Comments by Yeahuhuh
Page 1 of 45 | Next
Posted on September 6 at 10:17 a.m.
Ooops did I get too political??
Let_us_think's post above is extremely well written and his analogy of schooling to clarify it is very good.
I don't think most of the people who oppose inclusion of the small percentage of people still left out are actually worried about the real effect of those proposed changes.
They are worried about some diabolical socialist threat, and a complete re-ordering of medicine into a socialist-style system. I don't see how that could happen, considering the lock that is on our present system in the interest of the industry.
We will not be electing a dictator, and all the details will have to be worked out at great length.
Posted on September 6 at 10:05 a.m.
The VA, Medicare and Medicaid already are the biggest customers for pharmaceutical companies. Government has already become involved enough in health care to control prices through policies that are rigged toward industry.
President Bush's refusal to negotiate with drug companies in that situation has locked prices high for everyone, and his refusal to allow us to purchase the same drugs from foreign sources is using government to lock the prices in for US citizens while we finance cheap drugs for the rest of the world.
The only problem with the idealistic free market approach is that the politicians who promote it don't seem to follow their own advice, and we have not had a free market for a long time. The average citizen is not smart enough to see exactly how he is being screwed. Big Government implores the average citizen to not rock their boat by pretending that better regulation would be a violation of free enterprise, even though the present situation is already a violation of free enterprise.
Just compare what your medicine costs in Canada, England and the US to see how better regulated countries benefit.
It never was about more or less regulation -- it's about whose interest the existing regulations benefit.
My Dad told me " Son, you'll like what the Republicans say... It's a shame they are such liars." And Dad was right.
Posted on September 6 at 9:38 a.m.
Well as a business owner in Adams County let me say I am completely underwhelmed at this news.
I would prefer those roads and services improved, since the reduction is mostly cosmetic. That's why they take the money in the first place isn't it?
Posted on September 6 at 9:24 a.m.
On the other hand, my brother in Baton Rouge was quoted $3,500 to take two pines off his roof, and Billy Joe Bob from Galveston offered to do it for $800.
The money he saved paid for his roof repairs. He just stood there and watched the work and didn't pay them till it was done.
You don't have to depend on government regulation to bail you out of everything if your're smart and can manage a little risk. Usually when folks tell you to only do things with government approval they found a way to make some money off it.
Posted on September 6 at 9:10 a.m.
The GOP claims Democrats mean more money spent, and Republicans offer a more frugal approach.
If anything the opposite is historically indicated. When they controlled both houses and the admin, Republican spending surpassed everyone in history. This is especially true if you consider tax cuts to the wealthy as part of the Republican spending to purchase votes and try again to stimulate the economy that way despite increased investment overseas that dilutes the US reinvestment of money rebated to the most wealthy.
Republicans know that their middle class supporters are not very likely to check the facts, and their strategy is to get the most votes they can by taking advantage of this fact and continuing to portray the other side as the taxers and spenders.
The Brookings Institution predicts an increase in taxes for the middle class from both candidates, if the candidate's policies are enacted. For Obama's plans they predict it would amount to 5% increase for middle class families by 2012. For McCain's proposals 3% increase by 2012. But the potential benefits of both plans are starkly different. This is what the Republican strategy seeks to downplay.
What Obama's plans buy are incentives to decrease the cost of medicine, health care, and the inclusion of the remaining few who don't have health care insurance. Obama's plans also include a detailed and aggressive effort to provide incentives for alternative fuels, in an attempt to lower fuel costs and get us off petroleum -- when you consider his entire vision, the 2% additional Obama plans to spend could yield far greater savings for middle class families through decreased costs of these core items. Obama also seeks to reduce taxes for the most poor of the working population and the most elderly. Obama also plans to increase taxes on the most wealthy in order to stop the investment flow overseas, based on the fact that middle class taxpayers are far more likely to spend their dollars in the US economy.
McCain's plans offer a more market oriented approach to oil and less intense attempt to wean us off petroleum. His plans to reform health care are not ambitious, and center on the creation of a non-profit corporation, but no real change in the way things are done at present. He does plan to keep the tax cuts to the most wealthy and has little change in mind for the tax code otherwise. McCain's 3% is more than half the increase of the Obama plan but with no vision to change anything else.
McCain's plans do seem to be more of the same policies we have seen for the last 8 years. But they cost almost as much as the more ambitious plans offered by the Democrats.
Central to the Republican strategy is that their rank and file will not understand the more ambitious nature of Democratic proposals and how that could impact future costs. So they summarize Democratic plans as spending with no real payoff -- basically what the Republican plans actually offer.
Posted on September 5 at 7:16 p.m.
I read this interesting letter from Anne Kilkenny that is the web rage. She is evidently a real person, and not everything she said about Palin is bad, but most of it is less than good. It is interesting to hear from someone who knows her well since the rest of us just know what we're told.
http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.htm...
This lady is entitled to her opinion, and I am sure it is more qualified than anything the rest of us has to judge from.
Posted on September 5 at 5:02 p.m.
Let's take this general political discussion to Obama breaks new ground in the Opinion section.
Just go there and say something stupid and I will find you. he,he!
If it was up to me, we would discuss the underlying psychological needs of conservatives and liberals, because that is fascinating and reflects on who we are as a culture more accurately than bantering over these smaller issues.
Posted on September 5 at 4:50 p.m.
I got my power turned on right about the time Haley flew into the airport. I'm telling you he's a miracle man. He,he!
Posted on September 5 at 3:18 p.m.
Suggestion -- let's terminate this discussion in this thread and let someone post who has something to say that is more about health care?
There will be plenty of time for the discussion about how John McCain or Barack Obama are sooooo important that anyone's world will come crashing down if either of them is elected.
Page 1 of 45 | Next
Posted on September 6 at 6:23 p.m.
I know it might be hard for you to understand, but if government made the laws that make price gouging for pharmaceuticals possible, then it is going to take a change in government laws to change that.
Sort of like if the government made an unsafe bridge, you are certainly not going to go out and fix it yourself. The question is, would you be dumb enough to keep using an unsafe bridge just because it's there?
I realize it's complicated, but you'll get it. Geez.
On Is healthcare a major campaign issue?