Health Insurance Bill

[Paul Wolfe]

My question is now as it has always been, has our government truly looked at this issue in the right way, it seems that the current administration only sees one view and that anyone outside of that view is not looked upon favorably. And the alternate view (Republican) is just to oppose for the sake of opposition. Neither of those views represent what is best for the American people in my opinion.

This has nothing to do with the current administration. The Bush administration behaved exactly the same way, as did the Clinton administration... go back for ages, our government is about protecting the politicians and the rich. The rich companies "lobby" (read 'throw money at') the politicians to get laws passed in their favor. The Senators and Congressmen/women accept the lobbyists' "incentives" and tailor the laws to benefit those who have "donated" the most to their government.

We like to point the finger at "Communist" nations and "Socialist" nations and say, "They are corrupt..." The United States is as corrupt as any other nation on earth.

Do we have a good quality of life? For the most part, yes. However, we have a LONG way to go.

To go off topic for a moment, where is the thought process of our government when our schools are churning out illiterate students, we have a huge homeless issue and unemployment is at 10.2 %, yet we have an annual budget of $17.3 billion for NASA to explore ways to locate water on the moon and Mars? Apply that money to the education system and we might be able to turn out brighter students who can apply their intelligence to finding ways to better society.

We have all kinds of room for improvement in the US. The health care issue is going to take a long time to get it right. That is simply because we've allowed healthcare to get so far out of control that it'll take time to work out. Same for our education system aand unemployment. We seem to be a nation of extremes these days. We wait for an issue to get to a critical point before dealing with it. Then "we" (read 'the politicians') only do enough to calm the public until they pick up a new cause. Remember how the illegal immigrant issue was all the rage a short time ago? Instead of resolving that issue, the smoke and mirrors guys diverted the attention elsewhere.

Our children will have decent healthcare by adulthood if we force the politicians to stay on track now. Unfortunately, it will take that long.

[oth]

My question is now as it has always been, has our government truly looked at this issue in the right way, it seems that the current administration only sees one view and that anyone outside of that view is not looked upon favorably. And the alternate view (Republican) is just to oppose for the sake of opposition. Neither of those views represent what is best for the American people in my opinion.

This has nothing to do with the current administration. The Bush administration behaved exactly the same way, as did the Clinton administration... go back for ages, our government is about protecting the politicians and the rich. The rich companies "lobby" (read 'throw money at') the politicians to get laws passed in their favor. The Senators and Congressmen/women accept the lobbyists' "incentives" and tailor the laws to benefit those who have "donated" the most to their government.

We like to point the finger at "Communist" nations and "Socialist" nations and say, "They are corrupt..." The United States is as corrupt as any other nation on earth.

Do we have a good quality of life? For the most part, yes. However, we have a LONG way to go.

To go off topic for a moment, where is the thought process of our government when our schools are churning out illiterate students, we have a huge homeless issue and unemployment is at 10.2 %, yet we have an annual budget of $17.3 billion for NASA to explore ways to locate water on the moon and Mars? Apply that money to the education system and we might be able to turn out brighter students who can apply their intelligence to finding ways to better society.

We have all kinds of room for improvement in the US. The health care issue is going to take a long time to get it right. That is simply because we've allowed healthcare to get so far out of control that it'll take time to work out. Same for our education system aand unemployment. We seem to be a nation of extremes these days. We wait for an issue to get to a critical point before dealing with it. Then "we" (read 'the politicians') only do enough to calm the public until they pick up a new cause. Remember how the illegal immigrant issue was all the rage a short time ago? Instead of resolving that issue, the smoke and mirrors guys diverted the attention elsewhere.

Our children will have decent healthcare by adulthood if we force the politicians to stay on track now. Unfortunately, it will take that long.

Excellent post....our priorities are slightly out of whack!

No disrespect here Trigger, but a lot of people here (and I do mean a lot), still hold to the fact that we (U.S.) were not set up to be a socialist country, we were actually set up to have less government involvement in our lives.

Britain isn’t a Socialist State or ever has been a socialist state, we have social based governments but that isn’t the same as a one party system which is often confused for Socialism, We can’t be a Socialist state because (sadly) we are a Monarchy.

To a lot of people socialized medicine (and that's just using this topic as an example) represents getting away from that principle.I understand but if the tax burden was like ours it would be less of a burden that some might like you to believe.

It can be argued that a nation of substance takes care of its assets Ie, its population because without a healthy populace the nation ceases to function.

My question is now as it has always been, has our government truly looked at this issue in the right way, it seems that the current administration only sees one view and that anyone outside of that view is not looked upon favorably. And the alternate view (Republican) is just to oppose for the sake of opposition. Neither of those views represent what is best for the American people in my opinion.

If that is true it is bad governance on the part of either wings of mainstream US politics and you need to examine the integrity and history of the parties concerned, as well as other competing current policies. Political figures are often sponsored by large industrial supporters which often put pressure on the politician to vote/support what is in the backers best interest which calls into question the integrity of your elected officials.

Great post.Lobbyists run every aspect of our policy making.Legalized bribery.
Read this on lobbyists influence-its nauseating:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/po ... .html?_r=1

[oth]

Just read the first few paragraphs below to see how company lobbyists write our laws and are corrupting democracy.This is from the new york times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/po ... .html?_r=1

WASHINGTON — In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.


Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: “I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.” He said he got his statement from his staff and “did not know where they got the information from.”

Members of Congress submit statements for publication in the Congressional Record all the time, often with a decorous request to “revise and extend my remarks.” It is unusual for so many revisions and extensions to match up word for word. It is even more unusual to find clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists.

The e-mail messages and their attached documents indicate that the statements were based on information supplied by Genentech employees to one of its lobbyists, Matthew L. Berzok, a lawyer at Ryan, MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok who is identified as the “author” of the documents. The statements were disseminated by lobbyists at a big law firm, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal.

In an e-mail message to fellow lobbyists on Nov. 5, two days before the House vote, Todd M. Weiss, senior managing director of Sonnenschein, said, “We are trying to secure as many House R’s and D’s to offer this/these statements for the record as humanly possible.”

He told the lobbyists to “conduct aggressive outreach to your contacts on the Hill to see if their bosses would offer the attached statements (or an edited version) for the record.”

In recent years, Genentech’s political action committee and lobbyists for Roche and Genentech have made campaign contributions to many House members, including some who filed statements in the Congressional Record. And company employees have been among the hosts at fund-raisers for some of those lawmakers. But Evan L. Morris, head of Genentech’s Washington office, said, “There was no connection between the contributions and the statements.”

Mr. Morris said Republicans and Democrats, concerned about the unemployment rate, were receptive to the company’s arguments about the need to keep research jobs in the United States.

The statements were not intended to change the bill, which was not open for much amendment during the debate. They were meant to show bipartisan support for certain provisions, even though the vote on passage generally followed party lines.

Democrats emphasized the bill’s potential to create jobs in health care, health information technology and clinical research on new drugs.

Republicans opposed the bill, but praised a provision that would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to approve generic versions of expensive biotechnology drugs, along the lines favored by brand-name companies like Genentech.

Lawmakers from both parties said it was important to conduct research on such “biosimilar” products in the United States. Several took a swipe at aggressive Indian competitors.

Asked about the Congressional statements, a lobbyist close to Genentech said: “This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.”

In separate statements using language suggested by the lobbyists, Representatives Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, both Republicans, said: “One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country. Unfortunately, many of the largest companies that would seek to enter the biosimilar market have made their money by outsourcing their research to foreign countries like India.”

[Trigger]

I don't believe that the US would not be able to establish heath care because Britain did straight after the devastation of WWII, we were also losing our cash cow 'The Empire' and the sheer cost of the war made rebuilding Britains cities almost impossible

Despite the above my Grandparents generation did it! and if you dig into our latest Trolls posts and read his reasons why it is impossible those same reasons for our system being impossible to create were given, yet the doubters were listened to and the project progressed and suceeded.

You can do it because you are rich enough to do it, all those companies who rely on you being gulable enough to swallow the crap they feed you will move on to develop other business. They know they have an easy ride and they will just find another field to expolit. Here in Britain we don't over tax the richest to keep our magnificent gift in place ordinary tax and our personel monthly top up keep it running just fine.

Also the latest Danny Fodal Troll is dead!

[tedeeoo]

Trigger,

First off thanks for answering my questions, you do a much better job of that than most U.S. policy makers or media. My statement about The U.S. not being set-up as a socialist country was only in reference to the U.S., it was not meant to insinuate that England is a socialist country as I know it is not, sorry for that misunderstanding. As for your remarks on the possibility of bad governance and examining the integrity and history of the parties, well, that's sort of the point of me questioning what they are presenting. As I stated in a later post than the one you answered, I think our government should look at systems that work (in this case healthcare) in places that have had them for a long while, and see what they can find that might work well for the U.S., not shove a poor bill down our throats and hope that it works out. Again, I am not claiming that I am right or anyone else is wrong in their views on this, I just think all Americans should be asking alot of questions. Many thanks for answers that were exactly what I was looking for, now about those Jake boots, lol!!!!

[tedeeoo]

My question is now as it has always been, has our government truly looked at this issue in the right way, it seems that the current administration only sees one view and that anyone outside of that view is not looked upon favorably. And the alternate view (Republican) is just to oppose for the sake of opposition. Neither of those views represent what is best for the American people in my opinion.

This has nothing to do with the current administration. The Bush administration behaved exactly the same way, as did the Clinton administration... go back for ages, our government is about protecting the politicians and the rich. The rich companies "lobby" (read 'throw money at') the politicians to get laws passed in their favor. The Senators and Congressmen/women accept the lobbyists' "incentives" and tailor the laws to benefit those who have "donated" the most to their government.

We like to point the finger at "Communist" nations and "Socialist" nations and say, "They are corrupt..." The United States is as corrupt as any other nation on earth.

Do we have a good quality of life? For the most part, yes. However, we have a LONG way to go.

To go off topic for a moment, where is the thought process of our government when our schools are churning out illiterate students, we have a huge homeless issue and unemployment is at 10.2 %, yet we have an annual budget of $17.3 billion for NASA to explore ways to locate water on the moon and Mars? Apply that money to the education system and we might be able to turn out brighter students who can apply their intelligence to finding ways to better society.

We have all kinds of room for improvement in the US. The health care issue is going to take a long time to get it right. That is simply because we've allowed healthcare to get so far out of control that it'll take time to work out. Same for our education system aand unemployment. We seem to be a nation of extremes these days. We wait for an issue to get to a critical point before dealing with it. Then "we" (read 'the politicians') only do enough to calm the public until they pick up a new cause. Remember how the illegal immigrant issue was all the rage a short time ago? Instead of resolving that issue, the smoke and mirrors guys diverted the attention elsewhere.

Our children will have decent healthcare by adulthood if we force the politicians to stay on track now. Unfortunately, it will take that long.

Paul,

I agree with your post 100 percent but I have to say it has everything to do with our current administration in the sense that it is our current administration that is dealing with this issue.

[Paul Wolfe]

Paul,

I agree with your post 100 percent but I have to say it has everything to do with our current administration in the sense that it is our current administration that is dealing with this issue.

True, what I meant to say is that it's not exclusive to this administration.

[cableguyxx]

This is what many fear to be the future of health care if taken over by the government:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_ ... ment_waste

Put a big dent in fraud and waste in existing programs, then submit a true bi-partisan bill that can be publicly viewed for a reasonable amount of time. Make sure anyone voting either for or against the actual bill, has both read, and understand it. That should be the process, instead of the panic-fest that is currently going on. I don't see how you can address both at the same time, and do it well. We deserve better than either party is offering at the moment(not necessarily better quality, better effort on the governments part). This isn't pointing to any particular presidency or party, just Government in general.

[Trigger]

I know that in the US everyone understands how powerful the country is and how wealthy you are as a nation, but this whole issue of healthcare seems confusing? Although I am not sure confusing is the right word.
The whole debate seems to be promoted by the anti lobby based on nothing other than promoting fear! Which is easy to do when a population is still reverberating to the problems caused by a financial crisis and the bank bail outs.
I hope that the things we discussed in this thread about the systems in place in Canada, Europe and even Cuba! Will make some people think about whether the anti lobby has anything other than base fear instincts to prey on.

All those things considered I find it odd that a nation who believes that nothing is impossible and was able to land men on the Moon, will see health care for all as impossible? Viewing this from a nation with universal health care and as a man with a personnel history involved in Politics. To me the whole way that people seem able to accept universal heath care as impossible makes your nation seem weak and impotent.

That isn't a slight on US members here because I consider you friends but it is an honest overview by somebody far away.

[cableguyxx]

There is a big difference between "impossible", and wanting to have it done right the first time. It's too important, and too big a part of the economy to be rushed. If it is rushed and done poorly, it will end up worse then it already is. Desiring it be done immediately for the sake of getting done is irresponsible, and ultimately would make the US weak and impotent.

[Trigger]

There is a big difference between "impossible", and wanting to have it done right the first time. It's too important, and too big a part of the economy to be rushed. If it is rushed and done poorly, it will end up worse then it already is. Desiring it be done immediately for the sake of getting done is irresponsible, and ultimately would make the US weak and impotent.

It took us in Britain about 2 years and considering how technology has moved on since the mid/late 1940's, I think that a couple of years of clear thinking within government will remove any fears.
This will be an amazing time for America and will free up money for people very fast due to not having to have expensive private provision to pay every month.

[Paul Wolfe]

I think that a couple of years of clear thinking within government will remove any fears.

Clear thinking in American politics? What's the word?... Oh Yeah, Oxymoron!

Truthfully, I hope clear heads can prevail, and, as Darin says, we can get it right without rushing to just get it done.

I think, as far as the lobby thing mentioned earlier, applying term limits to our Congress would help keep the politicians focused - and it might give other points of view an opportunity to apply for the offices every few years.

[cableguyxx]

I think, as far as the lobby thing mentioned earlier, applying term limits to our Congress would help keep the politicians focused - and it might give other points of view an opportunity to apply for the offices every few years.

Amen. Just saw the hoopla for the new longest in office, Sen. Byrd. Disgusting one could make a career out of politics.

[tedeeoo]

I know that in the US everyone understands how powerful the country is and how wealthy you are as a nation, but this whole issue of healthcare seems confusing? Although I am not sure confusing is the right word.
The whole debate seems to be promoted by the anti lobby based on nothing other than promoting fear! Which is easy to do when a population is still reverberating to the problems caused by a financial crisis and the bank bail outs.
I hope that the things we discussed in this thread about the systems in place in Canada, Europe and even Cuba! Will make some people think about whether the anti lobby has anything other than base fear instincts to prey on.

All those things considered I find it odd that a nation who believes that nothing is impossible and was able to land men on the Moon, will see health care for all as impossible? Viewing this from a nation with universal health care and as a man with a personnel history involved in Politics. To me the whole way that people seem able to accept universal heath care as impossible makes your nation seem weak and impotent.

That isn't a slight on US members here because I consider you friends but it is an honest overview by somebody far away.

I do not recall ever saying or hearing anyone say that this was "impossible", only that it needed to be done right and since when does an honest debate on an important issue make a nation "seem weak and impotent". Probably time for me to take the high road on this one.

[oth]

I think that a couple of years of clear thinking within government will remove any fears.

applying term limits to our Congress would help keep the politicians focused - and it might give other points of view an opportunity to apply for the offices every few years.

I disagree.Republicans all stick to the party line.They differ very litlle on view points.Ditto for democrats.This is because they are all paid off by the same lobbyists.The p;oitician may change but the lobbyist doesnt.
Max baucus got paid 4 million from hmo lobbyists and he s chosen to lead a committee on health care reform-you have got to be fuckin kiddin me right?
The best healthcare reform plan would be the one that the middlemen hate the most(hmo insurance) and serves them worst.I would love to see them driven out of business.I never understood why my life is a commodity for wall st profits.Its immoral at best.