I heard a TV show host asking some questions of a Congressman who was against all of this socialist health care reform and it made sense to me.
If you are against health care reform because it is socialist, then you are against Medicare and Social Security, too. They are national socialist programs?
Those programs (with huge voting blocks) was okay. He supports them.
If you had been around during the times these programs were being voted upon then would you have supported them?
He would have voted for those socialist programs.
What's the difference?
And I think it would behoove us all to back up and realize that some national plan is not the devil. We have them now and they protect millions of people. In the case of national health care, the public is being duped into believing all kinds of lies about the program.
In this case, the media is feeding into the frenzy and refusing to meet their mission by writing stories that directly address the issue. That is to say, the media is covering the town hall screaming matches in spades, but the institution is not sending out their brightest and best investigative reports to read the bill, get the facts and publish those facts (good, bad or indifferent) so the public can learn the realities of the proposed plan and make an informed decision.
It's crazy.
Are you against health care for everyone? Are you also against Medicare and Social Security? What's the difference, really? Why would we not want health care for everyone? That would benefit small businesses and help them compete for quality employees against the big corporations. It really makes sense. Assuming it is done right. Who would know because the media is covering the sensational fights and not the issue.
Even the AARP supports health care for everyone and I don't think anyone would consider the AARP some left-wing think tank. It's not an evil concept despite what Sarah Palin thinks or says.
Jane Wiley, state director for AARP in South Carolina wrote this article for The Greenville News. In it, she debunks some myths and misconceptions. Here is a run-down of her points:
Perhaps, just perhaps, the public is being playing the fools by being tricked that health care reform is an evil plot to kill all the seniors. If AARP is on board with health care reform, then maybe there is something good really going on that Rush Limbaugh doesn't want us to see.
If you are against health care reform because it is socialist, then you are against Medicare and Social Security, too. They are national socialist programs?
Those programs (with huge voting blocks) was okay. He supports them.
If you had been around during the times these programs were being voted upon then would you have supported them?
He would have voted for those socialist programs.
What's the difference?
And I think it would behoove us all to back up and realize that some national plan is not the devil. We have them now and they protect millions of people. In the case of national health care, the public is being duped into believing all kinds of lies about the program.
In this case, the media is feeding into the frenzy and refusing to meet their mission by writing stories that directly address the issue. That is to say, the media is covering the town hall screaming matches in spades, but the institution is not sending out their brightest and best investigative reports to read the bill, get the facts and publish those facts (good, bad or indifferent) so the public can learn the realities of the proposed plan and make an informed decision.
It's crazy.
Are you against health care for everyone? Are you also against Medicare and Social Security? What's the difference, really? Why would we not want health care for everyone? That would benefit small businesses and help them compete for quality employees against the big corporations. It really makes sense. Assuming it is done right. Who would know because the media is covering the sensational fights and not the issue.
Even the AARP supports health care for everyone and I don't think anyone would consider the AARP some left-wing think tank. It's not an evil concept despite what Sarah Palin thinks or says.
Jane Wiley, state director for AARP in South Carolina wrote this article for The Greenville News. In it, she debunks some myths and misconceptions. Here is a run-down of her points:
- AARP has not endorsed any health care bill.
- House and Senate plans state employer-sponsored health care will remain in place.
- Reform will provide health care to those who lose their jobs (and their employer-sponsored health care) as many who lose their jobs cannot afford COBRA.
- "Nothing in current proposals would let government override your doctor's judgment about your treatment."
- The bill ensures elderly persons' wishes are respected.
- "Comparative effectiveness research" will not hurt care. It is the Consumer Reports of the health care industry and gives patients the chance to review research and discover which practices have the most effective treatments.
- Those covered by health care will also benefit. If passed, those who are 65+ and on Medicare Part D will see a cut in costs "for brand name drugs by half once you reached the 'doughnut hole' or Part D coverage gap. Other parts of the bills being debated would close the 'doughnut hole' entirely over time." That's good for elderly persons.
- No more denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions. That's a good thing for millions of people with diabetes.
- AARP will fight any legislation that proposes to slash, cut, burn, or hurt benefits for seniors.
- Without reform, health care is more costly
Perhaps, just perhaps, the public is being playing the fools by being tricked that health care reform is an evil plot to kill all the seniors. If AARP is on board with health care reform, then maybe there is something good really going on that Rush Limbaugh doesn't want us to see.
Posts
6 comments:
Why would anyone NOT want affordable health insurance?
4/15/2008 Is there a 'death panel' in here also?
Health insurance is ALREADY out there and we have a choice. I don't know why I have to pay for someone to have health insurance because he/she is to lazy to work to pay for it. If we have to go this route then it MUST be on an elective basis and leave our current system alone. Let's not support the lazy illegal bums that the majority of Government wants us to.
I'll criticize the Health Care Reform, and I'll use my real name. *gasp*
Are you against health care for everyone?
1) The Constitution provides no authority to the Federal Government for any such program. The States could choose to do so, or you could amend the Constitution.
2) The Government (at any level) has no resources. Therefore the Government can never be benevolent. Individuals can be generous, but taxes are not generosity. Just ask the people that choose to stop paying.
3) Do you Really want Republicans (or Democrats to be fair) in control of every last person's decisions on what health care is covered under Government control? (You know they will be back in the majority at some point, whether it is 2 years, 4 years, or 20.) I asked the same questions about granting the Executive Branch so many powers during the Bush years.
4) Why would insurance companies continue to exist if the government option was so good?
5) Why won't insurance companies exclude more people from their coverage now that everyone can buy insurance from the government? What happens to you if they both abandon you?
Are you also against Medicare and Social Security?
Yes. For reasons 1, 2, and 3.
What's the difference, really?
Not much. It's just the standard slippery slope that we learned in school is a fallacy. People in the 60's, 70's, and 80's argued against socialist programs, but they still managed to get a foot hold. These socialist programs have expanded, and now the people in Washington D.C. just want to close the loop and gather more people into government dependency.
Importantly, it is not just Democrats in Washington D.C. that want control over our lives. The Republicans who were in the majority wanted just as much control, but they used a different twist on their fear mongering to get it. This is not a conspiracy, it is human nature. People that seek power eventually get into powerful positions. Once they are in those powerful positions they seek to protect and/or expand that power. Having control over millions and millions of people's health care is way too much power for ANY 545 people to have, no matter the letter after their name on the ballot.
Why would we not want health care for everyone?
We've had charity hospitals in this country since well before its formation. What's wrong with people funding, volunteering, and staffing those?
That would benefit small businesses and help them compete for quality employees against the big corporations.
Taxation damages small businesses far worse than large ones. Generally the small businesses are honest. The large corporations can hire lawyers and highly skilled accountants to cook their books and avoid taxation. You cannot supply government services without high taxes.
It really makes sense. Assuming it is done right.
It is from reading liberal books such as the Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank that I understand the true nature of the problem here. People have wonderful intentions, and really do desire to create great bastions of good works through the Government. The problem is that the world isn't full of honorable people. Concentrating ANY power in the hands of a few will ALWAYS lead to corruption of that power, and the bending of that power to nefarious purposes. Not because the people wanted that to happen, but because human nature makes it happen eventually.
Who would know because the media is covering the sensational fights and not the issue.
Yes, journalism is weak and dying in this country. Television is not a good news medium.
# AARP has not endorsed any health care bill.
Not surprising.
# House and Senate plans state employer-sponsored health care will remain in place.
Employer-sponsored health care is one of the biggest problems. Health insurance should be purchased by individuals so that losing their job doesn't cost them their insurance, and create the pre-existing condition issues.
# Reform will provide health care to those who lose their jobs (and their employer-sponsored health care) as many who lose their jobs cannot afford COBRA.
Government is proposing another big government solution to a government created problem. Government, through tax incentives (and other legislative meddling) created this problem.
# "Nothing in current proposals would let government override your doctor's judgment about your treatment."
They'll just refuse to pay for things they don't think people should do. For the people that "need" this option that's just the same as overriding the Doctor's decision.
# The bill ensures elderly persons' wishes are respected.
Wow, that's awfully nebulous. How in the world can they claim that all elderly people want the same thing? Stop treating people like they're all the same, like they're all part of some faceless mob, and maybe you'll come to the understanding that this CANNOT work.
# "Comparative effectiveness research" will not hurt care. It is the Consumer Reports of the health care industry and gives patients the chance to review research and discover which practices have the most effective treatments.
Research doesn't hurt anyone. Purchased lies posing as research does. Please don't claim that you've never heard of research being sponsored by an interested party.
# Those covered by health care will also benefit. If passed, those who are 65+ and on Medicare Part D will see a cut in costs "for brand name drugs by half once you reached the 'doughnut hole' or Part D coverage gap. Other parts of the bills being debated would close the 'doughnut hole' entirely over time." That's good for elderly persons.
What makes you think that this health care reform will escape the fate of Medicare Part D? The pharmaceutical lobby is too powerful to trust the government to overcome it and side with the citizens of this nation.
# No more denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions. That's a good thing for millions of people with diabetes.
Maybe I should lose the 50 lbs that I need to lose, or stop eating so much High Fructose Corn Syrup. Nah! The Government will cover me. Is this really what we as a nation want? Do you want the rich bankers to be responsible for their actions (bring on the TARP!)? Why not allow people to be responsible for what they put in their bodies, whether it be unhealthy food, drugs, alcohol, etc?
Personal Responsibility. We don't need just a little more of it, we need truck loads of it.
# AARP will fight any legislation that proposes to slash, cut, burn, or hurt benefits for seniors.
Of course, it's really co-dependency that we're creating here. Citizen dependents upon government, and politicians dependent on buying votes.
# Without reform, health care is more costly
Health care is so costly because of government interference at every level. Competition and freedom to innovate are the forces that have raised productivity and lowered costs for this country's entire existence, and far before it as well.
Over 60,000 AARP Members have canceled their meembe4rships because of the AARP'S stance with the Administration.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-08-17-aarp-health-overhaul_N.htm
Post a Comment