LOL! Read this and get back to me!
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.c … 90e46cf229
The argument will be government WONT be running health care.
But we know better.
They have a hard time delivering the mail in an efficient manner.
http://www.krqe.com/dpps/money/business … gr_3715453
Lol anyone that's read the bill knows government will be taking over the entire system!
Read the bill, why would anyone who votes on bills want to read a bill?
Thats just crazy talk.
How would you know? There is no chance you have read it, much less can understand it. You can't understand basics, much less formal documents.
You know Tex your statements are tiresome and unhelpful... you know nothing of what I know yet you proclaim to be an expert on my understanding .. the fact is you have shown yourself to be a left wing ideologue absent of any facts you resort to personal attacks... do you really thing anyone here takes you seriously?
"You Really BELIEVE Government Can Run Health Care?"
Our private sector medical system is totally, absolutely, and completely corrupt.
We have no choice.
I’ll choose incompetent clerical administration over corrupt clerical administration every time.
"Our private sector medical system is totally, absolutely, and completely corrupt."
No it isn't.
"We have no choice."
Yes we do.
"I’ll choose incompetent clerical administration over corrupt clerical administration every time."
So when you go in to have your knee operated on and they remove your arm, thats gonna be ok?
It was just a clerical error...
Lol... I'll bet dollars to donuts he works for the government!
That is medical incompetence, not administration of system incompetence. That is specifically why I added the word clerical. Jeez!!!
Yes Jim, yes it is corrupt. I can only assume you work for a privately-owned hospital or an insurance company (see that Jim, I'm using your favorite weapon against you: accusing those who you debate of having ulterior motives). Fraud is rampant in the medical industry as privately-owned hospitals order doctors to run redundant and unnecessary tests on patients just so they can run up bills to insurance companies. Insurance companies do their best to reject medical claims and make the patient pay for it (some insurance employees actually receive bonuses based on their ability to successfully reject claims), and premiums increase to cover the claims they can't reject. This works out well for hospitals and insurance companies, but not so well for everyone else.
I'll gladly take a clerical error from someone who has nothing to gain by screwing up over a system that profits from overbilling patients as often as possible.
"Yes Jim, yes it is corrupt. I can only assume you work for a privately-owned hospital or an insurance company (see that Jim, I'm using your favorite weapon against you: accusing those who you debate of having ulterior motives)."
You assume correctly.
I work for a private hospital.
The only motive I have is to see that we never have a system like that of our VA.
I got into this business to help not harm people.
Government run health care is a disaster.
When a patient has to deal with the incompetent administration of the medical system, perseverance can usually overcome the obstacles.
However, a patient can’t overcome corruption.
Examples (separate, unrelated occurrences):
$1,700 for a 5 min. ambulance ride.
$2,300 for an emergency room visit that consisted of a nurse applying salve to a 2nd degree spilled coffee burn.
I’ll say it again!
I’ll choose fumbling government ineptitude over our current corrupt hospital administrators and corrupt ambulance company owners ever time.
"$2,300 for an emergency room visit that consisted of a nurse applying salve to a 2nd degree spilled coffee burn."
You went to the emergency room for a coffee burn?
You deserve to be charged outrageous fees.
You are exactly why the cost is so high.
No to both examples.
These examples are from the hundreds of others I've seen in newspaper articles.
Edit: And as to why that person went there, I guess that everyone is not as smart as you…
This happened, at least according to you.
When people tie up emergency rooms with minor problems expect prices to rise.
Especially since those going never have any real intention of paying for the service provided.
Strange how that works.
No it isn't.
The government health service in the UK has problems but it isn't a disaster, there is no unwanted tests, no unneeded drugs, no payouts to share holders.
I'm quite sure if we spent as much on health care as you do we would leave you standing.
Wait a second, are you saying Veterans Administration hospitals provide worse care than privately-owned hospitals in the United States? I just want to get you on the record here as saying that.
Jim, what do you want to bet the with Cheney gets his new heart (no pun intended) he goes to Walter Reed to have it done??????
Interesting note in regards to entitlements. My father-in-law spent three years in the Marin Corps in the 1950's. And duing that time, he drank a lot of beer and chased a lot of skirt in Japan - never fired a shot in anger, never broke a sweat other than in basic.
In retirement, he receives what I would call "excellent" government care. In fact, I am still amazed that how smoothly the V.A. is able to deliver healthcare to veterans.
He's a Republican as well lolll.. And he views universal healthcare with disdain, mostly... then again this duplicity among Conservatives is what makes the Right scratch their heads...
Jim, so is private healtcare a nightmare. And I see, what I believe is, your real issue with universal coverage. And I think it's the same issue Lady Love has. And I say this respectively - you are really worried about how this will affect you as far as your paycheck is concerned. And that's a real concern. I have spoken with over a dozen physicians, and when you really get them to cut through all the BS, the rhetoric it comes down them, the service providers, being concerned about their own pocket book.
My surgeon last summer was lightly "bitching" to me about healthcare reform. After about 25 minutes of "real" talk, it became relatively clear that his real concern was how it might affect his lifestyle. Now, without exageration, my surgeon at the tender age of 46, had to support three households in three different cities. Well what I mean is that he maintained households in three different cities. His mortgages ran him about $18k a month. And that pretty much says it all.
Is this country there are several, sure paths to becoming very wealthy - medicine, law, and real estate.
So is it really about the Constitution after all?
None of that will go away under government oversight, after all isn't Obama counting on removing a half trillion in waste fraud and abuse from medicaid to pay for Obamacare? I'm not sure how he plans to do something that hasn't been done before for the last 30 years! If he's expecting HHS to do it well he might have to clean them up too... 800 million dollars gone without explanation... 2 billion in claims sitting on their books for more than 2 years with no activity... workers that aren't even capable of doing their daily tasks!! Anyone that thinks government can adminster our health care for less... is insane!
Exactly. And we can vote out congress critters who mess with the quality of care.
The Right is completely clueless on this issue.
Yes, I think they can...
posted by a healthy Canadian (who is upset about long wait times, but is happy overall)
In a civilized country government should provide basic medical necessities for all, and at the same time we should teach people from early age how to take care of their health, what to do in case of minor accidents (sore throat, cough, temperature, finger cut, etc.) so they do not run with these things to a doctor but have exact knowledge what to do, that they know how to read symptoms themselves and separate trifle problem from a serious one. We should start that at school, where medical professionals have to give their lectures to the students. Some things are very easily recognised and treated with simple home remedies. But then medico-pharmaceutical mafia will lose their millions - they do not want that I am sure. Right now in Canada they just scare everybody to run to the doctor with everything, we have tremendous shortage of doctors (esp. in small "inconvienient" cities) and it's a tremendous financial burden to society. Doctor has 10 minutes to see you, to listen to your problem, to make a diagnostic decision, to prescribe a drug(what else?)that hopefully is not going to kill you, that's it. Something is very wrong with this picture. Very-very wrong.
Yes, the government is riddled with waste, fraud and abuse...just like the private sector. I've had excellent medical care rendered by private doctors and hospitals and I've had lousy care as well. The best overall care I ever had was at a government run military medical center. It's six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. Few of us have probably EVER been in a medical facility that was not subsidized by the government in some form or fashion.
I would prefer to have whatever works best for the people that use it.
If free market competition provides the best health care/cost for the user, then that is what I would prefer.
I don't care if the health care program is partially ran by corporations, buyers groups, co-ops, or the government.
They can ALL have unscrupulous leaders trying to skim off the top or collude with others for a kickback or extra profit.
If everyone is required to have healthcare, but it influences the cost down and the services up, then so be it. Give the poorer folks a lower rate, on a sliding scale.
This whole topic is getting mired down with all the political talk garbage. The only side we should be on is the HUMAN SIDE. With the exception of Jim Hunter, we are all human.
Well, I cannot afford private care and probably never will. So what's left for me? Just to hope not to get seriously sick?
I do not trust medical system I live with, so...
"Every man for himself! Run!!!" sort of thing...
Give it up Jim.
Your industry is a quagmire of corruption that can only be fixed by government intervention.
I wish it wasn’t so, but that’s the way it is.
Its State and Federal regulations that cause most of the expenses to rise in the first place.
Government intervention will cause more problems.
Yep. The amount probably represents less than 1% of the total cash flow.
I can attest from personal experience that large corporations fumble-finger approximately the same amount.
Btw, I’m no fan of big government either.
But when it comes to medical, I consider it the lesser of two evils.
Half of all medical expenditures today are through the government! So how are they the lesser evil?
The government couldn't run a brothel in VEGAS! They TRIED and FAILED!
VA works for me. Some say it is the best health care in the US. Makes me a socialist.
What is it near every country in the world has socialist medicine except the US. I know people who go overseas for the medicine and still cheaper.
Of course Government CAN. That's not the question. The question is the US Government allowed to do so? My guess...YES. The even better question is this: Is the care provided by the Government going to be better for ALL or even the Majority? My guess...NO!
"The government couldn't run a brothel in VEGAS! They TRIED and FAILED!" You couldn't go Vegas without government. How do you think the roads are built and the airlines are run?
Government is very often very good at increasing "ACCESS" to goods and services sometimes even regulating them. They are very often very bad at delivering goods and services....
The US post office is pretty good at delivering my mail consistently and on time. My Netflix disks are two day turn around. However I don't I'm not sure if the Post Office is still public or private.
The Post Office is Government Controlled. It is privately funded through sales to it's customers. Has been since the 80's. It's FAILING. WHY? Because the Post Master has to ASK Congress how to run the POST OFFICE. Not a good example for someone advocating your position.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/03/news/co … e.fortune/
Or it might just be this: the price of mailing a letter (almost nothing) is well below what it should be. I don't work for the post office, but I have done a lot of shipping - both business and personal. And I can find scant little to bitch about concerning the USPS. In my experience, they have always been a less expensive alternative than UPS, Fedex, etc., and my first choice. It's somewhat of a myth that the private sector alternatives are cheaper - they are not in most cases. And even if the post office raised rates to bring itself to a sustaining level, as there is no profit involved in the model, they are still going to be more cost-effective than the private sector.
Think about for a moment just what they do for less than half a buck....
"Civilized or not why in god's good name should the government be expected to provide health care." Maybe not if you or your insurance company can afford to pay your $150 a day for the drugs that might be necessary to keep you alive. Knock on wood.
I've often wondered what provision there is in the US for its people, who live on or below the breadline. Surely not everyone in the US can earn enough to pay for insurance. So, what happens to these people if they become seriously ill. Surely they cannot be allowed to die, simply because they are unfortunate enough to be poor. And I'm sure that even the US, which has the world's largest economy must have its share of poverty. And if the world's largest economy cannot care for the poor and huddled masses, what hope does the rest of the world have.
If you get to a hospital you get treated... no one is allowed to die because they don't have insurance!
That's right - no one is allowed to die per se, but really they are only required to stabilize you - make sure you die on the spot. You walk in a hospital ER with a raging case of breast cancer, tell me you are going to get "rushed" along for cancer treatment - free of charge. That simply isn't the case. The hospital may be able to find you "funding" through some program or grant, but bottom line is this: you are not going to be treated the same as if you had a stellar healthcare policy.
My health plan consists of having enough money for gas to drive to Mexico. Seriously. I cannot get insurance at any price less than $1300 a month--more than my rent, food and utilities combined.
Everyone pays is called socialism. Insurance where everyone pays as a pool
to spread the costs is socialism. Privately owned insurance pools is privately owned socialism.
No its called compassion and its funded by taxes not mandated by law!
You mean that the payments are not constitutional, not being mandated by law!!
Is any other part of US life funded by illegal payments? I'm not surprised you get so exercised by your government if they can just hand out money without any controls.
I believe the states pay... its not the federal gov business... but im sure there's sooo much you don't know about our government.
"No its called compassion and its funded by taxes not mandated by law!" Yes I agree. Socialism is government for the benefit of all. Government controlled by private for profiteers is for the few.
Never much cared for the US constitution. "Is any other part of US life funded by illegal payments?" Maybe you can inform me. Fifty three cents of every tax dollar goes to the military and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet no war has ever been declared since World War II. Is this legal.
No, technically the invasions were NOT legal. Neither was the US's involvement in Bosnia, Vietnam or Korea. Congress is required to declare war. However Congress implicitly agreed when they funded those "wars". With the case of healthcare the legality is being question and Congress is NOT willing to fund it(Based on Public outcry). So there is some difference in the details.
Don't know if "You Really BELIEVE Government Can Run Health Care?"
But I Appears Nothing Else Has Worked.
Despite what many cynics, curmudgeons and revisionist historians might have you believe, the U.S. Federal government has actually proven to be quite good at running a number of things over the past 230 years: rural electrification, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the interstate highway system, our national parks system, Social Security, fighting two World Wars, putting man on the Moon, etc. So it's merely political posturing to say that the Federal government cannot run health care; it simply requires the hard work and diligence of ALL of us to make sure it runs it right. Be careful who you leave to running our health care system: insurance companies with divergent and very selfish interests; medical personnel enamored of pushing as much high-tech health care as possible and retaining as many medical industry jobs as oossible; Big Pharma creating a (patentable and very expensive) new drug for a newly defined disease each week; etc. Quite often the bogeymen you don't understand may be far worse than the one you think you understand.
Lol!! OMG!! You sure used some bad examples TVA? The national parks? Social Security??? Putting man on the moon?? The government paid contractors to do that!! 2 world wars?? Yeah i'll give you that but only because one that's the function of government and two we didn't have Blackwater then!! Lol Obviously you're a government worker so of course there's no bias there! Lol
Yeah well you bring up a point about private government contractors. Why not make the nation's private insurance companies " Federal contractors" to manage universal healthcare? Think about it - it addresses your need to have the private sector involved. Kind of like the single payer notion. I mean private health insurance companies are really good and creating, processing, and moving miles of paperwork. There are also pretty good and pricing risk. In all seriousness, every businessman I have ever talked to salivates at the idea of getting a state or federal contract.
And the private health insurers can continue to sell private plans as well. In fact the wealthy may very well demand it - they will want specialisty products, "Cadillac Policies," etc.
With this, other than your Constitutional issue in regards to a mandate, it's a win-win - your Godly private sector gets a few of tens of millions of new customer and everyone gets covered.
I've worked in government and I've worked in the private sector. Most recently, I quit my government job of 15 years and have been working part-time in the private sector. I can tell you unequivocally that the government agencies I have worked for have been infinitely more efficient than the private companies. For one thing, when you work for the government, you have certain services and/or products that must be provided in order to receive funding. You must report quarterly, if not monthly, on the progress of these services or products and if you're not meeting standards, the money is yanked. Almost without fail, the amount of money received to provide these products or services is barely enough or not enough, so you are highly motivated to find the most efficient processes in order to meet the required minimum standards.
Contrast that with working for a private business owner who uses his or her staff for whatever he/she wants, including ordering personal exercise equipment, babysitting the kid when they get off the bus from school, and running personal errands. This is not allowed in a government agency and would result in termination. A private contractor doing government work could get away with this type of behavior where an employee of the government cannot.
Another factor that those who've never worked in government fail to understand is that most government employees are conscientious about the fact that they are using taxpayer money and are highly motivated to spend it wisely. Private sector employees, in my experience, do not have the same conscience about spending their boss' money, since their bosses do not seem concerned about using their own resources wisely and efficiently.
You bring some really good points here. I too have worked both in the public sector and the private sector. I tend to prefer the private sector simply because necessary "changes" in operation can often be implemented overnight as opposed to the long and sometimes very drawn-out process required to change a policy in the public sector. In the federal agency I worked in, ordinary government employees were tasked with auditing contracts that the public sector "contractors" said were unauditable. So what $75k a year accountants wouldn't do, we did. And we did it quite well in fact.
I think there's a myth out there that government employees earn more than their counterparts in the public sector. This may be due, in part, to what are admittedly ridiculously high salaries paid by some state governments. But I would say, based on my experience, that as far as federal employees are concerned, salaries are anything but "high." The only real "perk" I noticed in the public sector was a fairly generous system of annual leave and sick leave.
I left the public sector mostly due to money and an increased possibility of career advancement. The money is better in the public sector, but there is just as much if not more waste, fraud, and abuse in private enterprise as there is in the public sector. And it still amazes me when I hear pejorative remarks about "government employees." In some way, I never worked "harder" than I did when I worked for Uncle Sam.
I'm from the UK and can't believe that there isn't already national health care in the US. We've had it since the 60s!
Welcome to the first world USA!
That's because we don't have a nationalistic government! States are free to implement a universal health care system of their choosing such as has been done in MA.
Actually, superwags, we've had the NHS since the 40s!
No, but I don't believe it should be in the hands of insurance companies and shareholders either.
What private health care and for that matter, what private anything? Can you name a single economic exchange in which government hasn't inserted itself? Before this unconstitutional health care monstrosity passed, unread, through a Democrat monopolized Congress,
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU )
47 cents of every health care dollar was taken from the tax payers.
http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-i … nder=print
There isn't a free market in this country in anything. Governments want to insinuate themselves even into lemonade stands.
http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/sho … hp?t=55545
http://m.courierpress.com/news/2009/apr … sadny-col/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/ … 8628.shtml
There is not a legitimate comparison available between the regulated and the unregulated because government has infected everything - even interpersonal relations.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/spe … eech_codes
http://reason.org/blog/show/the-regulat … w-we-got-h
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Fe … egulations
What limit is there left on government involvement in our everyday lives? Its is as if some Americans want to be children and cared for by a mommy or a nanny state and others want to work out their own lives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hojEjXnu … re=related
It is the difference between a 12 year old and an adult.
Can Die Staat run my life better than I can? I hope so because it has been well on its way since Woodrow Wilson to subjugating every American to the progressive administrative kindermädchen staat.
The governments in every other advanced industrial country seem to be able to provide health care at lower cost and better results.
Exactly my opinion. Also, actually providing some services to U.S. citizens instead of having a government that seems to exist to support itself, would do wonders for our economy and our morality and our self-esteem, not to mention our health. If we really want to claim to be such a "world-power" shouldn't we be taking better care of ourselves?
Mixed results in UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/ … are-reform
Ralph, Canadians frequently bitch about he shortcomings of their 'socialized' system. I would dearly love to see a major poll in Canada, how many Canadians would trade their system for the old healthcare system in the USA. Likewise the UK which has major flaws.
Responding to the OP..
Government isn't going to 'run' healthcare.
The system will be entirely run through private insurance companies.
The government won't select what insurance company you can use.
The government won't tell you what doctor you can see.
The government won't decide what medical procedures are 'approved'.
The government won't set rates for doctors.
So we have another wingnut post based on a false premise.
I know this all too well.
I take my brother regularly to the VA in Ann Arbor for his Cancer treatments, and it is the most unorganized mess I have ever seen.
He never sees the same doctor more than once, and the people there are so over-worked they become hostile and very unfriendly. You will never hear more we don't know anything answers at the VA then you will hear from any other hospital. A lot of the people who treat are not doctors at all, as a lot of them are still students at the University of Michigan Learning hospital.
So, I am very worried about where government run healthcare will lead us. Are people who are under the government program going to be told that they can only go to certain hospitals to be treated like those who go to the VA? I don't want to have to drive 4 hours to the hospital every time I get sick, but, that is what I currently have to do with my brother. I recently found out that he now has to go every other week for Kemo treatments, and the Ann Arbor VA is the only one in the state that offers
the treatment, as local hospitals will not accept what the VA pays out for treatment. As, in they would rather have someone die, than accept less money for their services. Or, in the VA's case, pay what the local hospitals charge to keep someone alive.
To me, the whole thing is very scary. Health insurance coverage in this country is a joke, and the whole government run system probably won't be any better. Once again leaving most american's who can't afford either stuck in the middle.
I think it is all a huge waste of time.
I just think that when people compare what other nations do when their governments provide healthcare to what the U.S. might do, they are overlooking important things. Wouldn't we have the same health-providers, the same doctors, nurses and hospitals? We will probably have some new clinics and new overseers who will help regulate and reduce the current overwhelming costs and mish-mash that has allowed abuse of expensive medical tests and equipment costs (especially when they are funded by medicare and other insurance)
Basically we would be adding to our current high-quality care, making it more accessible to those who don't have the income to buy current over-priced insurance. How can we be so numb as to believe that our government can be allowed to tax us, regulate and tax many of our "freedoms", oversee the administration of drugs, tobacco, alcohol; make the rules for commerce including loans for real estate, business loans and school loans; make the rules and oversee our educational institutions; decide when and how to build our roads, grow our crops, mine our mountains, drill for oil; fund and regulate child care and many private clinics - how can we approve our government to do all these things and say that "it" would not be able to properly oversee medical services for all? If we have no confidence in government, why are we not out there marching in the streets like Egypt?? It is true that area (healthcare) of our lives is already impacted somehow by governmental regulations. But that's why we have a government, really, to help us regulate ourselves. People who want to see federally funded and regulated healthcare are not taking away any freedoms we have, as I see it. We would still be able to buy private healthcare if we want and maybe because there will be some competition, finally, it won't be as expensive to do that as it is now.
We must not assume that we could not provide excellent health services, perhaps better than other nations because we will have the benefit of their experience and the opportunity to build a really wonderful health system. When the profit motive is eliminated then excellence is the real motive, I really believe this is so, and our system will hold itself accountable. And, since we live in a democracy, if the system we build doesn't work right at all we can vote it out and do something different, rebuild. We do that with other programs all the time.
The statistics quoted in the link above don't necessarily mean that a federal health services program here would be less adequate than what we have - I believe we would be improving not reducing care. We have knowledge, experience and the people to provide this. Just because other nations make mistakes with their healthcare plans and underfund them, doesn't mean that we would have to make the same mistakes.
This should not be a POLITICAL issue - it is unfortunate that we have made it one - like environmental issues - medical care itself should not be labelled liberal or conservative or radical or socialistic - it is a service we should consider ourselves worthy of.
What we're listening to right now are lobbyists for big medical establishment (insurance, pharmaceuticals, AMA, and other big money groups) who are concerned more about their pocketbooks than the health of the people they claim to serve. We need to listen to our own needs and what we currently pay (there are many hidden costs, beyond what we pay for health insurance) as we make these decisions.
We need to realize that the recently passed legislation is not the end of the construction of national health services - a more positive, less restrictive and fearful approach to how it can be a healthy health service is desperately needed. Let's not kill it before it can serve us.
Not really. Insurance companies don't think about quality care, otherwise they would not go out of their way to attempt to deny almost every claim they get.
They are in the business to make a profit. So when they lose customers to the less expensive health care, they will more than likely pass on the cost to their customers who decided to stick with them, in the form of rate hikes, and only covering certain types of care that the less expensive healthcare might reject. And drop healthcare coverage for the terminally ill.
I thought I had top of the line healthcare. I paid close to $200.00 a month for my health insurance, and had to fight them to get them to pay for treatments that I received, that they were dragging their feet on. In the mean time the hospital sends my bills to collection, and my credit is already ruined by the time they get around to paying it.
I think the government should make insurance companies offer more help to their customers for less money and red tape, instead of trying to beat them at their own game at the tax payer's expense. That is basically what they are attempting to do, and the insurance companies are wetting their pants, and trying to getting their paid for congressmen to get them to squash any chance of that ever happening, so they can continue to keep their thumbs on top of the sick.
But, I still think that people should have the right to choose to have health coverage. It should not be mandatory. It's worthless as it is.
Sorry to say, $200 a month is not top quality health care. Barack Obama referred to his "Acme" car insurance that denied his claim. That was not top of the line car insurance either.
Personally, I have never had a claim refused. My insurance even covered my laser eye surgery. I wanted top of the line health insurance and I paid for it. Unfortunately top of the line health insurance no longer exists.
Now health insurance must cover the very basics for the entire population. If I want top of the line health care I must pay for the entire population and then pay actual cost for my own health care. Since I am not young, if I want to live long, I must pay for health care that is not available to the entire population.
Philosophically I am fine with that since my treasures are not gathered up here.
But as a political reality I find it disgusting.
Let us all wallow in self indulgent laziness together?
Not my cup of tea.
Without striving toward the light we are lost. Life is a fight.
Life is not a sofa and a television.
Obama doesn't have a stash.
There isn't a free ride.
Did anyone ever doubt that payouts from the Gulf Coast would slow to a snail’s pace once the government got control of the purse strings?
The supervisor of the $20 billion fund set up by BP to pay damage claims is dragging his feet and keeping residents and workers here on the coast in limbo.
This week the U.S. Justice Department urged the fund’s chief administrator, Kenneth Feinberg, to be more active as well as more transparent about what he is doing. By “more transparent” they mean keep the big red door locked and don’t let anyone what is going on.
Until this money is cut loose, many Gulf Coast residents are stuck in limbo, unable to start their own recoveries from last year’s disastrous spill. Soon the warm weather will return. Coastal residents must be getting ready now for businesses linked to fishing and tourism.
Coastal economies are already held back by a drilling moratorium on drilling which forces us to fund countries that support terrorist acts against our troops across the world.
Foot-dragging from the federal government is no suprize [sic] is it? More delays on damage claims that should have been resolved last year let the feds draw millions in interest, unless of course they have already spent the money “set aside” for damaged residents. They have spent every dollar you have ever sent in for your social security “lock box”.
“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Perhaps that’s the real problem, the federal government has blown BP’s money and they are desperately looking for a way to get it back from you, to give it to you.
http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/2011/02/ … p-payouts/
AC - The OP was about healthcare.. and you are posting about the oil spill...
Are you off your meds?
DH, is your mind so crippled by liberalism that you do not recognize a discussion about government incompetence?
I may also choose to post something about the post office. Hope it won't confuse you too badly.
The OP is about the governments ability to operate a complex system such as health care when it cannot handle much smaller, simpler, confined and less costly efforts such as the aftermath of the oil spill. Sounds like an answer by analogy. If the government cannot handle x and x is easier to handle than y is it reasonable to expect that the government can handle y? The answer should come back - no.
Refreshing clarity and intelligence in a sea of liberal miasma.
We do not live in a world of epistemological examination but rather one of self indulgence in which we demand that all others accept our feelings as valid reasoning.
by Silver Rose8 years ago
I don't normally get involved in political debates, but had to wade into this one. Some foolish American magazine has made the following comment:"The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain...
by OLYHOOCH5 years ago
This is just one of many Re-plys, I receive each day. I thought I might share this one with you,,,,, Thanks. And from one of my favorite pundits, Stella Paul, more motivation to work our tails off in this election...
by Georgiakevin8 years ago
I simply do not understand why people are fighting health care reform. I have heard the arguments against it and I keep saying how is that worse than being held hostage by the insurance companies? My insurance cost...
by Judy Specht18 months ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new...
by Don W8 months ago
Donald Trump said he will deliver:- "good coverage at much less cost"- "a much better health care plan at much less money."He also said:- "I'm not going to leave the lower 20% that can't afford...
by screaming5 years ago
If you found yourself with no insurance, unable to afford private insurance, and (you, your spouse, your children, your parents, or your grandkids) were in need of medical treatment. Would you be against Obamacare?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.