Health Care

[BJean 16]

Except for guilt-ridden thinkers, the majority of Americans understand the necessity for our laws to allow women the right to choose.

[pattygreen 5]

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.

Another "all or nothing" approach. I said the "Vast Majority" of aged people could be cared for by their children. NOT ALL . Also, I know that ALL people don't have children.

The State pays for many aged people by putting them in convelescent homes and assuming the bill for them. If society foreknew that the responsibility for their aged parents was theirs, they would HAVE to plan and prepare for it. I work in a home (I've worked in quite a few of them over the last 30 years) and I know that a great majority of them could be cared for at home with the help of a child, or family member. I also have done the 'caring' part in my own home for an elderly woman and I will care for my own parents and my husbands when and if they need it as well. I'm not a rich person, both of us work. I make $400. a week full time. If my mom needs me, I'll quit my job and she will supplement my income with her SS check, or the sale of her home. $400 a week X 52 weeks is $20,800. a year. That's better than her paying 10,000. for 2 months of care in a convelescent home. Her profit from her home would be eaten up in the first year there. Then the State would have to start paying for her. If society would stop putting the burden for the care of their parents onto the state, it would save much needed funds. Now, I'm not saying that the state shouldn't pay for 'some' of the elderly, just not the VAST majority of them who should, and could live with their children. Many people feel that it is NOT their responsibility to care for their parents, and I say that it is, cause it's not mine, and why should I have to pay for anyone else's parents care with my tax dollars. This is the problem in America. Everyone wants everyone else to give them a free handout. Elder care, is just one tiny fraction of the money that is given away. It is soooo miniscule compared to all the other give aways of our money to society, that it seems foolish to talk about it, but when all of these miniscule handouts are added together, they make up a large sum of money that the government hands out.

[pattygreen 5]

The outrage of millions of taxpayers following the $700 billion

bank bailout and the $787 billion stimulus bill did not stop

Congress from passing and President Obama from signing a

bloated $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations Act in March. With

the subsequent approval of the President’s budget, the national

debt will triple over the next 10 years. That leaves plenty of

opportunities for pork to remain pervasive in the nation’s capital.

The fiscal year 2009 appropriations process was unique as three of

the appropriations bills (Defense, Homeland Security and Military

Construction) were passed and signed on September 30, 2008

under a different Congress and President. But the change in

control in the White House did not change the culture of corruption

that surrounds pork-barrel spending.

Among the many story lines that played out during the crafting and

eventual passing of the Omnibus Act was that former Senator Ted

Stevens (R-Alaska) had his name eliminated from the nine

appropriations bills in the Omnibus, yet a deceased member,

former members, and Cabinet members remained. If the new

Congress had time to scrub Sen. Stevens’ name from the Omnibus,

they surely had plenty of time to scrub the bill of all earmarks.

The latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s

(CAGW) 19-year exposé of pork-barrel spending includes

$3,800,000 for the Old Tiger Stadium Conservancy; $1,900,000

for the Pleasure Beach Water taxi service project; and $1,791,000

for swine odor and manure management research.

In fiscal year 2009, Congress stuffed 10,160 projects into the 12

appropriations bills worth $19.6 billion. The projects represent a

12.5 percent decrease from the 11,610 projects in fiscal year 2008.

The $19.6 billion is a 14 percent increase over the fiscal year 2008

total of $17.2 billion, belying claims of reduced spending. Total

pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $290 billion.

I could go on and list all of their wasteful expedatures, but you get it.

http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2009/

[pattygreen 5]

50 Examples of Government Waste

here is an example of government waste!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Another "all or nothing" approach. I said the "Vast Majority" of aged people could be cared for by their children. NOT ALL . Also, I know that ALL people don't have children.

The State pays for many aged people by putting them in convelescent homes and assuming the bill for them.Not true: Personal care and assisted living homes are self-pay - NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING. Medicare will only pay for 30 days of nursing home care if followed by a hospital stay. Then it is self pay until the patient has sold all of their assets and become impoverished. Only then does medicaid kick in. Some, but not many, in nursing homes are self-pay. So, if a patient can't pay for nursing home care and there is no spouse living in the house, the house has to be sold, the car, too. That money, all their savings and all but $30/month of their SS and retirement payments have to go to their care. So the government takes everything from them BEFORE it pays. If society

[pattygreen 5]

Another "all or nothing" approach. I said the "Vast Majority" of aged people could be cared for by their children. NOT ALL . Also, I know that ALL people don't have children.

The State pays for many aged people by putting them in convelescent homes and assuming the bill for them.Not true: Personal care and assisted living homes are self-pay - NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING. Medicare will only pay for 30 days of nursing home care if followed by a hospital stay. Then it is self pay until the patient has sold all of their assets and become impoverished. Only then does medicaid kick in. Some, but not many, in nursing homes are self-pay. So, if a patient can't pay for nursing home care and there is no spouse living in the house, the house has to be sold, the car, too. That money, all their savings and all but $30/month of their SS and retirement payments have to go to their care. So the government takes everything from them BEFORE it pays. If society

As it should. No one should get money from the government to care for them if they have assets. The need to enter a nursing home usually (not always)means you can no longer care for yourself, and probably wont be able to any more until death. This is why an elderly person should live with his or her child. The parent moves into the childs home. Either holds onto or sells his home and uses his money from the sale of his home or his SS check or other assets by giving it to the child in return for caring for them. (better yet,if they can afford it, they should care for their parents for free simply because they should) This is better than giving their home to the state to give $10,000. a month to the convelescent home, (at that rate, their money won't go very far to help care for them.) and when it's gone rather quickly, the rest of society will have to pick up the tab for their care.

Also, if a parent has a child, and is in need of assisted living or personal care, why should they spend 7-10,000. a month for a self pay home. That's an awful lot of money for someone who just needs assistance. for crying out loud kids, just assist your parents! After all, have you forgotten about how they assisted you from birth through adulthood. This is the problem with government handouts. If a person knows that someone else will foot the bill and the problem could get solved without inconveniencing them, they will dump it on someone else. (the government) I say, tell all kids to prepare for their parents old age because it's on them! Families are supposed to take care of each other. Why should I pay for anyone elses parents care through my tax dollars? There are many, many examples of this wasted tax money and it's not just in caring for the elderly who should be cared for by their own children. Now, I know that in your case, you were not capable to care for your parents, in these instances, the state should pay. If the state would only pay for the people who absolutely have no other option, then that could save tax dollars for them. This is what the gov. needs to do. Stop all the unnecessary waste.

[BJean 16]

Right wing extremists' idea of unnecessary waste and mine are obviously quite different.

The right wing extremists think that corporations should go unchecked and allowed to be run however they can to make the most possible profit. It's the American way - capitalism at its' finest, eh? Don't put restrictions on the companies in America - don't allow people to sue doctors or hospitals either. Allow them to operate however they can to make the most profit.

All across the board they choose the health and well-being of companies over the health and well-being of individuals in America.

Right wing extremists don't think that corporations should even pay their fair share in taxes. They don't think that a negligent doctor should be held financially accountable for a wrongful death or maiming that he committed. And all because they think it will spare them from having to pay more taxes.

Right wing extremists have it all backwards in this country.

Our government should be in the business of helping its' individual citizens be safe. Not just by protecting us in times of war, but also in the times when our lives are at stake from disease and famine. And that necessarily includes jobs and health care.

Corporations should have the opportunity to form and make money and grow and make a profit. But they shouldn't be allowed to get tax breaks and incentives and be allowed to take advantage of their employees without any government oversight to keep them honest. Corporations should want to pay their fair share to help keep this country healthy. Unfortunately many of them become too greedy.

There must be some transparency and oversight and some fairness if we are all going to enjoy living in America and be safe and healthy. We should ALL enjoy the benefits of building not only the best military in the world, but also the best health care in the world. And we should be treated fairly in our jobs and we should be treated fairly by our banks.

These are the things that good Christian Americans should want and expect from their government.

Edited December 14, 2009 by BJean

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Very well said BJean. But it all makes too much sense to be embraced by the right wing.

[BJean 16]

It seems to me that for the right wing extremists, although they claim it's all about being Christian and God's plan, it's actually quite the opposite and is all about greed and self-aggrandizment.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

It seems to me that for the right wing extremists, although they claim it's all about being Christian and God's plan, it's actually quite the opposite and is all about greed and self-aggrandizment.

I agree and let me give my opinion of who makes up the republican party that has grown increasingly conservative. Of course there are exceptions (most on these boards will take exception, of course, but here it is):

The 4 R's of Republicanism:

1) Rich

2) Racist

3) Redneck

4) Religious Right

The first group are the CEO's, the wealthy, the have's - those that have jobs, healthcare, an investment portfolio, etc.. and they want policies in place that make sure they get all the breaks and continue to be the haves while not wanting the have nots to get a piece of their pie. They think they deserve everything they have - no one else does.

The second group are those who hate minorities, blacks and latinos and who are very anti-immigration. They blame everything on them. This group is largely the white men who are republicans. They were once in control of jobs, etc.. and now blame the minorities for taking what they believe was rightfully theirs.

The third group are largely under or un-educated people who have no understanding of how the government works. They just are anti government. It is evil to them. And they say this as they collect their government unemployment, collect Social Security and medicare, drive on government paid for roads, etc.. And they say all this as they hug their guns and profess to be God-fearing people.

The last group - well they just want their particular religious views to be injected into the government and promote policy and agenda. But they don't want government in their religion, of course. They also want the government to fund their religious initiatives.

Many can fall into more than one category but again, this is my opinion and based on seeing and listening to those who are conservative republicans.

[BJean 16]

You are so totally right on!!!

There has always been this element in our society, but the Bush legacy is that they have been empowered and emboldened by Bush's administration's and the Republican dominated Congress's fine tuning the rules and regs that allow them to run roughshod over everybody else in this country.

And their freakish public relations campaigns that make outrageous claims about Democrats and our President and the current Congress only adds fuel to their fire. People always tend to respond to their scare tactics and fear mongering.

From the Richard Nixon era on through the Reagan years, through the thorough bashing of Carter and fiasco of how they used government resources to trash Bill Clinton from the moment he took office, they have proven themselves to be willing to do ANYTHING, whether it is illegal, immoral or just plain wrong for the country, to further their personal agendas.

And I am constantly amazed at how regular folk have fallen for their dishonest claims over and over and even jump on the bandwagon to become full-fledged followers.

My only hope is that, even though it is a very slow process, Americans will continue to see them for what they are. The current president has the power to change it and set this country right. I always worry though that power is corrupting and that he may fall into the abyss of personal gain above all else.

It is very hard to avoid and although he gets some of the most criticism of any past president, I believe that Jimmy Carter has personally been able to go on to actually do some good things for our country and for the entire world from time to time. I believe there is hope.

[tdslf1 0]

I posted this in another rant and rave but I'll post it here too.

Question: Would you rather people continue to die and get sick because they don't have healthcare rather than not pass some sort of first step to health care because it cost too much?

As stated before, I don't give too much of a dam how much it cost, the American people need it. Get it done and forget all the noise about cost. Try to keep the cost down, if not fudge em. Get it done.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

It's not about cost. None of those who oppose Obama's agenda really care about cost. Did any of them question the cost of bush's medicare part D program (a trillion over 10 years) - they just pushed it through - no debate, no townhall meetings, no media scrutiny.

Ditto for tax cuts for the rich and Iraqi war.

The cost is just a smokescreen for their real agenda - to have Obama fail so they can increase their numbers in 2010 and 2012 elections.

[pattygreen 5]

I posted this in another rant and rave but I'll post it here too.

Question: Would you rather people continue to die and get sick because they don't have healthcare rather than not pass some sort of first step to health care because it cost too much?

As stated before, I don't give too much of a dam how much it cost, the American people need it. Get it done and forget all the noise about cost. Try to keep the cost down, if not fudge em. Get it done.

440,000 people die annually from cigarette smoking, and the solution to it is very easy. Outlaw it like they do other things. That is 9X more than those without health insurance, yet noone gives a crap about those people who die. Absolutely NOTHING is being done about it. They force us to wear our seatbelts in the car, but they can't take away the cigs? And what about alcohol related deaths annually? There are so many people who die in the country from all sorts of things, that doesn't mean that the national government needs to make sure that these deaths don't happen. It doesn't mean that the feds need to take on the problem. To take on all that responsibility would be impossible. The national government was not created for these reasons.

[pattygreen 5]

The great objective must be to restore a relationship between the public's income and the income of the government, its employees, its vendors and its dependents, to wrest control of the government from those who vote for a living and give it back to those who work for one. Did you know that government employees make on average 5x more than the average American worker? They need to start dictating cost cuts to everyone receiving federal funds and paychecks while insisting that they provide the same level of service or be replaced.

The question is not whether anything can be done, but whether the political will exist to prevent society from collapsing under the weightof the government.