Health Care

[pattygreen 5]

You are very selective in your outrage of government spending. I can't afford the nearly $3000 dollars the needless and unnecessary war in Iraq has cost me. (and each American). It didn't create any jobs except for those no-bid contractor friends of cheney. And even more importantly, the cost of the 4000+ lives lost in Iraq. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, didn't have WMD and was sold to the American public and congress, who reeling from 9/11, was willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt (or be dubbed a traitor).

Additionally:

The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48

trillion over the 2001-2010 period.

I can't afford the $8300 this tax cut has cost me. Because 52% of these cuts went to the top 5% of taxpayers. Not me. And these tax cuts didn't create jobs, either as evident with our economic crash during the last year of the bush administration.

At least the cash for clunkers and the tax exemption for first time home buyers helps the auto and housing industry - both severely hurt by the recession and helps to save or create jobs.

'War' is one of the things that the government needs to pay for, and every American needs to support it because it is in defense of your very being. Just as the military personal give thier all for freedom and protection for America, we need to give our all financially to them and their cause. If the war was necessary or not is up to debate.

Your quote: I can't afford the $8300 this tax cut has cost me. Because 52% of these cuts went to the top 5% of taxpayers. Not me. And these tax cuts didn't create jobs, either as evident with our economic crash during the last year of the bush administration.

I agree with you here. The spending of the politicians in Washington is out of control.

your quote: At least the cash for clunkers and the tax exemption for first time home buyers helps the auto and housing industry - both severely hurt by the recession and helps to save or create jobs.

I disagree with this. WHY should we help the auto and housing industry? Let them fail. Other private businesses fail without the help of the government, why shouldn't they? Also, neither helped save or create jobs. Unemployment has risen past 10% now.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

'War' is one of the things that the government needs to pay for, and every American needs to support it because it is in defense of your very being. Just as the military personal give thier all for freedom and protection for America, we need to give our all financially to them and their cause. If the war was necessary or not is up to debate.

There aren't many people left who think the Iraqi war was necessary or worth the cost in dollars or lives. I know it wasn't and that money could have been put into OUR economy to help OUR people.

Your quote: I can't afford the $8300 this tax cut has cost me. Because 52% of these cuts went to the top 5% of taxpayers. Not me. And these tax cuts didn't create jobs, either as evident with our economic crash during the last year of the bush administration.

I agree with you here. The spending of the politicians in Washington is out of control.

your quote: At least the cash for clunkers and the tax exemption for first time home buyers helps the auto and housing industry - both severely hurt by the recession and helps to save or create jobs.

I disagree with this. WHY should we help the auto and housing industry? Let them fail. Other private businesses fail without the help of the government, why shouldn't they? Also, neither helped save or create jobs. Unemployment has risen past 10% now.

We (government) help industry all the time. It's called corporate welfare. They get enormous tax breaks that have to be made up somewhere and by someone. Guess who that is?

The collapse of the housing market was a big part of our economic collapse. Our economy cannot afford that- so I am in favor of helping people buy homes. And getting rid of gas guzzlers helps our environment and increases demand for new cars and new car production which keeps employees working. Also good.

We were losing 700,000 jobs a month when Pres. Obama took office. Imagine what the unemployment rate would be if we were still losing at that rate. Thanks to the stimulus program - last month the loss was 11,000. Still bad, but we've come a long way thanks to Pres. Obama's foresight and willingness to tackle the tough jobs. Plus about 1/3 of the stimulus went to tax cuts for 95% of the american wage earners. And also to extend unemployment. This puts money in people's pockets. Also good.

I know you just want to let people suffer because whatever befalls them is their own fault, from unemployment, disease, old age, disability, lack of health insurance, etc... They got that way by being shiftless, lazy bums who just want big screen tv's. But I am glad I live in a country that provides a safety net and incentives to help get people back to work and businesses to hire.

Providing for citizen's safety is NOT just about the military.

[pattygreen 5]

I know you just want to let people suffer because whatever befalls them is their own fault, from unemployment, disease, old age, disability, lack of health insurance, etc... They got that way by being shiftless, lazy bums who just want big screen tv's. But I am glad I live in a country that provides a safety net and incentives to help get people back to work and businesses to hire.

I do not like to see people suffer, but people need to be responsible for themselves. I am all for giving to help those in need, and do it often, but it is not the governments responsibility to do it. They should not be taking anyones money to pay for anyone elses dilemmas in life.

I'm not saying that ALL government is wrong, but that there needs to be a cutting of expenses and a stopping of the give aways.

If I had a parent who was in need of care, I would care for them. After all, they cared for me the first 18 years of my life. That's the very least I could do for them. Adult children feel it is societies responsibility to care for their aged parents, and it is not. It is theirs! The state should not be paying for what they need to be doing for their elderly parents. If the State would only pay for those who were without children, then that would lighten the tax burden on everyone. Believe me, if everyone knew that when their parents reached a place in time where they could no longer care for themselves that it would be their responsibility to care for them, then they would plan for it and do it. They'd have to. But thats how society is. If they can get the job done on someone elses dime or inconvenience , they will. If there were no handouts for people, they would HAVE to be responsible for themselves. A government who gives you the things you lack is one that makes the people dependant upon it.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I know you just want to let people suffer because whatever befalls them is their own fault, from unemployment, disease, old age, disability, lack of health insurance, etc... They got that way by being shiftless, lazy bums who just want big screen tv's. But I am glad I live in a country that provides a safety net and incentives to help get people back to work and businesses to hire.

I do not like to see people suffer, but people need to be responsible for themselves. I am all for giving to help those in need, and do it often, but it is not the governments responsibility to do it. Yes, it is. It is the responsibility of a moral government (which is us) to care for those in need. They should not be taking anyones money to pay for anyone elses dilemmas in life.

I'm not saying that ALL government is wrong, but that there needs to be a cutting of expenses and a stopping of the give aways.

If I had a parent who was in need of care, I would care for them. After all, they cared for me the first 18 years of my life. That's the very least I could do for them. Adult children feel it is societies responsibility to care for their aged parents, and it is not. It is theirs! The state should not be paying for what they need to be doing for their elderly parents. If the State would only pay for those who were without children, then that would lighten the tax burden on everyone.There are many adult children who care for their elderly parents, but sometimes the elderly parent needs 24/7 care and more specialized or critical care and therapy. Obviously when both adult children work - you know to sock away that money for retirement and save to pay cash for everything - and they don't have the facilities or equipment to care for their parent- then the parent has to go into a nursing home. Now, before the government starts paying for their care, they must sell almost everything they own and pay their own way. Only when they have sold everything and become impoverished will medicaid kick in. So you see, it's not all on the government dime. Who has saved enough to pay $7000-$10,000/month? For many years. Do you have that kind of savings? I know I don't. What is YOUR solution? Believe me, if everyone knew that when their parents reached a place in time where they could no longer care for themselves that it would be their responsibility to care for them, then they would plan for it and do it. They'd have to. But thats how society is. If they can get the job done on someone elses dime or inconvenience , they will. If there were no handouts for people, they would HAVE to be responsible for themselves. A government who gives you the things you lack is one that makes the people dependant upon it.

Everything is not cut and dry. Or black & white. I know about taking care of an elderly parent and having them in a nursing home. It's easy to say you would do this or that if you haven't been in the situation.

[pattygreen 5]

Yes, it is. It is the responsibility of a moral government (which is us) to care for those in need.

I disagree. It is NOT my responsibility to pay for your mother's care or your child's education or anything they need. It's yours.

Your Quote: There are many adult children who care for their elderly parents, but sometimes the elderly parent needs 24/7 care and more specialized or critical care and therapy. Obviously when both adult children work - you know to sock away that money for retirement and save to pay cash for everything - and they don't have the facilities or equipment to care for their parent- then the parent has to go into a nursing home.

I disagree. One can quit their job and care for the parent while the other works and the money they would be losing from their job could be reimbursed by the parents social security or savings or sale of their home, etc. I did this for an elderly neighbor of mine. I quit my job and took her in to my home because she had no children or family and she developed alzheimers disease. She paid me for caring for her $700. a week from her pension and S.S. check and some rental income she recieved ( $400/Month) We made these plans together when she was first diagnosed. I work in a convelescent home and see first hand how elderly are dropped off by their kids ,rarely to be bothered with again. The vast majority of them would be just fine living under minimal care in their grown adults home. The fact is that they DON'T WANT TO BE BOTHERED. They want the rest of America to pay for their care simply because they will if allowed.

Now, before the government starts paying for their care, they must sell almost everything they own and pay their own way. Only when they have sold everything and become impoverished will medicaid kick in. So you see, it's not all on the government dime. Who has saved enough to pay $7000-$10,000/month? For many years. Do you have that kind of savings? I know I don't. What is YOUR solution?

Before they start selling their home, they should go to live with their children, sell their home and give their kids the money to care for them. When it's gone, they can then hand over their S.S. Checks to them every month. Why spend 7-10,000. every month for a place to live? Live with your child and give them 1/10 of that amount every month. The biggest expense at nursing homes is hiring the nurses who have to hand out the meds every day to the residents. Why pay someone to hand your mom a high blood pressure pill when you can do it? Believe me, I know from working there. These residents do NOT need to be there. The government should enforce family to care for their elderly. This too, is God's plan for the elderly. He expects all mankind to care for their aging parents.

[pattygreen 5]

In order for Americans to get rid of our deficit, each man woman and child living here will need to come up with $39,000. a piece.

The spending of our politicians is destroying this great Nation!!!!

1.) The government GAVE $3.8 million to build an Urban Art trail in Rochester, NY (you know some of this art was drawing on the sidewalks) Now, did we really need to build an art trail, while a great percentage of Americans are cutting their expenses at every corner and getting their overtime cut?

2.) The government spent $3 million for new bike racks in Georgetown in DC. Really! whats wrong with a sign post or tree and a bike lock, huh? was that really necessary while states unemployment agencies are in the red?

3.) The government spent 1/2 a million dollars on a skateboard Park in Pawtucket, RI (where they are laying off so many workers, it's pathetic) Did they really need to give this gift at this time to the kids there? Seriously!

4.) $578,000. went to fight homelessness in Union, NY. This would be a great cause if there were actually any homeless people in that town! There is NONE reported. They even tried to give the money back, but the government wouldn't allow it! Wouldn't allow it????!Unbelieveable!

5.) 1/2 BILLION on fish food in Missouri. Oh brother! We have hungry people in this country who can't afford to eat. Please!

WE CAN NOT AFFORD TO KEEP THIS UP!!!!!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Yes, it is. It is the responsibility of a moral government (which is us) to care for those in need.

I disagree. It is NOT my responsibility to pay for your mother's care or your child's education or anything they need. It's yours.

Your Quote: There are many adult children who care for their elderly parents, but sometimes the elderly parent needs 24/7 care and more specialized or critical care and therapy. Obviously when both adult children work - you know to sock away that money for retirement and save to pay cash for everything - and they don't have the facilities or equipment to care for their parent- then the parent has to go into a nursing home.

I disagree. One can quit their job and care for the parent while the other works and the money they would be losing from their job could be reimbursed by the parents social security or savings or sale of their home, etc. I did this for an elderly neighbor of mine. I quit my job and took her in to my home because she had no children or family and she developed alzheimers disease. She paid me for caring for her $700. a week from her pension and S.S. check and some rental income she recieved ( $400/Month) We made these plans together when she was first diagnosed. I work in a convelescent home and see first hand how elderly are dropped off by their kids ,rarely to be bothered with again. The vast majority of them would be just fine living under minimal care in their grown adults home. The fact is that they DON'T WANT TO BE BOTHERED. They want the rest of America to pay for their care simply because they will if allowed.

Now, before the government starts paying for their care, they must sell almost everything they own and pay their own way. Only when they have sold everything and become impoverished will medicaid kick in. So you see, it's not all on the government dime. Who has saved enough to pay $7000-$10,000/month? For many years. Do you have that kind of savings? I know I don't. What is YOUR solution?

Before they start selling their home, they should go to live with their children, sell their home and give their kids the money to care for them. When it's gone, they can then hand over their S.S. Checks to them every month. Why spend 7-10,000. every month for a place to live? Live with your child and give them 1/10 of that amount every month. The biggest expense at nursing homes is hiring the nurses who have to hand out the meds every day to the residents. Why pay someone to hand your mom a high blood pressure pill when you can do it? Believe me, I know from working there. These residents do NOT need to be there. The government should enforce family to care for their elderly. This too, is God's plan for the elderly. He expects all mankind to care for their aging parents.

Oh, you have it all figured out. Just have one adult child quit their job. Which one should quit, the one with the higher salary or the one with the healthcare plan? And mom or dad's SS should take the place of the lost salary? How utterly unrealisitc. What if they need both salaries to pay for THEIR care in the old age, or to pay for THEIR retirement or to pay for THEIR children's college? And they quit their job and mom or dad dies a few months later. JOB IS GONE AND SO IS SS. Then what? Oh, I guess another good job will just be waiting for them.

Most people in nursing homes are not ambulatory. Most homes are not equiped to care for someone who can't walk or is bedridden. Not to mention that many need specific therapy. How are you supposed to do than in your home?

Then there is the need for the elderly parent to go to see doctors from time to time. When they are in a wheelchair, the nursing home has special vans to transport them (no steps).

I guess you are also supposed to sell your home if it has steps and move to one with ramps and then sell your car and buy a van that accomodates a wheelchair.

Then I guess you are supposed to be able to lift the non-ambulatory person from bed to chair, toilet, shower, etc. And of course become a nurse on the spot, taking blood pressure, monitoring vitals, taking blood, etc...

You obviously have NOT thought this through in your typical unrealistic and narrow visioned look at the world.

[pattygreen 5]

Oh, you have it all figured out. Just have one adult child quit their job. Which one should quit, the one with the higher salary or the one with the healthcare plan? And mom or dad's SS should take the place of the lost salary? How utterly unrealisitc. What if they need both salaries to pay for THEIR care in the old age, or to pay for THEIR retirement or to pay for THEIR children's college? And they quit their job and mom or dad dies a few months later. JOB IS GONE AND SO IS SS. Then what? Oh, I guess another good job will just be waiting for them.

Hey, I'm not saying that the adult children won't have to make some sacrifices, but that's life. You do what you have to do. The parents took care of them while they were young, and now it's their turn to show some love and to sacrifice a little for the ones who brought them into the world. When you have a baby, someone stays home with it or you pay to have a sitter while you work. Why not for the elderly parent? When the parent dies, they can get another job.

Most people in nursing homes are not ambulatory. Most homes are not equiped to care for someone who can't walk or is bedridden.

It's called a hoyer and a wheel chair, and both are very easy to use. The least expensive one is around 300. and a wheel chair is around 100. for the cheapest one. You can even go to tag sales and buy a used one.

Not to mention that many need specific therapy. How are you supposed to do than in your home?

Take them to their doctor appointments like you do yourself. You are talking to the wrong person about elder care. I've been doing it for 3 decades now.

Then there is the need for the elderly parent to go to see doctors from time to time. When they are in a wheelchair, the nursing home has special vans to transport them (no steps).

Are you trying to tell me that for the couple of times a year that they will need to get to the doctor that it constitutes a nursing home and the expense of it? Most insurances cover the van transportation if it's needed.

I guess you are also supposed to sell your home if it has steps and move to one with ramps and then sell your car and buy a van that accomodates a wheelchair.

How dramatic! I have 3 steps to my back door. When my grandmother came to visit in her chair, we pulled her up them. Yes, it took 2 people, but I'm sure that for the few times they leave the house, it can be managed.

Then I guess you are supposed to be able to lift the non-ambulatory person from bed to chair, toilet, shower, etc. And of course become a nurse on the spot, taking blood pressure, monitoring vitals, taking blood, etc...

You obviously have NOT thought this through in your typical unrealistic and narrow visioned look at the world.

You make elderly care sound so complicated, when in fact it's not at all. I have great experience in the field of geriatrics, and know that your fears of caring for the elderly in your home are unwaranted. If you can take care of an infant in your home, you can take care of grandma. She's just bigger, that's all. Now, I'm not saying ALL or EVERY elderly person should be out of the nursing home, but I am saying the vast majority of them ( my percentage would be approx. 80% or so)should be living with their grown children. See how the government can cut down on their spending if they tried?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You make elderly care sound so complicated, when in fact it's not at all. I have great experience in the field of geriatrics, and know that your fears of caring for the elderly in your home are unwaranted. If you can take care of an infant in your home, you can take care of grandma. She's just bigger, that's all. Now, I'm not saying ALL or EVERY elderly person should be out of the nursing home, but I am saying the vast majority of them ( my percentage would be approx. 80% or so)should be living with their grown children. See how the government can cut down on their spending if they tried?

Your oversimplified explainations are nothing short of insane.

My mother had a stroke and couldn't walk. She needed to be lifted in and out of the wheelchair, into the walk-in shower, and was taken to the doctors in their speciality van. And while vans can come to your home for that purpose, the person needs to be able to get themselves to the van. I have a full flight of steps to outside.

Add to this that I have a back condition that precludes me from lifting. I was also battling breast cancer at this time and my husband was battling esophageal cancer from which he died.

But I guess I was supposed to take care of a bedridden mother, a dying husband, my cancer treatment, provide all nursing services and physical therapy too.

I am no longer going to debate this. Your analysis is not grounded in reality. I AM DONE.

[KartMan 58]

Government must have money to function, and the more functions it performs, the more money it must have. We just don't have enough for all the programs they desire. It is getting too big and needs to be cut down a few notches. Start slashing programs that are wasteful and start laying off all the government jobs that are wasteful.

Ok. Let’s start with the multi trillion dollars that we are wasting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Next I would like some way to pay for Medicare Part D and the massive unjustified Bush Tax cut that only helped the top 5%. Once we get done figuring out what to do with all that waste, let’s take a look at what we have left. Heck, we might even have a surplus.

[pattygreen 5]

Your oversimplified explainations are nothing short of insane.

My mother had a stroke and couldn't walk. She needed to be lifted in and out of the wheelchair, into the walk-in shower, and was taken to the doctors in their speciality van. And while vans can come to your home for that purpose, the person needs to be able to get themselves to the van. I have a full flight of steps to outside.

Add to this that I have a back condition that precludes me from lifting. I was also battling breast cancer at this time and my husband was battling esophageal cancer from which he died.

But I guess I was supposed to take care of a bedridden mother, a dying husband, my cancer treatment, provide all nursing services and physical therapy too.

I am no longer going to debate this. Your analysis is not grounded in reality. I AM DONE.

I said the VAST majority !!!!! I suppose in your case, help was needed, but I have seen more cases that not where the elderly person is capable of living at home if only a grown child of theirs would take on the responsibility of their parent. Wow! talk about making it personal! You see me as an all or nothing person every time I post. In your case, you had good reason for the need of a nursing home. I work in a nursing home and see patients come and go and get to know their families personally and I can tell you that about 80% ,in my estimate, do not need to be there on the States dime!

[pattygreen 5]

So, the public option is dead, I believe; Long live the double public option. Obama's latest plan varys from past versions only by a degree, but its goal-the nationalization of the insurance industry- is unchanged. Under the compromise, insurer's inability to deliver "acceptable national policies" under the non profit framework would trigger a full blown gov. run system. That would happen in due course because the gov. would be the sole arbiter of what's "acceptable", and its dictates would ensure the non profits' failure. The gov. run system that would follow would be expensive, but the democrats don't care. If it runs a deficit, which it surely will, they will raise taxes or borrow to cover the losses initially. Meanwhile, the shear weight of this government racket, masquerading as "competition" would suffocate the ins. industry eventually.

Medicare is the original public option, and a very poor one at that. If it were a corporation, it would have been declared insolvent long ago because it has promised $70 trillion in benefites of which it has $0. Obamacare would add to these unfunded liabilities because medicare patients would stop paying medicare taxes at the same time that medicare would instantly be responsible for 3 million more Americans. And they would consume on average more medicare dollars than they would pay ($7,600. a year or less)to buy into the system according to actuarial data. Also, with their medical care secure, more Americans may retire earlier putting an even greater strain on Social Security with its $14 trillion dollar debt load.

At some point Americans are going to have to begin paying their own way and stop dumping their bills on future generations!

No, the public option is not dead, it's just been split in 2 and repackaged.

[pattygreen 5]

Some wanted a ban on public funding for abortions in the HC reform bill. My own states corrupt ,democrat Sen. Chris Dodd said the proposal would "severely restrict the rights of women...He said, "I am a proud defender of a woman's right to choose. The amendment represents an unprecedented- and in my view, deeply unfair and regressive- assault on a woman's right to choose. HC reform is about strengthening patient's ability to get the care they need from the doctor they choose...."

That would make sense if the amendment would have restricted anyone's "right to choose". But it only sought to preserve other people's rights not to pay for a choice they find morally objectionable. But let's hear it for Dodd. By taking a position that is unacceptable to most republicans and many democrats, they may yet 'abort' (kill) the worst legislation ever. Hooray!!

[tdslf1 0]

I am glad they shot that idiot proposal down. They kept arguing about the language. I watched the debate. Nelson needs to be flayed for crapping on the liberal agenda. Liberals and liberal women in particular should have flooded his office with spam for being a fake Democrat and a barbarian. Trying to take us women back to the 60's or further God forbid. To me this is called the coat hanger propaganda....unbelievable to have even entertained it.

[BJean 16]

pg you have really stepped over the line this time. I'm beginning to think that you're some little kook in a back room getting a huge laugh out of all of this. Because you defnitely cannot be serious about this "kids taking care of their aging parents" thing as a real answer to the huge problem of our aging and infirm population.

It is so wrong on so many levels that I can hardly begin to list them all. But the basic assumption that all people have children is the most obtuse thing I've heard. Once you've taken that incredibly idiotic posture and go on to assume that both of the kids work, who have these elderly ailing parents, you're merely digging the failed logic hole you've dug for yourself, even deeper. And if those mindless absurdities weren't bad enough, you suggest that one of the working kids just quit their job to take care of the elderly and ailing parents. And it just keeps getting better...

Ad absurdum, ad infinitum.