Good night everyone - everywhere on earth - Way way way off topic

[Fortiesboy 3]

I'm not being political, but can somebody explain the US hostility towards a National Health Service? I don't get it.

 

I do- It's the ideology of "Why the hell should I help you - Go and help yourself"

 

In the UK, part of your tax pays for the NHS so medical care is free. It's like buying a lottery ticket when you can't lose. If you need medical treatment, you get it. If you don't need any treatment, you still have the peace of mind of knowing help is there if you ever do need it. If you want to pay twice for private medicine then that's up to you.

 

Would I trust the NHS over and above private health care? Absolutely. The NHS is there to get me better, not to profit from my misfortune for the benefit of shareholders.

 

People run down the UK NHS because it's chronically under funded and fails people from time to time, but don't be fooled. The NHS is a wonderful institution and something the UK should rightly be very proud of and fight hard to defend.

 

Very well said, Sir.!

 

I am reminded of a certain parable. It seems the Anti-Obama-health bill supporters walking on the Road wouldn't give someone medical aid without first shouting

 

"wave your insurance certificate so i can see it - then I'll cross over, but only if it's not serious and chronic"

[rabu 9]

Which leads us neatly back around to my Original post about Greed.

 

Disreputable Lawyers, Insurance companies and Banks are high on my Hitlist!

 

Yep, I agree, and most politicians are lawyers, but there are many who also want the best for the rest of humanity and work in that direction, if there weren't this country would have turned into a monarchy by now with the continuation of the economic ripoff the last administration had conned us into.

[rabu 9]

When all is said and done, you have a Washington D. C. Beuracrat deciding if you live or die. the vast majority of Medicare money now, is spent on prolonging the lifespan of senior citizens. The solution to a heart operation is a pain pill. It's simple economics, why spend money to prolong the lifespan of a non-taxpaying individual

 

And as far as people in favor of the Heathplan. It's the old story of "The Squeeky Hinge, gets the oil"

 

The AMA or American Medical Association. That has as it's members, 25% of the Doctors

 

The AARP, whose members stand to be the first to get the pain pill

 

It's small suprise that the U.S. Surgeon General is in favor of the heaithplan, as he is appointed by the president himself

 

PS ... if it's sure to do all these wonderful, much needed things, why not start it tomorrow, not in 2013

 

 

Uncleal: It's a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy!... You're too much! Here's the actual time line (click).. yes, things take time, I'd love it to be instant too, who wouldn't? There was a lot of bartering with big business insurance interests to even get this watered down version passed, with delays in their favor.

[Olham 164]

UncleAl, I suppose you and I are far too small and unimportant, as that we should bother too much

about some deals we don't understand completely anyway, nor could stop them.

Tax money was always wasted in large amounts by any big power in history, even before the Romans.

 

Health care should not be the worst project to "waste" money on.

And that off-shore drilling:

be sure, that the USA will have their interests saved before spending the money. They are no idiots.

[Duce Lewis 3]

Sorry, Duce, I've got to make a comment here, you seem to be parroting every bad rumor about the bill and it's consequences and totally ignoring the facts that are actually known. Yes, it needs a lot of improvement, but it's a first step and does have a lot of really good things going for it.

 

Top recent health care Falsehoods (click here)

Well you have the right to dispute stated facts or analysis

However you didn't highlight any such of my comments

Mostly connecting verbage, light hearted comments, and final conclusions

 

So I picked one to look at: 4-500 Billion in Medicare Cuts

 

1st it's dangerous to use the internet for fact checking

There are a myriad of wesites, of BOTH political bends that distort, twist, and outright lie to sway readers

I prefer News Channels as you can gain experience with the commentators

Over time you gain a track history on who tells the truth and who'll stretch the truth

Ex. When watching pollsters I trust Rasmussen and ignore the LA Times

Rasmussen has a proven track record of calling Races close and giving unbiased commentary

Final election tallies show the LA Times consistently pads liberal candidates by 3-5%

 

But a-searching I went for written validation

Here's a CBS site: http://www.cbsnews.c...846-503544.html

CBS is a known quantity and leans left so you can trust it's not some right wing spin site

It's dated March 23, 2010, so it's current

Tab about 20% down and you will see a bullet stating 500 Billion in Medicare Cuts over 10 years

 

The. healthcare Bills costs are routinely projected over the 1st 10 years

Even though benefits will only appear over the final 6 years

The 2nd 10 years will therefore be more costly by 67% ...numbers trickery

 

Anyways, the link you provided above doesn't dispute there'll be 500 Billion less spent over thye next 10 years

...they call it "Reduction in Growth of Future Spending"

More trickery, with healthcare costs spiralling out of control, does anyone doubt more spending will be required to maintain current healthcare levels?

The undisputed fact is 500 Billoion less will be spent over the next 10 years than was planned

Some call it cuts while the more artful call it "Reduction in Growth of Future Spending"

[rabu 9]

True we are too small and insignificate in such a situation, but if your only source of notification is via the spoon feeding system, you would've never heard of it.

 

Somethings can't be bought for all the money printed. We have a Healthcare system which is broken granted, Obama is not offering to fix it, he wishes to replace it.

 

 

Q: Did Obama loan $2 billion to Brazil’s oil company to benefit China and George Soros?

 

A: The president had nothing to do with the loan, which the Export-Import Bank approved for Brazil to buy U.S.-made equipment and services.

 

This claim stems from a "preliminary committment" made back on April 14 by the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The bank intends to loan up to $2 billion to finance exports to the Brazilian oil company Petróleo Brasileiro S.A., known as Petrobras, over the next several years.

 

Again, you're off base.. read this (click here) for the truth about the Brizalian loans.

 

 

Oh, and by the way.. your article was from The Wall Street Journal.. kind of makes you think, doesn't it.. or does it? I hope you can.

Edited April 2, 2010 by rabu

[rabu 9]

Well you have the right to dispute stated facts or analysis

However you didn't highlight any such of my comments

Mostly connecting verbage, light hearted comments, and final conclusions

 

So I picked one to look at: 4-500 Billion in Medicare Cuts

 

1st it's dangerous to use the internet for fact checking

There are a myriad of wesites, of BOTH political bends that distort, twist, and outright lie to sway readers

I prefer News Channels as you can gain experience with the commentators

......snip... Anyways, the link you provided above doesn't dispute there'll be 500 Billion less spent over thye next 10 years

...they call it "Reduction in Growth of Future Spending"

More trickery, with healthcare costs spiralling out of control, does anyone doubt more spending will be required to maintain current healthcare levels?

The undisputed fact is 500 Billoion less will be spent over the next 10 years than was planned

Some call it cuts while the more artful call it "Reduction in Growth of Future Spending"

 

Hi, Duce, if you had followed some of my links you would have picked up on this, or maybe you just skimmed over things. The figures can be very misleading. Slowing down the growth of overall spending in Medicare does not necessarily imply cuts in benefit levels or services.

 

""Whether these are "cuts" or much-needed "savings" depends on the political expedience of the moment, it seems. When Republican Sen. John McCain, then a presidential candidate, proposed similar reductions to pay for his health care plan, it was the Obama camp that attacked the Republican for cutting benefits. Whatever you want to call them, it’s a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It’s true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage’s private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats’ bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the "doughnut hole," a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors."" (Click here for more on this)

You're right about internet information, you have to carefully judge by its history what the sites general standing has been, whether it's got an agenda or biased in one way or the other. The links I gave I have found consistantly look at both sides and report fairly.

 

As for TV News, CBS has really lost it's credibility in the last several years.. it's not so much what they report as it is what they leave out, even CNN has been less then reliable, turing more and more to sensationalism in it reports, and FOX, of course, is a joke.. they should rename it the Rush channel. About the only accurate news reporting I've seen consistanly has been on the Public network PBS channel.

Edited April 2, 2010 by rabu

[rabu 9]

So then it was purely a case of blind luck that Soros invested his bucks the way he did, when he did. Had Nothing to do with insider trading, because that might be illegal

 

I never read it any newspaper, but it sure seems newsworthy to me

 

Your article, that you indirectly linked to, was from The Wall Street Journal.. kind of makes you think, doesn't it? And I guess that gets us back on course with the subject of this thread.. greed?

Edited April 2, 2010 by rabu

[Duce Lewis 3]

Hi, Duce, if you had followed some of my links you would have picked up on this, or maybe you just skimmed over things. The figures can be very misleading. Slowing down the growth of overall spending in Medicare does not necessarily imply cuts in benefit levels or services.

 

""Whether these are "cuts" or much-needed "savings" depends on the political expedience of the moment, it seems. When Republican Sen. John McCain, then a presidential candidate, proposed similar reductions to pay for his health care plan, it was the Obama camp that attacked the Republican for cutting benefits. Whatever you want to call them, it’s a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It’s true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage’s private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats’ bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the "doughnut hole," a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors."" (Click here for more on this)

You're right about internet information, you have to carefully judge by its history what the sites general standing has been, whether it's got an agenda or biased in one way or the other. The links I gave I have found consistantly look at both sides and report fairly.

 

As for TV News, CBS has really lost it's credibility in the last several years.. it's not so much what they report as it is what they leave out, even CNN has been less then reliable, turing more and more to sensationalism in it reports, and FOX, of course, is a joke.. they should rename it the Rush channel. About the only accurate news reporting I've seen consistanly has been on the Public network PBS channel.

Sorry, I'm not going to read through all those links and try make your case for you

 

But I have to dispute your analysis on the 500 Billion

3 Points loom large

- 2011 will mark the start of the retirement of the Baby Boom Generation

This will place heavy strain on both Medicare and Social Security

One of the main reason Social Security is in trouble is the numbers of retirees will greatly increase and the number of those paying in is decreasing

Add to this that Medical Advances are increasing lifespans then benefits have to be paid over longer periods of time

These same factors will increase Medicare costs similarly

Medicare will likely be even more effected because of Health Care's spiralling costs too (> inflation rate)

It will Definately require more money to maintain current Medicare service levels

 

- It doen't matter what John McCain did!

How do know when politician is lying? ...when his lips are moving

All politicians use the payment language trickery

This is Barrack Obama's Bill and he is reponsible for its contents

Why is it so hard to admit that he'd play the language game?

You do admit that the 10 years taxes/6 years benefits is an attempt to make the Bill appear cheaper?

 

-Either way you call it, the 500 Billion is real money that was planned to be spent

If not, it couldn't be transfered to the Healthcare Bill

Did you hear anything about a planned 1/2 Trillion Dollar expansion in Medicare Services that had been planned? ...Nope not me

Not even our slippery politicians could've snuck that 1 by us

Only logical conclusion is that is was to maintain current levels

Whatever you call it, the Seniors will have 500 Billion less spent on them than was planned

 

Yikes!!! PBS ...far left!

Here's my take on the rest

ABC Leftwing

CBS Leftwing - lost it's credibility when it tried to use obviously falsified documents to throw the 04 election

NBC Far Far Left

CNN Leftwing but trying to moderate

Fox Rightwing, particulary Hannity and Beck are far right

But Fox is the only news source where you'll hear a conservtive speak without 3 liberals drowning him/her out

I like their Special Report at 6:00 EST

The last 20 min is a panel of 3 commentators

They try to get a conservative, moderate, and a liberal

The liberal is many times Mara Liason from PBS

They all give their points of view and are respectful to each other

This is the most informative and beneficial to the viewer

 

You might want to reconsider Fox

The nation is, their ratings are steadily increasing at the expense of the others

The public must know something

Try Shepard Smith at 7:00 EST, he's Center/Left

Edited April 2, 2010 by Duce Lewis

[rabu 9]

Sorry, I'm not going to read through all those links and try make your case for you ..snip..

 

Well, If you aren't open to other explinations, what's the point? I've heard both sides and from what I've read the supporting side makes more sense. And this isn't about winning an argument, but I've been amazed at all the slamming, mud slinging, and mis information that has been taking place in this whole issue, and yea, it is about greed, and power, why do you think these huge conglomerates have been pouring so much money into fighting it?

 

These expenses are all projections, no one knows for sure. But the fact is the lack of a health care system is costing us a lot more then the 500 Billion you're worried about and there are many others who could give you other projections showing savings based on the larger contribution base, the savings in jobs and lives lost, etc., etc.

 

The main thing is we finally have a health care plan. It's a start and it has a lot of good things going for it that many people desperately needed. It's going to hopefully be improved if people stay interested and insist on improvements. If people stay involved in pressuring congress to make more and better changes, but it's going to be really difficult because the battle is against the huge corporate medial monster that doesn't want the freedom they've abused weakened, very difficult, but it's a start.

Edited April 2, 2010 by rabu

[Duce Lewis 3]

Well, If you aren't open to other explinations, what's the point?

I'm open to any discussion

I just don't know which particulr statements you're dissagreeing with

If you point them out and and indicate which link holds the proof (as I did with the CBS site) I'd be happy to debate them

It doen't make sense for me to scan through trying to disprove myself

 

The main thing is we finally have a health care plan. It's a start and it has a lot of good things going for it that many people desperately needed. It's going to hopefully be improved if people stay interested and insist on improvements. If people stay involved in pressuring congress to make more and better changes

As I said in my original post, almost all realize we need reform

How much more interested can the country be than right now? ...they're out in the streets protesting pro & con!

Yes, it is a start, but in an extemely partisan direction

How can you successfully pressure Congress if they're locking their doors and shutting all other ideas out?

A health care Bill that is so huge (1/6 of the economy) deserves to have input from the whole country

They used every bit of trickery and pressure tactics to blackmail votes to ram this through

...even though the public is markedly against this Bill

Polls show the public is not against health care reform ...just this partisan Bill

The new Republican campaign message is "Repeal and REPLACE" not just dump it

Two points confirm this

- Congress was desperate to complete this Bill before the Easter recess

They didn't want the members to go home and face the public at town hall meetings

Did you seen how the proponents of the Bill were torn up at previous town hall meetings?

They knew they'd lose votes if the public's opinions were concidered

-Massachusetts is quite possibly the most liberal state in the union, home of the Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy - RIP

Their state assemblies are almost entirely Democrat and they have already enacted their own universal health care Bill

Yet even the Massachusetts residents hate this health care Bill!!!!!

They even elected a Republican to replace Kennedy!!!

And he ran on blocking this Bill

 

Congress is supposed to represent the people's will not demogog over the people

Scrap this Bill and start over ...it's what the people want

And the people's wishes are more important than either party's

That's what democracies are all about!

[Flyby PC 23]

Another belated thought on the matter regarding medical insurance...

 

We've had the NHS in the UK for 62 years, and now we all complain about the 'nanny' state we live in. But take a moment, - it wasn't the NHS who invented the concept, but private Insurance companies trying to avoid payouts by off loading liability back onto the victim, and more particularly the victims employer. (The employer MUST have insurance by law - coincidence???). It's a direct consequence of that, that we're now living in a 'nanny state' world which they've conspired to create. We don't live in natural fear we might be injured, but the contrived fear we might be sued.

 

If we're collectively sick of being fleeced for cash and treated like idiots, then lets be certain we all agree where the blame lies. If a American national health service takes power away from these insurance companies, then as far as I can see, that has to be a step in the right direction.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Another belated thought on the matter regarding medical insurance...

 

We've had the NHS in the UK for 62 years, and now we all complain about the 'nanny' state we live in. But take a moment, - it wasn't the NHS who invented the concept, but private Insurance companies trying to avoid payouts by off loading liability back onto the victim, and more particularly the victims employer. (The employer MUST have insurance by law - coincidence???). It's a direct consequence of that, that we're now living in a 'nanny state' world which they've conspired to create. We don't live in natural fear we might be injured, but the contrived fear we might be sued.

 

If we're collectively sick of being fleeced for cash and treated like idiots, then lets be certain we all agree where the blame lies. If a American national health service takes power away from these insurance companies, then as far as I can see, that has to be a step in the right direction.

 

That's the most sensible thing I have read so far!

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Duce Lewis wrote:

 

That's what democracies are all about!

 

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

 

 

It is time that our government of the people, by the people, and for the people, became just that once again. I love my country, been proud to serve her, and am truly blessed to call her my home, and I am both sad and angry when I see where we are allowing her to go. I would remind all citizens of the United States of America to recall July 4th, 1776 and to remember the opening words of our own Declaration of Independence:

 

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

Lou

 

 

.

[12oclockhigh 0]

What I find interesting is to hear Americans rail against socialism when they spend some 600 billion dollars a year on the military, which is essentially state owned business.

[Duce Lewis 3]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

I hereby knight thee Sir Lou

 

Ol' Ben sure had a way with words eh?

[Flyby PC 23]

.

 

Duce Lewis wrote:

 

 

 

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

 

 

It is time that our government of the people, by the people, and for the people, became just that once again. I love my country, been proud to serve her, and am truly blessed to call her my home, and I am both sad and angry when I see where we are allowing her to go. I would remind all citizens of the United States of America to recall July 4th, 1776 and to remember the opening words of our own Declaration of Independence:

 

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

Lou

 

 

.

 

A small extract from the Declaration of Arbroath, 6th April 1320, six years after Bannockburn. (A letter to the Pope written in Latin and signed by 38 Scots Lords. It is formal affirmation of Scotland's independence which was recognised by the Pope).

 

 

Yet if he (meaning King Robert the Bruce) should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

 

Quite similar expressions of sentiment don't you think?

 

I cannot help but wonder what such people would think about our current 'democracy'.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Yes Flyby PC, there are some strong similarities in the two documents, and it has been argued over the years that the Declaration of Arbroath was one possible source that Jefferson used. It is quite certain he looked to ideas expressed in both the English Bill of Rights of 1688 and the Magna Carta when he drafted the U.S. Declaration of Independence, (and the Virginia Constitution), and there are also phrases taken directly from the Virginia Declaration of Rights written by George Mason. The idea that freedom is THE basic, God-given human right goes back eons, and fighting for and defense of such freedom has gone hand-in-hand with the belief.

 

If you would like yet another earlier example of the core ideals expressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, here is an excerpt from the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe, (Dutch Declaration of Independence), written in 1581:

 

"As it is apparent to all that a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them. And when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view. And particularly when this is done deliberately, unauthorized by the states, they may not only disallow his authority, but legally proceed to the choice of another prince for their defense. This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives.

 

 

.

 

 

 

Now then, Duce Lewis, about that knighthood Sir...gosh...I mean...aw shucks, I'm speechless...

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Olham 164]

UncleAl, that is still what I was saying at the start of this thread - almost every country,

everywhere on earth, seems to have a deep finacial crisis; seems to make new debts

every year. So there must be something fundamentally wrong with the way the stock

exchange deal with the money.

[rabu 9]

Can't figure out how THIS is a Part of Healthcare, but it's in the Bill. That's what I get for never attending Law school

 

Starts on page 1312

 

SEC. 430. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.

 

Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:

 

SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.

 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.*

 

(1) IN GENERAL.* There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.

..snip....

 

But is this the act to repair it, or a massive power grab, under the guise of repairing it

 

 

The truth about the new Ready Reserve Corps is a lot less interesting than the conspiracy theories. Before the law was passed, the Public Health Service, unlike other elements of the government’s seven uniformed services, didn’t have a "ready reserve" – a cadre of individuals who could be called up involuntarily in times of need. What it had was a regular, full-time corps of 2,800 doctors, nurses, scientists and other medical professionals, which was the limit under law. It also had a reserve corps. But most of the individuals in the reserve corps, which was larger than the regular corps, were on extended active duty for the duration of their careers; in other words, they worked full-time, just like the regular corps, because they were needed, but the statutory cap prevented the service from bringing them into the regular corps.

 

The new law eliminates the personnel cap and brings the members of what used to be the reserve corps into the regular corps, which as a result now numbers about 6,600, according to an official at the Public Health Service who spoke to us on background.

 

And the law creates the ready reserve of individuals who can be called up for service by the U.S. surgeon general in times of need; the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is often used as an example of an incident that might trigger a call-up.

 

Officials at the PHS are in the process of developing regulations that will determine how the Ready Reserve Corps is populated, but the person we spoke to said there will be limits on how long individuals could serve on active duty. Those who are activated will be paid for the duration of their service, and the bill provides $12.5 million per year through 2014 for the Ready Reserve.

 

It’s unclear at this point how large the Ready Reserve will be, but a number in the neighborhood of several thousand has been mentioned. The PHS had been hoping to create the new team for several years, for reasons that may have been best described in a 2008 report, Blueprint for a Healthier America, published by a nonprofit group called the Trust for America’s Health to help guide the next administration and Congress:

 

Blueprint for a Healthier America:

There are not sufficient numbers of public health professionals to respond during major health emergencies, and when Corps members are called away to respond to emergencies, it means their ongoing functions are often neglected. If a “Ready Reserve” program was created, retired members of the Corps could become reservists who could be deployed on short notice during emergencies, or could fill in at federal agencies when active members are needed during emergencies, to ensure ongoing functions are carried out. Reservists would be required to participate in an appropriate number of drills and training throughout the year. Members of the reserve could also help fill in to provide services for underserved communities where health problems are the greatest.

 

Jerry Farrell, executive director of the Commissioned Officers Association, told us that the Ready Reserve can help the PHS avoid situations such as what happened after Katrina, when so many members of the regular and reserve corps were dispatched to New Orleans and other areas hit by the 2005 hurricane that "the corps discovered, for instance, that they had deployed a whole surgical clinic of the Indian Health Service."

 

Needless to say (we hope), there is absolutely no support for this chain e-mail’s speculation that uniformed members of the Public Health Service would be ordered to give "lethal injections (a.k.a. vaccinations) to ‘unworthy people.’ "

 

–Viveca Novak

 

 

Sources

Hamburg, Richard. Deputy Director, Trust for America’s Health. Interview with FactCheck.org. 6 April 2010.

 

Trust for America’s Health. "Blueprint for a Healthier America." October 2008.

 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Pub. L. No. 111-148. Enacted 23 March 2010.

 

Farrell, Jerry. Executive Director, Commissioned Officers Association. Interview with FactCheck.org. 6 April 2010.

 

 

 

 

[rabu 9]

I'm open to any discussion

I just don't know which particulr statements you're dissagreeing with

If you point them out and and indicate which link holds the proof (as I did with the CBS site) I'd be happy to debate them

It doen't make sense for me to scan through trying to disprove myself

Haven't got time to link each fact, but I would like to comment on a few of your statements:

 

As I said in my original post, almost all realize we need reform

How much more interested can the country be than right now? ...they're out in the streets protesting pro & con!

Yes, it is a start, but in an extemely partisan direction

How can you successfully pressure Congress if they're locking their doors and shutting all other ideas out?

 

Shutting what other ideas out?.. the Republicans were continually asked by Obama and others to come up with something better, or workable, and they backed off each time, only insisting that any change basically only should benefit companies. There were constant complaints, fear mongering and predictions, but no worthwhile proposals.

 

A health care Bill that is so huge (1/6 of the economy) deserves to have input from the whole country

?

They used every bit of trickery and pressure tactics to blackmail votes to ram this through

...even though the public is markedly against this Bill

 

They did nothing different then what Republicans have done in the past when they were in majority control.. thats just politics.

 

Polls show the public is not against health care reform ...just this partisan Bill

The new Republican campaign message is "Repeal and REPLACE" not just dump it

See my comment above, they have no clear or backed up plan of what to replace it with, they just want to get rid of it to the benefit of health insurance big business, and at the expense of most of us who have to foot the bill for their greed.

 

Two points confirm this

- Congress was desperate to complete this Bill before the Easter recess

They didn't want the members to go home and face the public at town hall meetings

Did you seen how the proponents of the Bill were torn up at previous town hall meetings?

They knew they'd lose votes if the public's opinions were concidered

-Massachusetts is quite possibly the most liberal state in the union, home of the Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy - RIP

Their state assemblies are almost entirely Democrat and they have already enacted their own universal health care Bill

Yet even the Massachusetts residents hate this health care Bill!!!!!

They even elected a Republican to replace Kennedy!!!

And he ran on blocking this Bill

 

This is a favorite tactic of those opposing something, making it sound like there is only one answer or the other.. the point is, the race in Massachusetts was won by a Republican because the Democrat running was an idiot and made really bad choices. Here's a good article by The New York Times, if you're interested. (click here) "There are many theories about the import of Scott Brown’s upset victory in the race for Edward Kennedy’s former Senate seat. To our minds, it is not remotely a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor does it amount to a national referendum on health care reform.." This isn't just an opinion of the NYT either, you'll find it in many reputable news articles.

 

Congress is supposed to represent the people's will not demogog over the people

Scrap this Bill and start over ...it's what the people want

And the people's wishes are more important than either party's

That's what democracies are all about!

That's just your opinion based on protests that you seem to be aligned to. I respect your view point, and I too think the bill could be a lot better, but I don't share your feelings that it should be scrapped.. if it came to that, I don't think we will ever see the start of a health care plan in this country.

[rabu 9]

I feel left out, because I've never received said Email. I must agree the injection giver is most creative. Perhaps you can tell me how many of these Sources existed two years ago, because they all sound like they were manufactured recently in a liberal think tank. With the possibility of one from 2008. Kind of like the American's Against Wall street, who picketed when Lord Obama was attempting the GM take-over

 

 

I don't think you are open to anything.. you've got your mind made up and that's it.. oh well.

[Duce Lewis 3]

That's just your opinion based on protests that you seem to be aligned to. I respect your view point, and I too think the bill could be a lot better, but I don't share your feelings that it should be scrapped.. if it came to that, I don't think we will ever see the start of a health care plan in this country.

Well I think we've both made our viewpoints clear enough

We have both chosen the political philosophy that most closely aligns to our individual beliefs (not the other way around)

 

The debate is an old one:

Who is responsible for an individual?

Is the State required to provide for all his needs? (Welfare, Healthcare, etc.)

Or is the individual required to provide for his own needs (self reliance), with the State taking a limited role? (Roads, Municipal Services, etc.)

 

But my closing remarks will be based on a simple saying

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

It is far greater to teach an idividual to provide for themself than simply feed them like a canary in a cage

Far better to create a jobs skills program or give tax breaks to businesses who provide educational financing

The individual can then attain a job with healthcare, put food on the table, finance a home, and pay taxes to finance the next person in need

 

I'd venture to say that 99% of Americans would agree to such a self help program

It allows an individual to lift himself out of poverty with minimal burdon on the taxpayer

Personally I think it a very audacious act to reach into 1 individuals pocket and give his hard earned income to another, who the Gov't thinks is more deserving

Especially when thee is no requirement for the recipient to improve his situation

Meaning, the Gov't will be back tomorrow to take another load of cash and give it away again!

 

Liberal Philosophy is quite different than this

It is well meaning, most liberals I know are very caring and want to help an individual in need

They favor the direct approach; Give income/services to those who are in economic trouble (giving the man his fish)

Over time this has led to the creation of a huge entitlement system

The Welfare State or as the Brits call it a Nanny State

 

Welfare programs and other entitlements require enormous sums of cash to fund

And it's never ending as there's no encouragement to join the working class and become self sufficient

And why should they?

With minimal skills (which got them into this situation) a menial job won't pay much more than welfare

Raisng the Minimum Wage (another well meaning liberal idea) has also made those menial jobs unprofitable in the USA

Those low paying jobs, that will get them started into the workforce, are now in India and China!

 

Welfare has sadly created a large underclass of people wholly dependant on the Gov't

Trapped in a depressing lifestyle without opportunity

No wonder drug use is so high, trying to escape the reality of their lives

And as drug dependency increases, so does the need for money to buy it, and the willingness to steal to get it

In another well meaning gesture, extra money was given to single parent households and those with more children

The unintended consequences are that divorce rates and unwed mother child birth rates are far above average

Further, how much time does a single parent have to tutor their child and if unwanted, how much desire

Education levels are also at all time low levels in Welfare Neighborhoods

Ahhh ...but we give them their fish every day!!!!

 

Contrast this with the self reliant pioneers who explored, settled, and built America from pure wilderness

They had no entitlement programs, just their desire and work ethic

Truly there is no motivator like "sink or swim" and with this they built the USA into an industrial power

Not that they didn't care for one another, the community may have a home building party to get a new couple started

Each in turn would help the next generation, else be ostracized

 

Sadly, this sense of community is being replaced by Ma & Pa Gov't

Increasingly we look to Gov't to provide for our needs as if it has a bottomless pit of money

Instead of helping one another, we've turned on each other

"Make those dirty businesses pay taxes, they're all crooks anyways"

"It's those insurance companies denying claims to rip us off"

"Tax the rich, they're making too much money"

 

Sigh!! Does anyone stop and realize that it's these companies who hire us and give us a paycheck for our labor?

...that these insurance companies pay out BILLIONS of dollars in ACCEPTED CLAINS every year?

...that insurance companies, like any business, have to watch their bottom lines, and therefore scrutinize claims to be sure they meet the contract?

...that the rich are rich because they are successful in business, medicine, whatever?

...and if we tax success, there will be a lot less success?

 

Yep, there're crooks who'll play the capitalist system

Catch em, lock em up, and throw away the key

Throw away capitalism instead and we'll enjoy a brief spurt of prosperity due to running up huge deficits

Eventually, it'll all implode, like Greece, when the money runs out

 

But the ultimate socialist said it best:

Democracy will fall when the people realize they can vote themselves money - Karl Marx (sorry I can't verify the quote, but whether it was actually he who said it doesn't negate the meaning)

 

Rabu, I'm sure you'll counter with some left wing website that hails the social success of welfare

...or write it off as right wing propaganda

That's fine, I yield to you the last word

We've beat this dog enough

But the real national opinion on healthcare will be cast come November

[Olham 164]

UncleAl and all:

 

Please stop naming and blaming individual political personalities here - the USA are

a democratic system with elections, and you have to accept the elected president,

wether you elected him or not.

I am sure, that many people had problems with his predecessor - but he was elected

and therefor the President of the United States.

 

That is a basic rule of democracy. In opposition to dictatorships, they are trying to find

the solutions in compromises. And we all know, that compromises rarely ever make many

people totally happy. But, as someone said: "There are no perfect solutions for all, but

the democracy is the best of all non-perfect solutions." (Or similar)

 

So it would be great, if we could care for the general, almost philosophical question,

what goes wrong with the value of our work, called "money", and were it goes,

instead of naming individual political personalities.

It is not fixed to single persons, it is a generally wrong way.

I'm not afraid to name people - but by doing so, you never touch the core of such a problem.

 

So I'd be very grateful, if we could all stop throwing names around here and use our phantasy

to describe the problems in their general terms.

Thank you all.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Olham

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

UncleAl and all:

 

Please stop naming and blaming individual political personalities here - the USA are

a democratic system with elections, and you have to accept the elected president,

wether you elected him or not.

I am sure, that many people had problems with his predecessor - but he was elected

and therefor the President of the United States.

 

So it would be great, if we could care for the general, almost philosophical question,

what goes wrong with the value of our work, called "money", and were it goes,

instead of naming individual political personalities. It is not fixed to single persons,

it is a generally wrong way.

 

I'm not afraid to name people - but by doing so, you never touch the core of such a problem.

 

So I'd be very grateful, if we could all stop throwing names around here and use our phantasy

to describe the problems in more general terms.

Thank you all.

 

Indeed!...If we even mentioned the 'Previous President' we would have to bring the level down to that of Pond Life, in case The 'Previous President' had trouble understanding the Big Words used