We vigorously oppose the Senate health-care reform bill. And we're so glad it was approved for debate Saturday night.
Yes, you read that right. We're glad it got over the procedural hurdle so it can be debated starting next week.
We think it's that bad -- that it should get all the debate and exposure it can.
In fact, in that regard, Democrats did Republicans a huge favor Saturday in mustering the 60 votes needed to begin debate and avoid a filibuster. Think about it: If Republicans had been successful in blocking debate on the bill, they would have become the story, they would be the issue in the media's minds. Obstructionists! Scrooges!
Now, the bill will see daylight, with all the disinfectant that entails. It will be the issue.
For instance, senior citizens may be interested to know just how much of a shift in resources the Democrats want to pull off -- hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare to younger people who truly need the money. You old people are living too long, sucking up too many resources.
Indeed, as if to bolster the Democratic position right on cue, 60 Minutes Sunday night aired a segment on how wasteful it is to spend health-care money on the elderly infirm -- and how they should just consider dying instead.
Dying well may be an art form, certainly. But shouldn't that be left up to the "artist," and not the government?
Democratic health care "reforms" include giving the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's recommendations essentially the weight of law. Remember, that's the task force that last week decided -- apparently as a cost-saving measure -- that women don't need to get routine mammograms until age 50, rather than 40.
Consider: If they're willing to say 40-year-old women don't need routine mammograms, how many procedures are they likely to strip from senior care?
You can expect other horrendous aspects of this 2,000-page monstrosity to be seeping forth in the days and weeks to come.
Thank goodness Republicans didn't get their wish! The Democratic agenda need not be kept hidden.
That agenda appears more and more to be centered not around health care but around government control of it. This is a bill about socialism as much as anything. The bill's massive shift in resources from senior citizens -- who have worked and paid taxes for decades and deserve more consideration than this -- is a significant stride into socialism in its attempt to redistribute wealth.
When you think about it, using government to redistribute wealth is one of the president's few campaign promises he's kept.
You might be sickened by how it's being redistributed, too: To buy her vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid included a nearly $300 million earmark for Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's state. Oh, and she'll now be playing host to a fund-raiser for Mr. Reid.
Should we debate all this?
You're doggone right we should.
It'd be downright unhealthy not to.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2010 Morris Communications, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
AC, I totally agree with the first 4 paragraphs. Further, to your reference that "old people are living too long, sucking up too many resources" I also concur (even though I am an "old fogie", and a survivor of lung and kidney cancer as well). However, as to your suggestion that "Dying well may be an art form...shouldn't that be left up to the "artist?" Since I am also an artist, the answer is an absolute NO! Dying is a natural result of "life" and as such, when common sense indicates that all hope is gone, the process should be compassionately assisted. You're position, as written, is blatantly right wing scare mongering at its most abhorrent level. Next, concerning the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's recommendations, you refer to as "essentially the weight of law;" not so! They are merely suggestion from a select group of panel members appointed by the Bush Administration. Among them at least three from the insurance industry and NONE from the medical community. Of course you knew that the Senate Bill for Health Care had hardly hit the floor for approval for debate when this panel's announcement was aired. Again, nothing more than scare mongering from the right!
And finally, you end your (nearly hysterical) article/diatribe with charges of socialism and the redistribution of wealth, using, as an example, the bargain struck between the Democratic Senate and Sen. Mary Landrieu for the $300 million earmark for Louisiana's Medicaid fund…a smelly deed to be sure…BUT, nothing that hasn't been done on both sides for the aisle when vote getting seems to be at a premium. Nothing more, nothing less.
ggap if this is such a popular bill and of national importance WHY do the dims have to buy votes? because its not a health reform bill its a takeover of 1/6 of the economy by the govt. the same govt that cant manage anything without fraud and over runs. so if we buy votes in congress just because it has been done b/4 its ok now. thats whats wrong bud and your condoning it to get something you think will be free is why we are broke as a country.
The incompetance of the Democrates is on parade for all to see, from the Closing of Gitmo to the web site for stimulas dollars, to Obama having difficulty making a decision of Afganistan..how in all that is in heaven and earth do you expect the Government to manage the US health care system?
This could almost constitue bribery, being offered something for your vote. Apply the same scenario to a lobbyist offering a policy maker money for a vote and it would be a criminal offense. So now the other 59 who voted for the bill should extend their hand out as well. Reid, Murtha, Pelosi et al are all dirty politicians (dont forget Murtha escaped jail time by ratting out his buddies for accepting bribes) who day are numbered. The "elitists" who think that Joe Schmo cannot manage his own life are dead wrong, and they will have to answer for their misdeeds in 2010.
GGap, please. Your "reasoning" lacks reasoning. If somebody else is responsible for your care and up keep, they get to decide when your care and upkeep is too expensive or otherwise inconvenient. Age or infirmity don't have to be the only deciding factors. Once you deed this part of your life away, you no longer get a say. The death advisers (Pelosi's term) or death councilors (Reid's term) get to decide how and when enough is enough. While I have a choice, I choose not to have government death panels make that decision for me. I object to this "health care" bill on many, many, many points, but this is the only one your "reasoning" addressed.
Ggap, as in the Miller Beer commercial, the editorial writer was being a metaphorical type guy with the dying left to the "artist" comment. Seniors are going to raise cain over their cutbacks. They have paid into Medicare for decades and believe they will have adequate medical care.
Debate is certainly good. However, the issue with mamograms is not cost-saving, but radiation. Every x-ray exposes women to radiation which is dangerous in itself. Raising the recommended age is on medical grounds due to recent reearch, not economic grounds. Quit being so silly. Of course, with the Republican non-plan, many women won't be able to get mammograms at any age, which certainly solves that problem, does it not?
There are no death panels making decisions. There never were. Responsible authorities have long debunked that silly lie. The idea, which was orginally proposed by conservative Republicans, was that dying people can receive counseling from qualified counselors. Do you want to write a living will? Do you want to put your affairs in order before you go? Apparently some of you think you will never die. Good luck.
rhetor the republicans did present a health care bill and offered many amendments only to be ignored by the dims. so why are you against the republicans ideas is it you think you get free health care from the dims? and why do you want the govt taking care of you? its not about health care its about creating more of a dependant class to ensure votes for the dims.
It would be much easier to belive the AC if they could take care of their own house. They can hardly stay out of bankrupesy and here they are advising the Democrats about finances. What a joke!!
The article is a joke and here is why: The authority to inavade Iraq was never given to Bush. Only Congress can declare war - not the CINC alone. The point: If U are so interested in whats in a piece of legislation, why wasn't the Authorization to Use Force debated in accordance with the Constitution? Where was the AWM and printing operations demanding that Congress READ the legislation? WHERE? AWOL! But now. every procedure is debated and questioned only designed to stall the process. That much is clear, but the debate has already taken place. It's now time to capitalize on ones vote to benefit your state like ol' Mary. Health care reform is a done deal.
So you liberals tell me how you feel about the $500 BILLION cut to seniors on Medicare. How many deaths of seniors will result from that?
I'm still waiting for supporters of government run healthcare to show me a government program that doesn't cost us through the nose and isn't going broke. Social Security, Medicare, FDIC, need I go on? And JUSTUS, you have a big lapse of memory when it comes to Dems in the WH. There was a little incident in 1964 that a Dem president named Lyndon Johnson used to get us into a fullblown war in a sweet little place called Vietnam. Is it coming back now JUSTUS or do you need the "all white media" to refresh your memory?
justus - YOU LIE! Don't even feign ignorance of the facts on Iraq, they have been explained many many times on these boards. So the only conclusion is that you are a fool liar.
justus4 on Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:12 AM Were you equallly out raged when Clinton Bombed Serbia and Serbs? What about when Clinton went into Somalia?
The dems want to start taxing for the health care bill in 2011, but the benefits do not begin until 2013, so what will happen to the money that is collected in the interim? Will it be placed in the same SS lock box that has been raided? Question for those in favor, would you buy a car today and pay for it for two years before you get to drive it? Isn't it the same theory as the health care bill, pay for it for two years but no benefits are realized?
Rhetor, you're chanting government issued mantras without using any thought or reasoning. Death panels, death councilors and death advisers are all groups that decide how, when and why you will die. Their mannerisms vary from street to street, but their job is the same. They exist in EVERY country with socialized medicine, including England and Canada. If America devolves into a socialized health care system, we, too, will have the same system. Saying they're grief councilors is just choosing to be blind.
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
My posting above is for Justazz (or Champ as some people like to call him). DO YOUR RESEARCH!!! That is why people think you are ignorant. And in case JohnHatesAmericaCain shows up, it is referred to as PUBLIC LAW No. 107-243, get it, PUBLIC LAW. So to refute his insane rantings, the Iraq War is not ILLEGAL, since Congress passed a PUBLIC LAW authorizing the use of force against Iraq.
Good point, SoonerorLater. The majority of Democratic Senators voted for the Iraq War Resolution, including Hillary.
Biden, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Edwards, Feinstein, Kerry, and Reid all voted to authorize the Iraq war int he Senate. Murtha in the House voted for it.
PC at its finest, page 33, lines 13 and 14 "provide notice to enrollees, in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner...".
It was never declared a war by Congress though so technically it is a "conflict." Not that I'm debating Congress' involvement in this. It was an executive order by President Bush supported by Congress
The anti capitalist Dems document their beliefs on page 38 "make recommendations.....about whether particular health insurance issuers should be excluded from participation in the Exchange based on a pattern or practice of excessive or unjustified premium increases". Although the intent is noble, they are restricting the marketplace and reducing choices based on what someone deems "excessive" or "unjustified".
One reason you don't want government health care is they can't be trusted. CBS found out they don't even report swine flu numbers correctly and refuse to tell why.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/24/Superstar-...
The bill keeps the intra state insurance company restriction in place on page 55 "....an internet website, through which a resident of any state may identify affordable health insurance coverage options in that state". We can buy life insurance, car insurance, and home insurance across state lines which encourage competition, but not health insurance.
I agree that we should debate this reform bill too! What I really cannot understand at all is why 40 Repubnicants voted to NOT debate this reform bill. What is wrong with this people? Do they know any other word besides "NO"?
I've heard the statistic that roughly 98% of the bills that go to the floor result in its passage, in some form. I hope this bill falls into the other 2%!
Page 80 states that you can be charged more for you age than if you are a smoker (a 3 to 1 ratio of charges versus a 1.5 to 1). To suit the liberals, I will quote the Huffington Post that "smokers cost the country $96 billion in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion in lost productivity".