCE UNTIL THE AMERICANS THEY SERVE HAVE THAT OPTION AS WELL.
Senator Brown has lived this principle. Now let his colleagues live with it as well if they do not make the same public options they enjoy available to all Americans.
Please invite all of your friends to join this group!
I’d like to point out that no one is “forcing” a plan on us. It’s called a Public Option, because it would be an option for people who can’t get or afford private insurance.
So it’s kind of funny that they are going to now force it on Congress. That said it looks likes several Democrats have come forward to help sponsor the Republican bill in the Senate.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/public-option-for-senators/
The whole thing seems like a lot of posturing, but if gets a Public Option created, I’m all for it.
On a very closely related note – Aetna is about to dump over 600,000 customers
http://www.examiner.com/x-8543-SF-Health-News-Examiner~y2009m12d4-Aetna-to-jack-prices-dump-600000plus-customers-in-profit-grab
Health insurance giant Aetna plans to raise consumer insurance prices and push up to 650,000 clients to give up their health coverage next year, as it seeks to increase revenues to meet projected profit margins.
No doubt that Aetna dumped only young healthy people who should have no trouble picking up cheap insurance anywhere.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:29 pmDoesn’t the second one cancel out the first one basically saying that Congress must be on the public option but they can’t be on it until everyone else has the ability to be on it?
I don’t necessarily think we should force them in to the public option however I do think we should be cutting out paying for their healthcare, a publicly paid for option the public does not have access to, and they should be subject to the same laws and regulations that we would be subject to i.e. forced to carry coverage, their coverage must meet the set criteria they create, if they don’t they will be fined/jailed, etc… Also, since we’re writing laws forcing people to buy things we should probably also make it so that any public position, city, state, federal, etc should fall in this same category. We can’t have some people more equal than other people.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:29 pmSensor, thanks for the Aetna link, that’s a really interesting facet to the health care discussion, it’s almost as if Aetna is demonstrating why the government needs to take action when that many people can be booted from their health insurance that they pay premiums for.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:57 pmThe article wasn’t about Aetna booting people from health insurance, it was about them raising their premiums to cover costs and still remain profitable (not saying good or bad since I haven’t read Aetna’s finance books). I think the key quote from the article is:
“They were surprised by an acceleration in medical costs in 2009 which pressured their earnings,” Josh Raskin, an industry analyst for Barclays Capital, told the Huffington Post. “In an effort to get back to a more profitable level, they are raising their prices to match cost trends. When you raise rates, you run the risk of losing your membership. Health insurance is a very competitive marketplace.”
December 7th, 2009 at 3:47 pmYou might want to read it again John, they are cutting people to make more money, and the article clearly states how many will end up being cut:
What the article doesn’t say is where will they go, will they go to other health insurance companies because they find a cheaper deal or will they have no insurance. That’s a piece of information that would be helpful to be able to determine the full impact. If they all just move to other companies, it’s one thing, if they don’t? It’s another.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pmSadly, they are basically getting rid of the people who are costing them most money (ie sick people). So you spend your entire life paying your health care premium, you get sick and they boot you. Hardly seems fair. The article doesn’t say that is what is happening about does anyone really think they are getting rid of young healthy people?
The article doesn’t say what Aetna’s current profit levels are but it did mention past levels –
This is not the first time Aetna has chopped its roles in an effort to reach its profit targets. A 2004 Health Affairs article by health economist James C. Robinson, MD, PhD, notes that Aetna totally restructured its business between 2000 and 2003, plunging from 21 million members in 1999 to 13 million in 2003, boosting profits from about 4% to more than 7% in the process.
Is 4% fair? Is 7%? I don’t know and don’t care, I just want affordable insurance that I don’t have to worry about losing if I get sick or going bankrupt if I do.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:22 pmI’d also recommend this article, The Street Makes a Killing Helping Insurers Kill Customers.
It’s pretty interesting….As well as this one, Paying for health care? Less is more. Which goes to Sensor’s point, it’s not going to be companies with young males who most likely see their premiums increase:
December 7th, 2009 at 4:27 pmI wasn’t refering to “cut”… I was referring to “booting”.
“Booting” implies actively removing people from their numbers as opposed to “cut” used in this instance to mean people leaving because they either don’t want to pay the premiums or they can’t afford to pay the premiums.
Like I said, haven’t determined if this was a good or bad move as I haven’t looked at their books, just didn’t like that the article was implying something that wasn’t happening, “dumping”.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:02 pmJohn Meyer said –
ooting” implies actively removing people from their numbers as opposed to “cut” used in this instance to mean people leaving because they either don’t want to pay the premiums or they can’t afford to pay the premiums.
It’s the same thing. If they target premium increases to certain people with the specific goal of them leaving, then it’s the same thing.
It’s like saying your girl friend didn’t dump you, she just maces you and kicks you in the groin everytime she sees you.
Of course this is good for their books. That’s why they are doing. It’s just bad for the 600,000 people who have to get new insurance with a bunch of pre-existing conditions that caused Aetna to dump them in the first place.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:01 pmI know Aenta is going up big time,co/pays, monthly premiums, and meds,co/pay was $6.00 now $35.00 because of income $50.00 too much. As a senior I have to re apply for help. So much paperwotk involved. When you call you can be on the phone for hours and hours, switched from one person to another. I make the same as last year, no raise, yet I make too much? whats wrong with this picture
December 7th, 2009 at 6:37 pmHMO’s have been killing people since
they became into existance! Medicare
also has specific regulations before
some specific procedures can be done
on some Medicare patients.
IT IS GOING TO GET EVEN MUCH WORSE!!
This is just a PICK & CHOOSE COUNTRY
December 7th, 2009 at 6:44 pmof who they want to help and just allow
the others to die!
SensorG – Could you please point out where it says that they are raising it on certain individuals, I’m not seeing it in the article. The closest I see is the first line “Health insurance giant Aetna plans to raise consumer insurance prices and push up to 650,000 clients to give up their health coverage next year, as it seeks to increase revenues to meet projected profit margins.”
Which is two separate thoughts. They are raising their prices overall. They expect to lose 650,000 customers because of this. In real man’s terms and economic terms: Price goes up, demand goes down.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:17 pmJohn, if you read some of the other material, that’s where it’s stated that Aetna and some of the others selectively price according to the medical risk/usage factor.
That’s shared in comment #7.
I do agree with you that it’s hard to say if this is bad or good, it depends on what happens to those who are cut/booted, whichever term you prefer. If prices are raised for some groups, will they be able to get a better deal or be forced to pay the higher rates is not yet known.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:26 pmI guess starting out with some premises would probably be good. Businesses are out there to make money, not to help you, if they help you it just happens to be on their way to make money. Insurance works by pooling money together from multiple sources to cover the sicks’ expenses in the hopes that not everyone gets sick at once.
A few added assumptions I’m making in my analysis since I am not the insurance guru. Insurance companies allow for groups of people to form rather than pooling the money from everyone together, it appears that money can not directly cross groups, i.e. one group can not pay for another group, but profits can pay for shortfalls. Smaller groups are riskier because less people pay in to them so there is less money floating around. Larger groups are less risky because there are more people paying in that will hopefully counteract those that are sick. Since insurance is a business, riskier groups will be charged more than less risky groups.
So Aetna to jack prices, dump 600,000-plus customers in profit grab Basically says Aetna is raising rates and expects to lose people. They say they are raising rates because overall medical costs went up higher than expected and being a business do need to make a profit. It doesn’t really say how they are going to raise rates, but I get the impression that everyone’s rates are going up.
The Street Makes a Killing Helping Insurers Kill Customers is an interesting read as it basically talks about Medical Loss Ratio, basically how much is paid in benefits when compared to how much the insurer is paid. The article says private insurers average $0.81 and medicare averages $0.97. The author says the $0.16 gap is pure profit, which I find somewhat misleading or not enough information is given.
First, that $0.16 has to account for administration unless that is considered paid out in benefits (highly unlikely). I won’t lie and say there is no profit there, however even the first article says somewhere around 7% is Aetna’s as of 2003. This would leave $0.09 per dollar for administration which has to include a lot of things the government doesn’t have to worry about such as marketing.
Another interesting thing to remember is that most of the population that pays for Medicare doesn’t use Medicare. So for them to say that $0.97 of every dollar paid goes to treatment seems to me like there is a lot of waste since the majority of those charged can’t use it.
A final thing to consider in this article is that most of the people covered by Medicare need to have a supplemental insurance to cover all their needs.
The final article mentioned Paying for Health Care? Less is More basically outlines how rates are determined based on group size, where the administration money goes.
Now you have to remember that a businesses’ goal is to make money. If they aren’t making money then they are working their way to going out of business. Part of making money is keeping what you charge above what it costs you to supply the product or service. Another thing to keep in mind is that if I am getting charged less than you and both our rates go up there’s a very good chance, even on a set percentage scale, that your rates will go up more because your initial rate was more. It’s not so much that they are targeting you as they still want to be profitable.
On a side note, I do not believe our current system is perfect, but I do believer there are some small things we can do fix it. I do not believe the legislation before congress right now can do this. And to get back to the topic, I do however think that whatever happens, congress should not be held exempt from what they decide, as our system really breaks down once the legislative ruling class works on a different set of laws than the people that elected them/pay their salaries.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:14 amNice summary John, and I agree it’s not clear if all rates are going to be raised or not, the first article gives that impression, but the other ones suggest otherwise. I thought the article on “The Street makes a Killing…” was very interesting too though I also agree more research would need to be done to verify the numbers.
I’m not sure if the current legislation is the “wonder fix” we have been waiting for since the 1970’s when this first began being talked about either, but I do agree whatever the plan is members of Congress should also have to use it.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:21 amIt is unconstitutional for the government to force me to buy something or to pay for someone else’s healthcare. Healthcare is not an entitlement.
Look at the polls, the people in this country do not want the government that can not run anything right taking over our healthcare. Cash for clunkers anyone, stimulus money going to congressional districts that do not even exist? Social Security and Medicare going bankrupt. Do you trust this bunch of nitwits that vote to give themselves a raise in the wee hours of the night with your tax dollars, health or you life. Most people are happy with their existing coverage. Fix what needs fixing and don’t revamp the whole system. I will not pay for abortion or healthcare for illegals.
The question of forcing the crud in DC that got us into this mess were in go on the public option is mute. This whole thing is unconstitutional.
It’s DC that needs revamping and a thorough bleaching.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:43 amHealthcare is not an entitlement.
What are Medicare and Medicade?
Look at the polls, the people in this country do not want the government that can not run anything right taking over our healthcare.
Where is the government talking over healthcare? How is expanding Medicare to cover those without insurance ‘taking over’?
I will not pay for abortion or healthcare for illegals.
No one is asking you to write a check. Both aren’t covered in either bill.
BTW you pay for ‘illegals’ every day already.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:22 amPam,
“Healthcare is not an entitlement”
It certianly is. Especially when a generous portion of my pay check goes to Social Security and Medicare. It IS my expectation that when I become eligible, it will be there for me. Is it perfect? Heck no.
Are there about a gizillion rules and regulations and requirements that must be met for meicare to kick in. Yep. Could it be a better, more efficient system? Yep.
But look at the volumes of citizens that are utilizing Medicare (Parts A B and D) daily in this community. The average nursing home alone usually counts on Medicare for about 20% of their income. That is substantial when you consider that the remaining 75% use the state Medicaid dollars and the remaining 5% utilize private funds or private LTC insurance for their stays.
These are the same facilities that are suffering from budget cuts coming from the feds as well as the state. Those individuals lucky enough to have private funds or insurances will most likely not be able to afford it soon.
The thing that frightens me most on a daily basis, is how can facilities serve those we care for when the money is gone to provide salaries to staff, DME, and meds??
YES!!! All the people of this great nation ‘deserve’ to be treated humanely and cost effectively! It is what an evolved society does.
mj, RN
December 8th, 2009 at 11:52 amPS…that doesn’t sound very ‘Republican’ of me, does it.
Tell me how this is CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!
As for the rest of your talking points, that is all they are.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:53 amMindy,
This country doesn’t owe you a thing, you know the ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country thing. You are not entitled to healthcare. You are not entitled to womb to tomb care. Social Security and Medicare taxes are confiscated from my check every week and both are going bankrupt because both have been mismanaged by the idiots in DC. Fix what is broken before taking the whole system and destroying the best healthcare system in the world.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:00 pmOf course these leeches in Congress won’t use this health plan! the reason they are doing this is this is the biggest power grab in American history! If this plan passes they will be able to dictate what we do with our lives. They will tell us what to eat, what to drink, what to drive, etc.
They know they American people do not want this! That is why they are doing this really fast, partisanship only, buying off senators from Redstates, and doing it behind closed doors.
In England the cancer death rate is 38% higher then it is in the U.S. And we have been told that their health care system is better then ours! LOL
There are problems don’t get me wrong. Costs are a little high, sometimes(depending on what hospital you go to) the wait times are ridiculous! But I agree with one statement Pam made in #20. Fix what is broken first!
December 8th, 2009 at 12:30 pmFailing.
They are taking over by the fact that they define what private companies have to cover. If a private company doesn’t offer the government defined coverage then every customer of that company will have to pay a fine.
You’re right, they aren’t asking they are telling us and threatening with tax fines. Abortion is covered, read the bill (SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.).
That’s not an argument for this bill is it? I would hope not.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:17 pmPam,
“You are not entitled to healthcare.”
Sure I am…I have paid it forward via my taxed income. I expect “it” or something like “it” to be there in my time of need, if not…Give me my daggone money back and I will make other arrangements!
To assume that today people are “happy” with the current health care coverage they have is just delusional.
If someone is lucky enough to have health coverage through an employer, my guess is in the past five years (this hooey didn’t start weeks ago) preimums have gone up, co-pays have gone up, and actual items/services covered have been decreased…or at least that is what has happened with me and my friends.
Maybe you just have ‘better’ insurance than the rest of us working dogs.
mj
December 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pmChad – NO ONE is advocating government run health care like they have in England of course they only spend a fraction of what we do on healthcare.
As for Medicare and Medicaid failing, people are living longer and the cost of medical care is rising way faster than the rate of inflation. Part of the health care overhaul that is going on will directly address their solvency.
What is the solution? It’s been said on here we should just ‘fix’ the system we have, how? How do the 600,000+ people that are going to get cut/dumped from Aetna get new affordable insurance? How do we provide affordable health coverage to the 40+ million Americans without it?
How do we fix the system that gave us a reverse lottery where if you get seriously sick you lose everything, even if you have insurance?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/business/02insure.html?_r=1
Hundreds of thousands of Americans file for personal bankruptcy each year because of medical bills – even though they have health insurance, according to a new study by Harvard University legal and medical researchers
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/05/earlyshow/health/main5064981.shtml
But a new study published in The American Journal of Medicine says the biggest reason for going into bankruptcy is medical debt.
Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman reports the study says getting sick is a factor in 62 percent of personal bankruptcies — an increase from just eight percent in 1981.
And among those who filed for bankruptcy, 75 percent reported having some type of medical insurance. But The Washington Post says people in bankruptcy with insurance were nearly $18,000 in the red. And those without insurance had an average of almost $27,000 in medical debt.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:50 pmI would like to take the time to provide an anecdotal example of someone who likes their coverage and contradict the claim no one likes theirs.
To top it all off, I am dumping my employer’s coverage soon to go to school full time.
I have an HSA and my employer deposits a decent amount into my account every year. I pay 30 bi weekly with decent coverage.
Dental coverage takes about 5 every 2 weeks, and that has worked out for us… especially since the HSA account cash can be applied to what insurance doesnt cover. I just used all my vision coverage up which costs 2 every 2 weeks. I got my eye exams, $140 frames, lenses, 3 boxes or contacts all for $40.
And this is at a company that classifies itself as production – I am entry level production shift work making 11 an hour and extremely satisfied with my coverage.
If a 11/hr employee is extremely satisfied and impressed, I’m not everyone is upset with their coverage.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:25 pmI am happy with mine too, and so are all of the people I know with coverage. Our biggest fear is a government take over, which is likely.
There is a lot of progaganda out there that folks are not happy with what they have. It is part of the obama strategy to take over.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:58 pmMost people aren’t against health care reform, most of us just believe a complete overhaul is not the answer. A 2k plus bill is silly. Why don’t we do this incrementally. A small bill at a time. We could try opening the state borders for increased competition instead of a gov’t option. We could tackle tort reform. Do each of these seperately and monitor the results.
Once this entitlement program is enacted, it is here good or bad because of people like Mindy,
who feel they have paid into it and therefore want to keep it around so they can benefit. Problem is, most of these programs according to many estimates will monetarily dry up before a lot of us will be able to use it.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:06 pmDoug,
Two things:
1) My health insurance is adaquate, however, I don’t use it all that much. It covers (4.00 co-pay) the one generic prescription I use every month and I don’t require many labs, md visits or treatments. The insurance costs approximately $1000.00 per year out of pocket. I am not griping, merely consider myself lucky to have coverage at all, some facilities have stopped offering insurance.
2) Should citizens that have contributed (YTD for me $4450.00) annually to Social Security and Medicare just write off that money? That is nearly 5 grand I could have independently invested this year to secure my lifestyle and retirement.
The system we have now isn’t ideal…but to date it’s better than nothing.
mj
December 8th, 2009 at 3:35 pmJohn Meyer & Pam – thank you for posting the truth. The state-run media rarely does. And I have wondered for years (mainly since 1985 on, when American corporations began aggressively downsizing and the bad road we were on as a country was fairly clear) – WHY IN THE WORLD SHOULD WE PROVIDE HEALTH BENEFITS TO CONGRESS PEOPLE, WHEN THEIR ENORMOUS SALARIES ENABLE THEM TO BUY THEIR OWN???????
December 8th, 2009 at 4:44 pmEnormous salaries? Not really…2009 – $174,000 per year.
Which is more than the median income, in 2007 the median family income for DC was, $54,317, but pales in comparison to what the corporate or even the non-profit world makes.
Like the myth that City Council members or General Assembly do it for the money, you are not going to get rich on a Congressional salary, now are some millionaires on their own accord outside of their Congressional duties? Yes…but that’s a different area.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:17 pmWhich is your opinion, not shared by many Toledoans, nor likely by many in the nation’s heartland.
They have enormous salaries and can afford their own health insurance, particularly since House leadership, Pelosi in particular, are bent on forcing people making even as little as $15,000 per year to buy THEIR own insurance. Forcing U.S. citizens to buy their own insurance is likely unconstitutional and will most likely face court challenges if passed – but the utter hypocrisy of forcing the people who pay their salaries to buy something they decline to buy for themselves. Come on – a grade schooler can understand that one.
By the way, they don’t make bare bones $174,000 per year. Pelosi alone flies home just about every weekend – cross country in style at taxpayer expense for fuel alone. And then again there is the fact that they have solid gold health insurance and pensions, bought and paid for by the constituents they then oppress financially. And then there are the perks and huge office staffs.
To most midwesterners, $174,000 in an of itself is an enormous salary, period.
City Council, etc.? Wasn’t that a little off topic? Who said anything about rich or even brought up that topic. I mean, you introduce a topic, midstream, call it a myth [because you say so apparently] just so you can start an argument about something else. Whose going to argue about something as silly and inane as that?
December 8th, 2009 at 8:04 pmTruthseeker, it’s a common myth, hence why it was mentioned.
As to that being “enormous” the median income according to the US government in Ohio is 60,061. link.
While I don’t disagree it’s higher than the average, when you compare that to what the median income for a CEO is, $643,846, that’s enormous. link.
This doesn’t mean that I don’t disagree with those who think that those in Congress, especially those who earn closer to the CEO income in addition to their Congressional salaries should be able to afford their own insurance, they can. But that is not the way the system is presently set up. So, in my opinion, at a minimum expecting Congress to have to use whatever public option they create is worth serious consideration.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:28 pmMindy,
On your first point that you have insurance and are happy with it. I am not sure how to respond to that because it sounds like you don’t need public health care. I will say again though that I am not against reform, just THIS proposed reform. Read my earlier post to see what I would like to see happen.
On your second post, you almost make my argument for me. You pay that much a year and would like to see a return on it. Depending on your age, you problably will not. Every forcast for social security shows that the money will run out. Every social entitlement system suffers from that same forecast: at some point when the actual numbers and yearly trends become apparent, the system will run out of money. Do you think healthcare will be different? What historical precedent is there that our government can run such a thing?
December 9th, 2009 at 8:24 amWell, the Boston Globe nails it, including the info that most citizens in the over-50 age group have known for years – that in the last great depression, congress had enough integrity to take a pay cut:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/01/04/congress_new_year_new_pay_hike/
Even I didn’t know that they are actually in violation of the 27th amendment when they give themselves these raises. And p.s. there’s a very basic difference between public service positions and private sector jobs. Apples and oranges, to say the least.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:03 pmAnd this from Ralph Nader back in ‘02 [when the recession/depression was already well under way, but not acknowledged publicly]. I remember Ralph testifying at a congressional hearing on this very subject many years ago. Needless to say, the congressman interviewing him wasn’t very happy with him, and lashed out at him when Nader named a figure he thought congressmen could live nicely on.
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader0824.html
December 9th, 2009 at 3:27 pmYes they are SensorG. They do it all the time on MSNBC. All they ever talk about is how great England and Canada’s HC system is. When in reality they both suck and are in shambles!
December 10th, 2009 at 5:27 pmThere will be no health care if providers do not want to work for the prices they are paid OR in a system that has been wrecked by government supervision. Nobody will go through medical school if they are paid the same as someone who spent no time in school. People can get whatever they want in this country if they are willing to educate themselves, innovate, and work hard. If you do not want to become a professional or put in the amount of time it takes to live a comfortable life, then do not expect to do so. Government programs have made people feel entitled to everything for nothing. This is still a country where anyone can become anything. At the same time, it is also a place where anyone can become nothing. Those who choose nothing are the ones that demand something. If you eliminate incentive for better living, then you eliminate drive and ambition. There will be no professionals left. You have to allow for something that drives a person to achieve. People are in more than just medical debt. Everyone points out the statistic that X% of bankruptcies state that medical debt is a source of their problem. Before you blame costs of medicine, look more closely at the lifestyle of that person. Are they driving a car they can not afford. Are they living in a house they can not afford. You do not have to own a home. Apartments are acceptable if that is what you can afford. Americans become entitled to a new car, to ownership of a house, to too many things that logically are reserved for those who can afford it. If you are leveraged out and putting no money into savings every month, don’t look around surprised when you go bankrupt. Don’t buy things if you don’t have money. Write that down and put it on your mirror. Maybe if people lived with only the things they could afford, they would be inspired to work to be able to afford more. If bob and nancy had decided to put away savings for the last 10 years, live in an affordable location, drive an affordable car, then when misfortune came their way, as it does to everyone, then they would be just fine. I am poor. I have a 23yr old car with over 200k miles on it and live in a cheap apartment. I know that I want to live more comfortably and so I know that I must first live uncomfortably until I can afford the comforts I aspire to. Start saving and working hard today. Don’t buy things if you don’t have money. Enjoy life.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:00 amWell said Sammy!
December 11th, 2009 at 8:26 am“Anyone can become Anything” in this country????
ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!!!!!!!!!! NEVER WAS AND NEVER WILL BE!!
December 11th, 2009 at 1:28 pmWhatisTRUE??
No matter if it is the Public Sector or the Private Sector it all comes down to
the following:
INTELLIGENCE PLUS EDUCATION PLUS PERSONALITY PLUS POPULARITY,PLUS
December 11th, 2009 at 1:47 pmOPPORTUNITY!!
Intelligence and education are anyone’s for the taking. Unless you have been diagnosed as being mentally retarded, you have all the faculties to become whatever you aspire to. I am not exactly sure what you mean by personality, but personality is what we make of it. If you want to be optimistic, then be it. If you want to be pessimistic, then be it. If You want to be outgoing, then act it until you are it. Changing personality is within anyone’s grasp. Popularity is overrated. The engineers, doctors, programmers, dentists, lawyers, etc… that I know were definitely not popular. On the contrary, they were often socially awkward and very unpopular. They live the lives they aspired to. Attaining education, intelligence (whatever intelligence really is), and improving personality are within the reach of everyone. If you do not know how to do it, there are books and successful people around you that do. We blame everything but ourselves for our misfortune. Realize that the only person to blame for your situation is you, the only person who can change your situation is you, and then go change it. Work is hard. Change is hard. Improvement is hard. Life is hard. The rewards can be great and the lessons along the way will never leave you the same. You will never really enjoy or appreciate nice things and comfortable living until you have earned it. If you were to receive it from someone for free (health care) you would squander it immediately. If you can not earn it now in your current level of education and progress, you would not know what to do with it if it were given to you freely. Anything given to you will be gone as quickly as it was given. The heir has to be worthy of the inheritance. Learn. Improve your situation with your education. Enjoy life.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:09 amSammy, if you do not know what is meant
by personality, etc for the situations
evidently you have been having almost given to
you and many others on a silver platter
and have not been around long enough to
discover what goes on!
Opportunity and Luck also play a big role no matter how intelligent or how hard some people try!
December 12th, 2009 at 12:59 amBy the way, there are also many people
who believe they would be good and want to be in a specific job or profession, but they lack the ingrown characteristics to perform well in it which includes the medical professions at all levels!
There already in too many jobs and professions that fit this category.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:27 amHahaha. Good bye boots and good luck.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:56 amDD BOOTS Says:
“…also many people who believe they would be good and want to be in a specific job or profession, but they lack the ingrown characteristics to perform well in it which includes the medical professions at all levels!”
Are you saying genetics plays a role in this? I always wondered why Chinese were so good in math, and blacks at basketball (but they don’t swim too well)?
Maybe the government should decide which occupation each of us is best suited for and only authorize us to study in that particular field.
December 12th, 2009 at 6:27 amNot Again that was extremely stereotypical…It could also be taken as offensive by quite a few of our readers. While I’m not quite sure what DD Boots was referencing, I don’t believe nor many others it has anything to do with race:
Cracking the myths of Asian Student Success:
Jim Ellis and others who tried to dispel that myth as to black swimmers.
December 12th, 2009 at 7:15 amI guess you didn’t notice the smilie face?
December 12th, 2009 at 7:38 amHow do you do a tongue in cheek smile?
December 12th, 2009 at 7:41 amSo, go ahead and laugh because some are incapable of understanding the words, concepts, and the truth.
Just wait until yours and/or one of your loved ones (if you have any) silver platters
December 12th, 2009 at 9:12 amstart to and are tarnished! Then others
and even God will be laughing!
D Boots, are you saying that after obama has redistributed all the wealth, and all people are poor, it will be something to have a big laugh about? Please splain yoreself, sir.
I think it will be something to cry about.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:14 amObama will never redistribute all the wealth because Obama, those in Congress,
December 12th, 2009 at 10:33 amalong with those at our Columbus State
House keep their wealth!!
There are evidently too many humans
December 12th, 2009 at 11:04 amwho are intelligent and have formal educations
with all types of degrees but lack plain old COMMON SENSE to go along with it which is essential!
DD BOOTS Says:
“Obama will never redistribute all the wealth because Obama, those in Congress,along with those at our Columbus State House keep their wealth!!”
You are absolutely right Dboots, and this article from the good ole USA Today proves your point.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm
December 12th, 2009 at 11:21 am“When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.”
See, Not Again and everyone, most humans have NO COMMON SENSE when it comes to salaries
December 12th, 2009 at 11:53 amand/or any financial matters!!
Sammy do you really have common sense? I don’t care how many degrees you get,how hard you work, if you don’t know someone, or have it handed to you,it just gets passed on to your low paid employees to delagate. You know the ones with common sense!!!
December 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pmShould Congress be required to use the healthcare plan they are creating?
Absolutely. What do we want a brand new caste system here? Ridiculous.
No good leader asks for others to do anything he won’t do himself.
December 12th, 2009 at 3:23 pmObama, everyone in Washington D.C, all
December 12th, 2009 at 3:54 pmneed to be on the same Healthcare Plans along with having all the money they get from the Taxpayers cut down!!