Focused on taking the insurance industries money to stop health care reform and oh yea SEX and power.
We don't live in the past that is true but people are paying with their life's because Republicans did NOTHING.
They fought SS.
They fought Medicare.
They fought the Chips program.
They fought Medicaid.
The only thing they haven't fought against is lining their pockets.
Isn't that something. They spent the last 8 years running up debt on a war in Iraq that was unnecessary well over $700 million dollars.
President Bush worked to get a Medicare drug benefit passed and I applaud him for it. It's been a help to the senior citizens in this country. You know what he and the Republican Congress didn't do though? They didn't pay for it. They never cut the budget to pay for that.
NOW, that the Dem's are wanting reforms those same people that didn't worry about paying for a war or prescription drug benefit are strict fiscal conservatives again. Seems very convenient doesn't it?
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
"Hard work and effort?!" You have NO idea the amount of time and effort that has gone into finding help. My brother and SIL have worked tirelessly, and for you to suggest otherwise is untrue and unfair.
I even contacted congressmen and senators, who were kind and concerned, but sent us to the same agencies which have rejected Ethan because "he doesn't have insurance."
A "beneveloent program" or "organization" cannot supply the needed funds or assistance.
So believe it or not...I do not post such personal things online to uphold a political view.
Come to Canada. He won't even get excluded because of a pre-existing condition.
Isn't that something. They spent the last 8 years running up debt on a war in Iraq that was unnecessary well over $700 million dollars.
President Bush worked to get a Medicare drug benefit passed and I applaud him for it. It's been a help to the senior citizens in this country. You know what he and the Republican Congress didn't do though? They didn't pay for it. They never cut the budget to pay for that. NOW, that the Dem's are wanting reforms those same people that didn't worry about paying for a war or prescription drug benefit are strict fiscal conservatives again. Seems very convenient doesn't it?
Mike, I had heard about this, but never really saw the hard info on it. I certainly applaud any measure that helps our senior citizens and keeps them from getting railroaded by big pharmaceutical. However, I heard that the price tag on this was in the neighborhood of 400 billion and that some of the measures seemed to really benefit pharmaceutical companies and the healthcare industry more than anybody else. The person I heard it from was saying that there were no provisions to pay for this and that it was simply tacked on to the deficit. The person I heard it from was certainly anti-Bush so I took it with a grain of salt (or two). What do you know about it?
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Isn't that something. They spent the last 8 years running up debt on a war in Iraq that was unnecessary well over $700 million dollars.
President Bush worked to get a Medicare drug benefit passed and I applaud him for it. It's been a help to the senior citizens in this country. You know what he and the Republican Congress didn't do though? They didn't pay for it. They never cut the budget to pay for that.
NOW, that the Dem's are wanting reforms those same people that didn't worry about paying for a war or prescription drug benefit are strict fiscal conservatives again. Seems very convenient doesn't it?
No it doesn't seem odd at all. Most fiscal conservatives see the defense of our nation as a legitimate expenditure. Now you can argue all day long about whether you like the war or not or if it was actually to defend us, that is a different discussion. Spending for the military is Constitutional. Show me where in the Constitution Congress is allowed to spend for mere social programs? Is it under the Commerce Clause because we really have to stretch to get it there?
I was against the Social spending of the Republicans while they had control. I am still against it and there is no hypocrisy. Where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for this huge health plan of BO? Do you really think he is going to cut the budget to pay for it?
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
No it doesn't seem odd at all. Most fiscal conservatives see the defense of our nation as a legitimate expenditure. Now you can argue all day long about whether you like the war or not or if it was actually to defend us, that is a different discussion. Spending for the military is Constitutional. Show me where in the Constitution Congress is allowed to spend for mere social programs? Is it under the Commerce Clause because we really have to stretch to get it there?
I was against the Social spending of the Republicans while they had control. I am still against it and there is no hypocrisy. Where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for this huge health plan of BO? Do you really think he is going to cut the budget to pay for it?
I'm 100% for defending this country at any cost also Baron. You and I both know that this country isn't safer because of the War in Iraq. I know you're good, but you can't successfully argue that opinion.
I take you at your word when you say you were against the out of control spending of the Bush administration. The Republican Congress sure wasn't.
As far as Obama's health plan being budget neutral, the man put himself on the spot the other night. He emphatically stated he would NOT sign a bill that added a "single dime" to the deficit. Until he does otherwise, I'll take him at his word.
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
I'm 100% for defending this country at any cost also Baron. You and I both know that this country isn't safer because of the War in Iraq. I know you're good, but you can't successfully argue that opinion.
I take you at your word when you say you were against the out of control spending of the Bush administration. The Republican Congress sure wasn't.
As far as Obama's health plan being budget neutral, the man put himself on the spot the other night. He emphatically stated he would NOT sign a bill that added a "single dime" to the deficit. Until he does otherwise, I'll take him at his word.
Because he has been so good at keeping his word. The fact is he cannot sign it into law without adding to the deficit. I am for smaller government not larger government.
But you avoided the easy question. Where does Congress get its authority to spend on this legislation. Remember anything that they are not explicitly given the right to spend on is reserved to the States and the people.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
Mike, I had heard about this, but never really saw the hard info on it. I certainly applaud any measure that helps our senior citizens and keeps them from getting railroaded by big pharmaceutical. However, I heard that the price tag on this was in the neighborhood of 400 billion and that some of the measures seemed to really benefit pharmaceutical companies and the healthcare industry more than anybody else. The person I heard it from was saying that there were no provisions to pay for this and that it was simply tacked on to the deficit. The person I heard it from was certainly anti-Bush so I took it with a grain of salt (or two). What do you know about it?
In order to get the bill passed, the Bush administration estimated the $400 billion over 10 years. The Bush administration admitted in 2006 that a 10 year estimate cost would actually be $720 billion. Just a few hundred billion dollars difference.
Bush forbid Medicare and Medicaid from negotiating with Pharmacuetical companies to bring down the cost of drugs. He was a favorite of the Big Pharm companies.
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
In order to get the bill passed, the Bush administration estimated the $400 billion over 10 years. The Bush administration admitted in 2006 that a 10 year estimate cost would actually be $720 billion. Just a few hundred billion dollars difference.
Bush forbid Medicare and Medicaid from negotiating with Pharmacuetical companies to bring down the cost of drugs. He was a favorite of the Big Pharm companies.
Your making my point for me. The cost of health plans are always higher than projected.
"...experts believe that the actual cost of his health plan is likely to be much higher, perhaps exceeding $1 trillion over 10 years. This, unfortunately, follows a familiar pattern: The actual costs of health care proposals are invariably higher than the original government projections."
Your making my point for me. The cost of health plans are always higher than projected.
"...experts believe that the actual cost of his health plan is likely to be much higher, perhaps exceeding $1 trillion over 10 years. This, unfortunately, follows a familiar pattern: The actual costs of health care proposals are invariably higher than the original government projections."
I completely agree that it has to be funded for me to support it. I've read a lot of different ideas. Some are good and some are bad. There has to be a real effort to eliminate the fraud from medicare and medicaid. Anyone who has an elderly family member who goes to the doctor sees the waste and outright fraud. My grandmother got doctor statements from doctors she'd never seen that were paid by Medicare and MediPak. It was outright fraud and when they were notified about it, they basically said they didn't have time to look into it.
I would imagine that health savings accounts are going to be taxed and I would also expect that the $1.3 trillion Bush tax cut for the top 5% is going to be reversed. The math gets a lot simpler without those in effect.
We'll have to see how it shakes out, but in order to get support for the plan, it has to be paid for, IMO.
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
As far as Obama's health plan being budget neutral, the man put himself on the spot the other night. He emphatically stated he would NOT sign a bill that added a "single dime" to the deficit. Until he does otherwise, I'll take him at his word.
Obama's a liar and you're incredibly naive to take him, or any politicians word.
Good luck with that ... don't cry foul when the deficit rockets up sky high.
Any 5th grader with a brain could tell you this is going to add much more than a single dime.
Apparently both BHO and you are not smarter than a 5th grader ...
Linear Mode
