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.









