My uncle runs the computer system for medicare. Last time we talked about it, he told me there were about 800M claims a year (almost 3 for every man, woman, and child in the country). I think he could find a job elsewhere, with his skills. My cousin was Clinton's attorney, advisor, and on the short list to be Secy. of State. He also was attorney for Dukakis and Mondale before that. Basically what John Dean was to Nixon. He died in 1996 at the age of 47. I think he was a traitor (literally, Barfo), for things he did as a vietnam war protester. Many vietnam vets feel the same way. Loved him anyway, like a big brother.
This isn't about measuring one's penis here. My grandfather flew planes for the Navy during WWII. My other grandfather protected the Oregon coast with the Coast Guard during the same campaign. This isn't about who in our family's did what and for how long. I was merely asking if you, personally, have firsthand knowledge of the government and how it works? I worked in the Portland Office of Emergency Management for six months. I am a member of government organizations like the Neighborhood Emergency Team and Civil Air Patrol. I have done work with the Oregon National Guard. I have been around government quite a bit, and let me tell you, government doesn't know its head from its ass. It is one of the most poorly run organizations in existence. They spend money frivolously. They are inefficient. This isn't just on a state level, but a federal one as well. My point is, we are putting a lot of power in the hands of our government, now more so than ever before. The intention of my original post was that we might as well just put our lives in the hands of the government completely, with the way we're going. But you might not want what you wish for. I can't think of a single government program that is run efficiently. I can't think of a single government program that can sustain itself. We want to hand health care to the government, and I can't think of a bigger mistake. It will be run inefficiently. It will be poor quality. There will be long waiting lists. They won't have the best equipment or doctors. They won't be able to get rid of bad employees because of the unions. Basically, it will be like the Portland school district. It will be run by unions. They will have amazing benefits though.
No, that's not what you asked. This is. You asked me a question and I gave you an answer. I'm not showing you my penis, asking you to show me yours and I really don't care about the size of it. I gave you, I feel, an appropriate answer for what you asked. You want to have an open and honest discussion about the many things that are wrong with this country and our government I'm for that. I've been a moderate Republican for most of my life. There are many things about government that I'm not pleased with. But it seems like you keep wanting to take things to an extreme to prove your point. You post you want the government to wipe your ass I respond by making a very dumb joke about socialized sewers. That pisses you off, you get upset and ask somewhat of a rudely phrased question. I respond by giving you an answer and using 1 family member as basis for that reply. You dismiss my reply but then give 2 of your own family members history in response. I just don't get the feeling that you want to have any sort of discussion. An argument sure, but not a discussion.
Elections have consequences. Senator Obama ran as a moderate, and people believed him. The Republicans didn't put up much opposition. For those of us who knew him as an Illinois State Senator, his positions and policies are no surprise. David Frum, however, is dead wrong about the Republicans being the ones who didn't want to work with the Democrats. I can remember Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins going out of their way to work on this bill. They were shut out of the process. From March, 2009 until February, 2010 there was no bi-partisan meeting with the President or the Leadership to discuss health care. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could have easily made this a bi-partisan bill; it was their choice to make it rigidly ideological. My fear, is that we change to a de-facto parlimentary system where both sides pursue fringe legislation on the basis of 50% +1. Megan McArdle, however, says it better than I could: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/03/the-future-after-health-care/37799/ Congratulations to the Democrats; this bill has been the dream of the far left for decades. I'm reminded of the ancient Chinese curse: May you get what you wish for.
Megan McArdle was apparently sleeping until 2006, considering she writes this: She has gotten it completely reversed. Republicans did this with their majority and now, when Democrats are doing it, conservatives are complaining that it's not fair. I remember these exact issues of whether the Democrats should use the filibuster to obstruct Republican agenda, since Republicans insisted that elections have consequences and it was their agenda to push through, and Republicans threatening to use the "nuclear option"...voting to remove the filibuster. Tyranny of the majority? Perhaps, and that may or may not be problematic. There's a fine line between an opposition party trying to win a compromise and simply trying to gum up the works. I don't have the answer to how this should be structured, but the idea that Democrats have unveiled a new and horrific method of politics is patently absurd. This is business as usual...Republicans are just (rightfully) frightened of the fact that this time it was used to put in place something that they probably can never get rid of and may in fact represent merely the beachhead to a much more sweeping system that they don't want. That's fine...they can be as upset as they want about that. But acting like Democrats went out-of-bounds to do it doesn't wash. Republicans have tread the same ground. (This, incidentally, wasn't necessarily meant to be directed at you, maxiep, as you didn't claim in your post that this was something new and unfair. It was more aimed at McArdle and those who say similar things.)
wtf. serious? so people who don't have insurance just get it for free? i thought it was just a requirement that you had to get healthcare insurance. hmmmm...this is weird.
Pre-exsisting condition people, everyone is forced to get it, if not, have to pay some fee so the govt controls that persons healthcare
In one of my many incarnations, I ran the accounting for all the Chore Services in King County (Seattle). When you are dying of cancer, you will be very glad if you can find those services subsidized.
