Comments on: Feingold stands firm in support of public health care

By: GERALD KELSEY

GERALD KELSEY — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:26:40 +0000

I JUST READ WHERE TOP DEMOCRATS HAVE GIVEN IN TO THE REPUBLICANS ON TWO IMPORTANT POINTS IN THE HEALTH CARE PROGRAM!1.THE REQUIREMENT THAT BUISNESES OFFER HEALTHCARE TO EMPLOYEES AND 2.THE PUBLIC OPTION IS NOLONGER IN THE PROGRAM!!!!THIS IS REALLY A MISTAKE AND A DOWN RIGHT BROKEN PROMISE THE DEMS MADE TO THE VOTERS,I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO THE TOP DEMS ARE THAT FEEL THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO GIVE AWAY OUR LAST HOPE OF AFFORDABLE!! HEALTHCARE FOR ALL!COMPITITION IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE MAJOR INS/CARRIERS TO MAKE THEIR POLICYS AFFORDABLE.COME ON RUSS DONT LET THIS HAPPEN OR ALL IS LOST AFTER THE NATIONS VOTERS GAVE THE DEM/PATY THE MANDATE TO GET IT DONE .THANK YOU!

0 likes

By: Susan Tripp

Susan Tripp — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:07:03 +0000

THe US is unique among industrialized nations in allowing for-profits and selection of clients in health care, which leads to a huge bureaucracy, a waste of doctors’ time in talking with accountants in insurance companies, and sending patients to the ER for care. No wonder the US costs almost twice as much per capita but is 37th in quality. About 30% of health care dollar is spent in US on profits and bureaucracy in HMO/insurance companies. In a study of California single payer plan that has passed the state legislature several times, it saved the state money by getting these costs out. While single payer, like Canada, would keep our choice of doctors, having a non-profit public plan is a good second best. By the way a study of waiting times shows US waits are longer than Canada on average!

0 likes

By: PartiallyBlue

PartiallyBlue — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:49:48 +0000

Paid for? Money is so 20th century…

The Obama Plan shifts costs to people and adds government subsidies. In effect, it transfers wealth from the National Treasury to the insurance companies.
Both parties are very adept at this charade. Take foreign aid for example. Give HelplessStan $1B in military aid in exchange for them buying weapons from US defense companies.
Agribusiness? Give $500M in humantitarian aid to a country in exchange for them buying American farm products.
I call it looting the National Treasury.
I support any and every government program that directly benefits US citizens instead of having 5-15% skimmed off the top by intermediaries and leeches and parasites. It is my hope that the more tax dollars going to US citizens directly prevents more looting of our country’s wealth. Given the option of transferring wealth to ordinary US citizens or to global corporations, I choose the people.
I am not opposed to global corporations but I think that we all need to be mindful that our tax dollars directly support US capitalism.

0 likes

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:57:19 +0000

The four questions are irresponsible without these questions: Who is going to pay for it? and, what part of the Constitution allows the Federal Government to compete side by side with business?

Show me how it’ll be paid for and show me how it’s Constitutional….and then, maybe I’d consider taking this seriously.

0 likes

By: PartiallyBlue

PartiallyBlue — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:34:23 +0000

Agreed. A public healthcare option increases choices for people and companies.
I see nothing wrong with companies that would suspend their own insurance plans and ask employees to switch to a public option. I suspect that many of them will subsidize their employee’s healthcare purchase provided the company continues to receive favorable tax treatment on their contribution.
Yet, I still favor more options other than turning all healthcare over to insurance companies. There is something as odious about that as there is a single payer option (which I also oppose).

0 likes