How about Iraq gives us a few millions and millions in oil revenue? Nope, its gonna be on our tab.

 

Wasn't some of their oil profits supposed to pay for most of our help anyway? I thought I heard that as the war started.

How about Iraq gives us a few millions and millions in oil revenue? Nope, its gonna be on our tab.

A case study in how "entitlement" spending gets out of hand.

A case study in how "entitlement" spending gets out of hand.

 

WAR is an entitlement?? WOW.

WAR is an entitlement?? WOW.

No Ace... that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply pointing out how government things end up being much more expensive than first forecast... linger much longer than originally envisioned... and never, ever get paid back in full.

 

The abstract connection I am making is the idea of the government taking over 16% of our economy in the form of Health Care is frightening. Looking at how the government has botched Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid... all in severe debt... I have no confidence we will ever withstand the debt load of added Health Care.

 

We were supposed to get oil revenues from Iraq, Social Security funds were supposed to be in a lock box, Health Care is supposed to funded by CUTS in waste in other programs... R-I-G-H-T...

Which billion dollar spending decrease are you talking about that was propsed between 2003 and 2008

 

Any spending decrease. Heck, when increases are cut from 10% to 8% people call that a cut. It's not a cut.

 

Look at what's happening when the call is made to pay for a 10 billion dollar extension in unemployment. Pay for it?????? Why, the nerve!

 

BTW, there was plenty of screaming about tax rates in the 1990's. A tax cut just wasn't what the media wanted to promote.

The abstract connection I am making is the idea of the government taking over 16% of our economy in the form of Health Care is frightening. Looking at how the government has botched Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid... all in severe debt... I have no confidence we will ever withstand the debt load of added Health Care.

 

 

First nothing in the Health Care Bill is a government take over, unless you also consider a speed limit on a highway to be a government take over of driving. The bill mandates certain regulations on the insurance industry. To make those mandates feasible for the insurance industry, it also mandates that everyone get insurance. How is that a "government take over"? I keep hearing all of this manure about a "a government take over of 16 percent of our economy" but I never hear anything beyond the talking point. Where is the take over? Over half of the health care in this country is already provided directly or indirectly by the government in the form of Medicare, Medicade and the VA. The health care bill will be a tremendous benefit to the uninsured, those buying individual policies and any small business that provides health insurance to its employees. It won't hurt those who get their insurance through a large group plan, but they also won't see much change. Over the long haul it may help them by slowing the rate of growth in health care costs.

First nothing in the Health Care Bill is a government take over, unless you also consider a speed limit on a highway to be a government take over of driving. The bill mandates certain regulations on the insurance industry. To make those mandates feasible for the insurance industry, it also mandates that everyone get insurance. How is that a "government take over"? I keep hearing all of this manure about a "a government take over of 16 percent of our economy" but I never hear anything beyond the talking point. Where is the take over? Over half of the health care in this country is already provided directly or indirectly by the government in the form of Medicare, Medicade and the VA. The health care bill will be a tremendous benefit to the uninsured, those buying individual policies and any small business that provides health insurance to its employees. It won't hurt those who get their insurance through a large group plan, but they also won't see much change. Over the long haul it may help them by slowing the rate of growth in health care costs.

 

This all boils down to two very different world views... those who see government as the solution and those who see too much government intervention as the impediment.

 

I know too many knuckleheads in office that can't even seem to get their own affairs in order, to trust them with too much of my life.

First nothing in the Health Care Bill is a government take over, unless you also consider a speed limit on a highway to be a government take over of driving. The bill mandates certain regulations on the insurance industry. To make those mandates feasible for the insurance industry, it also mandates that everyone get insurance. How is that a "government take over"? I keep hearing all of this manure about a "a government take over of 16 percent of our economy" but I never hear anything beyond the talking point. Where is the take over? Over half of the health care in this country is already provided directly or indirectly by the government in the form of Medicare, Medicade and the VA. The health care bill will be a tremendous benefit to the uninsured, those buying individual policies and any small business that provides health insurance to its employees. It won't hurt those who get their insurance through a large group plan, but they also won't see much change. Over the long haul it may help them by slowing the rate of growth in health care costs.

 

And we all know how well they manage things, don't we?

This all boils down to two very different world views... those who see government as the solution and those who see too much government intervention as the impediment.

 

I know too many knuckleheads in office that can't even seem to get their own affairs in order, to trust them with too much of my life.

 

And yet, you still haven't shown me where the take over is. The government sets the rules for a lot of things. Do you object to speed limits? Stop signs? Meat safety? Why is the insurance industry the only place where setting rules constitutes a government take over? I am one of the few people I know that doesn't think that the insurance industry is wrong for dropping sick people at the end of the policy or excluding preexisting conditions. I expect businesses to operate within the rules, as the rules exist. I'll exclude running out the clock. That is a clear violation of the contract they have with the policy holder and as far as I'm concerned there isn't a jury award high enough when they get caught. I also don't think most insurance companies operate that way. If we don't like the way insurance companis operate, the solution is to change the rules - which is exactly what the health care bill does.

And we all know how well they manage things, don't we?

 

My experience with Medicare is very limited, one parent. I have no problems with Medicare.

First nothing in the Health Care Bill is a government take over, unless you also consider a speed limit on a highway to be a government take over of driving. The bill mandates certain regulations on the insurance industry. To make those mandates feasible for the insurance industry, it also mandates that everyone get insurance. How is that a "government take over"? I keep hearing all of this manure about a "a government take over of 16 percent of our economy" but I never hear anything beyond the talking point. Where is the take over? Over half of the health care in this country is already provided directly or indirectly by the government in the form of Medicare, Medicade and the VA. The health care bill will be a tremendous benefit to the uninsured, those buying individual policies and any small business that provides health insurance to its employees. It won't hurt those who get their insurance through a large group plan, but they also won't see much change. Over the long haul it may help them by slowing the rate of growth in health care costs.

 

More of a "take away" of my freedom of choosing whether or not I want health insurance than a take over (at least for now). The loss of freedom of choice is more threatening to me than any government incompetence accompanying a take over (and the federal govt is largely incompetent, wasteful and inefficient).

 

Please don't respond that a speed limit is a take away of my freedom to drive how fast I want. Minimal govt interference in our lives is necessary, particularly those that are designed to protect the safety of innocent others. Forcing me to get health insurance so that the rates are cheaper for every one else is not necessary. Which is why I'm opposed to Social Security. If forces me to save for my retirement. Saving for retirement is a smart thing to do. The govt has no business forcing me to do it however. If I haven't saved enough, I die starving or heaven forbid, needing my family to take care of me.

But it still should be my choice. Smart choice by the Tea Party to use the "Don't Tread On Me" slogan by the way.

More of a "take away" of my freedom of choosing whether or not I want health insurance than a take over (at least for now). The loss of freedom of choice is more threatening to me than any government incompetence accompanying a take over (and the federal govt is largely incompetent, wasteful and inefficient).

 

Please don't respond that a speed limit is a take away of my freedom to drive how fast I want. Minimal govt interference in our lives is necessary, particularly those that are designed to protect the safety of innocent others. Forcing me to get health insurance so that the rates are cheaper for every one else is not necessary. Which is why I'm opposed to Social Security. If forces me to save for my retirement. Saving for retirement is a smart thing to do. The govt has no business forcing me to do it however. If I haven't saved enough, I die starving or heaven forbid, needing my family to take care of me.

But it still should be my choice. Smart choice by the Tea Party to use the "Don't Tread On Me" slogan by the way.

 

See, we can agree on some things. It is (in my opinion) a very small and necessary reduction in freedom. It will have great benefit to people without insurance, people who buy individual insurance, those with chronic health conditions and especially small businesses. I suggest you run for office on a platform of getting rid of social security. I'd like to see how that works out for you.

See, we can agree on some things. It is (in my opinion) a very small and necessary reduction in freedom. It will have great benefit to people without insurance, people who buy individual insurance, those with chronic health conditions and especially small businesses. I suggest you run for office on a platform of getting rid of social security. I'd like to see how that works out for you.

 

I can accept your opinion on the degree and necessity of the reduction in freedom. I disagree completely though.

 

My values and philosophies are not based on getting elected to office. Momma raised me better than that.

More of a "take away" of my freedom of choosing whether or not I want health insurance than a take over (at least for now). The loss of freedom of choice is more threatening to me than any government incompetence accompanying a take over (and the federal govt is largely incompetent, wasteful and inefficient).

 

Please don't respond that a speed limit is a take away of my freedom to drive how fast I want. Minimal govt interference in our lives is necessary, particularly those that are designed to protect the safety of innocent others. Forcing me to get health insurance so that the rates are cheaper for every one else is not necessary. Which is why I'm opposed to Social Security. If forces me to save for my retirement. Saving for retirement is a smart thing to do. The govt has no business forcing me to do it however. If I haven't saved enough, I die starving or heaven forbid, needing my family to take care of me.

But it still should be my choice. Smart choice by the Tea Party to use the "Don't Tread On Me" slogan by the way.

 

LN, Would you or anyone that you know exercise their right to not have health insurance? I'm of the opinion that the only people who don't have health insurance do so because they can't afford it not because they don't want it.

LN, Would you or anyone that you know exercise their right to not have health insurance? I'm of the opinion that the only people who don't have health insurance do so because they can't afford it not because they don't want it.

 

With all due respect you would be wrong. Some people (mostly young adults) choose to pay as they go because it's cheaper then paying for health insurance. There are also some people of means who choose to self insure rather then face the bureaucracy of a health insurance provider.