A right to care
Emerson Lynn Jr.
Monday, September 14, 2009
It was an argument heavy with emotion; but it was the right argument.
In making a powerful case for sweeping health care reform to the nation before a joint session of Congress Wednesday night, President Obama quoted from a letter written to him by Sen. Ted Kennedy before he died. Health care, he wrote, is “above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”
At another point, the president observed that, beginning with Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, many U.S. presidents fought for universal health care for Americans only to be defeated by the special interests.
“I am not the first president to take up this cause,” he said, “but I am determined to be the last.”
Then the camera focused on Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, whose father, Rep. John Dingell Sr., began in 1943 submitting a national health insurance bill every year. His son has continued the quixotic quest.
It is, as Sen. Kennedy wrote, a moral issue; a matter of national ethical priorities. It simply is not right to allow people to die because they cannot afford the health care they need. But it happens every day in our nation. It is not right for families to be forced to rely on neighbors to hold bake sales, car washes and celebrity auctions to help them cope with a hospital bill or the ruinous cost of a life-saving or-gan transplant. It is not right to send thousands of American families into personal bankruptcy because of enormous medical bills, yet it happens every year.
Critics are rightfully skeptical of the president’s ability to transform the U.S. health care system without adding to the national deficit.
The possibility is there, as current studies show. Universal care would pay for itself if the cost-paring practices in place at such industry leaders as the Mayo and Cleveland clinics were made universal. To do that, however, would require the medical community to shrink itself and for many practitioners to accept dramatically lower annual incomes — or, absent that voluntary discipline — a level of government management Congress would be loath to impose.
But the facts are undeniable. Health care costs about 50 percent more in the United States as a percentage of gross na-tional product than it does in the other wealthy nations of the world and yet health outcomes in our country are not as good as they are in many countries with similar demographics and smaller economies.
It would, therefore, be possible to achieve universal health care in the U.S. without breaking the bank. It could be done by cutting out duplicative and unnecessary tests, using teams of doctors, substituting sal-aries for the fee-for-service compensation system, reducing the cost of medicines through negotiations with drug companies, reforming malpractice law and, in short, learning from the clinics and medical communities, which have discovered on their own how to practice very high quality medicine at a cost far below national per capita averages.
Will that happen without government fiat? The odds aren’t good. Investment bankers don’t have a monopoly on greed. Reform that paid for itself would require the amount of money flowing through the health care system to be cut back from the current 16-17 percent of GNP to the rich-nation average of 11 percent — where it should be. Such a prospect would raise an instant army in opposition who would dig in their heels and scream bloody murder.
Tens of millions of Americans would be better off under universal care; but those screaming thousands would lose some income and some status. So far in our history, from Teddy Roosevelt to Barack Obama, the thousands have carried the day. This time, with a little luck and a great deal of hard work, the millions could prevail.
Emerson Lynn Jr.
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
The law states that no one can be denied healthcare in the United States. That law was signed by Bill Clinton. Who is dying because they do not have access to healthcare? Which wealthy countries have a better outcome than the United States, and in what ways? The only one that I have heard any compliments on is France, and in 2005 13,000 people died in a heatwave because it overwhelmed their healthcare system. It was so bad that the hospitals quit answering their phones. Great healthcare, huh?
September 14, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
Is it really going to cost $900 billion to insure 10 or 20 million people without health insurance? If the number is 10 million people that is $90,000 for each of them for insurance. Spread out over 10 years, that is $9,000 per recipient, per year for health insurance. I shopped around and $2000 per year would pay for some decent health insurance from a large carrier on an individual policy with a relatively low deductible.
$9000? What are they going to buy with that? Super, awesome, mega, ultra, titanium insurance that will cover a month's hospital stay if a bird poops on your shoulder? You know, Congress's health plan. I understand that being accepted is the tricky part but its out there for much less than $9000 per head.
I have worked with doctors for many years and they don't invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in their education and training and take the legal risk they do to make under $100K a year. If a physician's reimbursement is cut then they will simply take higher paying jobs doing research or something that presents less risk and more reward.
Then who will care for the previously uninsured that will have their super, awesome, mega, ultra, titanium insurance? I don't think you can throw more money into a system in the name of access and cut reimbursement to the people doing the work and have a favorable result.
The basic questions are:
Who is getting served?
Who is paying for it?
What does the reality of a physician and nursing shortage mean for all of it?
September 14, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
When the gov't. is involved, about 70% of the cost goes to cover administrative fees. .3 x $9000 = $2700 for the health insurance, $6300 to fuel the political machine.
September 14, 2009 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
They don't invest $$ in their education to make less money?
Outsource 'em!!!!!
(Sarcasm)
September 14, 2009 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
From an IBD editorial
In a speech in California, Michelle, who has made a small fortune in the "helping industry," said: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. . . . Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual — uninvolved, uninformed."
Do you think they had compulsory service in mind for the doctors and nurses?
September 14, 2009 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Speaking of the 15,000 deaths during the France heatwave of 2005:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/...
"The new estimate (14,802) comes a day after the French Parliament released a harshly worded report blaming the deaths on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly...........
The heat wave swept across much of Europe, but the death toll was far higher in France than in any other country.
Hmmm...... "chronically insufficient care for the elderly"......
France population ~ 61 million
US population ~ 300 million +
Nearest I could find the 2005 heatwave killed over 250 people in the US.
I guess we should all be glad we're not ranked # 1.
September 14, 2009 at 5:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
Exactly Shoehorn! Got to pay for the bureaucrats whose pens will never write a script, admission or discharge order.
September 14, 2009 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Sounds like a french death panel to me!
September 14, 2009 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sure does, Sarah - er, sorry, I meant goodoleboy :).
It's tough to rate something as subjective as health care when comparing. Does being #1 mean that to give many people coverage many other people have a decline in the quality of their care, but adding 10 and subtracting 8 gives you a net + 2? How does a country of 60 million have 15,000 deaths in one summer from a heatwave, get a scathing report blaming it on their health system, especially "chronically" poor parts of it, and get ranked #1?
Hopefully we will take a good long hard look at all the health care systems around, and take the best from them and make it work and fix the worst in ours.
But, that would require a certain level of intelligence in our elected officials (not to mention purity and honesty in their motivation).
(Sigh). Well, guess that hope just went out the window.....
September 14, 2009 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Time to pony up and answer all the good questions here Emerson. Which countries are better, who's going to benifit?
Will I lose what I have and be forced to take the gov. ins. that may or may not be cheaper/better? Why should a doctor or nurse take a huge pay cut after spending years and thousands to be what they are? Will the congressmen, senators and gov. emp. be in it with us or will they still have their own? The list is endless and not one person has told us how this is going to be paid for!!
For my part if I need a heart opperation I'll take the doc charging 50K over the doc. charging 5K any day of the week.
Then we sure shouldn't forget that the gov. can't run
the post office, Fannie, Freddie, SS, Medicare etc. without losing our behinds in the process.
September 14, 2009 at 6:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
paulkersey (anonymous) says...
Who is this liberal nut, and why does the Gazette continue to allow him to write in their paper? This person Emerson is a left-wing nutcase, right on par with socialist war on capitalism kook Michael Moore. I don't want to read this drivel in my local newspaper!
September 14, 2009 at 6:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
"It was the right argument" (referring to Obama's speech). Those are the words of our illustrious editorialist Emerson Lynn Jr. He goes on to intimate that we should feel some kind of passion because Ted Kennedy (the same drunken coward that left Mary Jo Kopekni to die in his sinking car) says "it's a moral issue." So much for morality. Emerson Lynn Jr. goes on to give more morality from the same coward. I can't take much more morality from Senator Ted Kennedy, dead or alive. Mr. Emerson Lynn Jr. talks about how our federal government could pare costs. Is Mr. Lynn Jr. living in the same world that I live in? Our federal government has run up the largest national debt ever recorded in history. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicaire, Prescription Drugs, the Post Office, anything the government runs, is run in the red. I don't suppose anyone should tell Mr. Emerson Lynn Jr. about those overruns as he seems to be enjoying the bubble bath he is in. Has Mr. Lynn has given any thought to reforming what we have without socializing health care and putting us all under more beaurecrat's thumbs. The absolute dumbest thing we could do is to give this inept federal government more power to abuse. Sure there are tragedies, sure bad things happen. However, if we had a Congress that cared about it's responsibilities instead of the next re-election and a president that wasn't trying to consolidate power for his administration, maybe we could improve a lot of things. Our federal government has let 10% of Mexico, illegally cross the border to add to our health care and many other costs. From what I can see, the federal government is the problem, not the solution to the problem. Bigger government is not the answer.
September 14, 2009 at 6:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
YY4U, Frankly I'm sick of citizens electing representatives, senators, and presidents that don't have our the welfare of our citizens and country as their main purpose. We should elect candidates from what they have done in the past, not what they promise for the future......change!
September 14, 2009 at 7:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Who is this liberal nut, and why does the Gazette continue to allow him to write in their paper? This person Emerson is a left-wing nutcase, right on par with socialist war on capitalism kook Michael Moore. I don't want to read this drivel in my local newspaper!"
Liberal nut is a little much, the man does makes some very valid points, sure there is some propaganda weaved into it but the message is still that health care is broken, and if it not explain to me your reasoning please. I am sick of being healthy, leading a healthy lifestyle and watching premiums continue to rise. Hmm, me absorbing the burden of others... sounds like socialism or welfare to me. Tell me this, if he would have dropped the public option and tossed in tort reform would he be a "liberal nut'? Or just a plain old nut=)
September 14, 2009 at 7:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
What criteria are you using to determine that you are being overcharged? I recently had back surgery, I wasn't price shopping. I was researching the skills and experience of the surgeons that I was going to choose to do the job! Up until the last 65 yrs you didn't have to worry about prescription drugs, there weren't many! CT scans,MRI imaging,nuclear med,PET scans,bone density,stents,bypasses,organ transplants & stem cell therapy (70 plus clinical applications using adult stem cells) are all recent technologies. Do you think that they just might have some bearing on why things are more expensive? One interesting point, lasic eye surgery has come down in price. Why? Insurance won't pay for it, so competition has driven down the cost. Hmm,inovative concept, that free market thing.
September 14, 2009 at 7:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I think it all makes perfect sense if the goal is for the Chinese government to take over. First, outsource all the jobs, and put half the country on welfare (check). Next bankrupt the country and borrow large sums of money from China (check). Use it to make another system where the rest of the citizens become financially dependent on the government (almost check). Have the schools take over "emotional and social learning" (got a pamphlet home from the school about this during the first week) so the next generation will rely on the government for absolutely everything. By then, we will have borrowed a lot more from China and they will decide that it is time for the bill to come due.
Anyone ever wonder how the Chinese came by the amounts of money they can spare to "lend" us? Aren't they the ones who claim not to have any money because their communist system doesn't work...all the while, not actually changing it? Haven't they proven to us how destitute their country is many times when asking for aid? Why would their people be so impoverished, but they have trillions to spare? Maybe from years of taking 80% of their citizens' earnings and hiding it away....oh, and also the aid they got from us too...don't think that was ever even supposed to be paid back, was it? Might be wrong on that one. But anyway, it's still a good master plan.....not for us, but for someone, somewhere. Excellent investment on their part.
September 14, 2009 at 7:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"One interesting point, lasic eye surgery has come down in price. Why? Insurance won't pay for it, so competition has driven down the cost. Hmm,inovative concept, that free market thing."
Lasik costs have gone down because the tech is cheaper, early adopters paid the price, and much like flat screen tv, video game platforms, hell fake boobs have gone way down because of cheaper implants and improved techniques lol. New tech always goes through the same cycle, by your same analogies why are MRI's, CAT scans etc not becoming cheaper? Explain to me why routine medical procedures continue to rise?
I am overcharged, I am young, I exercise, eat right, been to the doctor 2 times in the last 5 years yet my premiums climb like clockwork every year. I'm told that the reason is to cover the deadbeats and the uninsured, still sounds like welfare or socialism to me........
September 14, 2009 at 8:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
Again, industry standards. Lasic is not covered. Imaging is if indicated as being needed. It sounds like welfare and socialism because it is, sorta. Your ability to pay is subsidizing those that don't. Price does come down as availability rises; supply and demand. The same thing is what drives inflation. How much money is floating around in the system, but that is another topic. What do you think would happen if you truly had the option of shopping for the best deal you could find (whatever that was to you, premiums vs coverage vs deductables) wherever you wanted to shop, regardless of state lines? What if you could actually pick and choose what you wanted in your insurance plan. What if you could decide on what your deductable would be for the different areas of coverage, similar to auto insurance or homeowners insurance?
September 14, 2009 at 8:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
what is this with the continual use of the word "overcharged"? How do you arrive at that conclusion? Compared to what?
September 14, 2009 at 8:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Industry standards are not applicable, you keep coming back to Lasik, my wife had, it my mother and mother in law had it. Funny each doctor said the same thing about the price being directly tied to more people adopting, and cheaper and better tech. 20 years ago Lasik was around and it was good for about 15-20 years, now the tech is better, better results, hence more people making the jump. And again, I'll wager in coming years that it does become covered by insurance as long term it would be cheaper than regular ophthalmology visits+contacts+glasses that need to be updated as prescriptions change.
So you see, your analogy with Lasik is not logical, results are driving Lasik, if supply and demand were applicable then I ask you again, why are MRI's, CAT scans and other routine medical procedures not coming down in price? The tech is better, the demand is up due to possible malpractice suits yet they continue to rise. Not buying it, come up with a better example, what your telling me makes no sense, I understand supply and demand very well, I paid attention in business school.
"The same thing is what drives inflation"
Health care premiums for the standard family of 4 doubled from 2000-2009, comparing inflation to health care is not even a comparison.
"what is this with the continual use of the word "overcharged"? How do you arrive at that conclusion? Compared to what?"
Overcharged is paying for something I rarely use but is necessary to ensure that I do not go bankrupt due to a freak accident. Think of auto insurance(although required) it is still something that one must have in this day in age to ensure if you or another is hurt that you are under the umbrella of your insurance. So yes I am competition is necessary but as of this writing is does not exist for health care, it is near impossible to beat any plan not sponsored by your employer. So I say again, yes I am overcharged, healthy people should be given the same discounts that people with good driving records enjoy, and before you give some off the wall analogy I am speaking in generalities.
September 14, 2009 at 9:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
You say my analogy was off the wall, yet you offer nothing else to explain the disparity? Imaging is paid for by providers, lasik is not. Medicare negotiates fixed pricing. If you think it is overpriced, don't buy it. You and I both agree on the pricing. It should reflect the individuals record and risk.
September 14, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"You say my analogy was off the wall, yet you offer nothing else to explain the disparity? Imaging is paid for by providers, lasik is not."
I have they are mutually exclusive and comparing them is not logical. Comparisons between auto and health however are very logical.
"If you think it is overpriced, don't buy it."
One cannot afford taking that risk, which is why practically everyone who is insured keeps it. It's the ultimate racket and would not exist in its current form in any other insurance market.
"You and I both agree on the pricing. It should reflect the individuals record and risk."
Yes I do, %100, I think people get a bad hand dealt to them, but I also think that our nation fails miserably to take care of itself, and if doing so had incentive's tied to it more people would participate and costs would go down. But I feel it's a lost cause, a lot of Americans see 0 wrong with an unhealthy lifestyle, and why not? It's not like they suffer any real penalty for it until the reaper comes.
September 14, 2009 at 10:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
YY4U,
I agree with what you are saying, except for one thing. Tort reform is needed, but the trial lawyers back the democrats which is why it is not in the bills. Malpractice insurance is broken insurance within broken insurance, they are breeding LOL!
September 14, 2009 at 10:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, you spoke of car insurance. I believe that this past week Peggy Mast said there were 17% in Ks. that DO NOT carry car insurance and 14% in Ks. that do not have health insurance. As I've said before if we quit giving illigals "free" health insurance, regardless of which land they are from. What does the word "illigal" mean? They have "bankrupt" not only our medical system but SS etc. FIX the medical system we currently have by: 1. illegals 2.quit allowing people to use the ER as if it is the "doctors office" for things that aren't truly "emergencies". Better communication concerning "medical services" (CAT scans,MRi's etc). We have had the best medical service in the world and can have again without allowing our government to "handle", which they have shown they truly don't have the ability.
September 14, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
YY4U, our current administration is every bit as much beholden to special interest groups as every other one. Just because they are beholden to different ones doesn't make it not so.
My personal definition of "overcharging" concerning health care is the difference between what the total bill is and the amount insurance gets written off. Pretty much routinely in the neighborhood of 50% much of the time for what I end up with. My question: If they're accepting 50% of the bill in the first place (from the majority of insurance companies, I presume) - then why is it so much higher? For instance, I get a bill for a procedure, say, $6,000 and the insurance discount rate is $3,000, of which they pay $2400 and I pay $600. Are they getting a tax writeoff taking a $3,000 "loss"?
September 14, 2009 at 11:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, good point which I imagine most of us have wondered concerning.
Thanks for your help with "cake", as ALWAYS, you are such a jewel. Thanks!!!
September 14, 2009 at 11:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
YY4U,
1st. the US Postal Service is in MAJOR problems!!! I was speaking with a "Post Master" just today who wondered how long their job would be available.
2nd. Not sure where you get the understanding that in 3 years one on SS will draw more then they paid into it. Afraid that isn't the case "always" as is with most things in life. Remember, allot of the burden placed on SS is the fact we are paying "illegals", who, yes, NEVER paid into the system.
3. Brown skin?? Why do you continually say that? I believe I said ANY illegal. As I said "What does the word illigal mean?"When considering "illegal", please tell me where the MAJOR portion of people who fall under that wording, come from?
Why do you feel we MUST continue to ALLOW illigals the benefits they receive. I don't know concerning you, but I do know that my forefathers came from other lands and they came into this land legal! They became part of this land, not wanting to fly their flag from another land, not wanting to speak thei language but the "American" language. Now, you can down me for what I've written, but I have friends that have come from other lands, the proper channel, took the citizenship test to become a "American". Believe me, you should talk to THEM concerning what is NOW being done in our nation! I also have "brown skin" friends that ARE american citizens and follwed the proper channels, speak the language we speak, fly the U.S. Flag etc. PLEASE! look up
"illegal". We can go to any drug store to get a perscription, a LEGAL drug. I suppose you feel we should be able to buy ANY drug, legal or not.
September 14, 2009 at 11:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kseyetie (anonymous) says...
"I agree with what you are saying, except for one thing. Tort reform is needed, but the trial lawyers back the democrats which is why it is not in the bills. Malpractice insurance is broken insurance within broken insurance, they are breeding LOL!" ====== The research on this suggests otherwise. Malpractice adds a couple-three percent to the overall cost. Believe me, the insurers would love to have a limit on your losses when a drunk doctor kills your spouse or kid. The newspapers usually sensationalize these cases in their early stages, ignoring the fact that the large awards are often severely cut back as the case works its way through various courts. Tort reform is not the largest issue here.
September 15, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
kseyetie,
"Tort reform is not the largest issue here."
Where did I say it was the largest issue? I said it is something that needs to be addressed in the bill. Malpractice insurance combined with the rest of this mess is causing us to lose doctors to other careers or jobs in the field with less risk. Doctors that we as taxpayers PAID for in part. Medicare funds residency's so as taxpayers we do have a stake in retaining physicians.
September 15, 2009 at 8:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
A friend of mine at work who was born in Mexico supports Obama. One time when we had people working with us from Somalia he complained about them being in this country. I know for a fact that the Somalians came here legally and he did not. What that has to do with health care reform I don't know but racism keeps being brought up for whatever reason.
Health care reform is going to happen. They are just being overly dramatic about it so it seems more urgent than it is. They want more power and more control, for job security I suppose. It surprises me some of the people that are falling for it. Oh well.
R.
September 15, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
YY4U
Try to keep up. This discussion is about racialism and the racish things that racists do racially.
R.
September 15, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, your point was well made. Tort reform isn't just solely about the $$ cost to health care. It also involves things such as you have mentioned that cannot be counted and totalled easily to come up with some number that states "tort reform will save us X $$".
I remember hearing on the radio awhile back someone talking about tort reform in MO - before the reform, X number of clinics and specialists had closed and left the state in the previous year. After the reform bill passed, a percentage came back, some clinics reopened, etc. You won't find that in your studies showing that tort reform is 1% of the cost.
September 15, 2009 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
giggles (anonymous) says...
Why not do health insurance like car insurance? You have liability or full coverage. In liability, you would pay for regular doctor's visits, and various tests out of pocket, only having insurance for major medical. In full coverage it's all covered. I bet those with liability would pick and choose their health care more carefully...
September 15, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
giggles (anonymous) says...
Sorry to be so "off topic" in my last post YY4U and serioulsy. : )
September 15, 2009 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
If a person dislikes NASCAR - hates watching their "races" - does that make them a racist?
:-)
Giggles, in a way, people do have that - there is insurance out there - I think its called "catastrophy" insurance or something like that - you have very high deductable, so you pay for most everything but if you have a major surgery or something it won't break you (much). And it doesn't cost as much. Like 8 or $10,000 deductable - someone correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sure the deductable limit is variable....
September 15, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
seriously, "racism" has nothing to do with medical reform BUT afraid having so many "illegals" does and not taking a stand to correct said situation especially in todays economy. If they are "illegal", you can bet THEY DON'T have health insurance for if they do have "employer supplied", many times they,self, will need to pay a percent and refuse wanting the money. If they need medical assistance, WHO do you think pays?
"We the People"! By various means, taxes, higher insurance premums, higher cost etc.
When we first came to town, in the late '60"s, my husband worked for "Iowa Beef" doing construction. "Iowa Beef" had just purchased the plant. While in school and in the summers, he worked first, the kill floor and then processing. I can remember him coming home and stating how the buses would come, once the plant got going, and load-up illegals and return to THEIR homeland. WE CHECKED their status. What happened to that process? Now, was that "racist"? Don't think so, common sense.
YY4U, I believe it states in this "medical reform" that illigals will NOT pay medical taxes that you and I pay into. But yet, are given the "right" for medical care. When we have had "foreign exchange" kids, they MUST prove when coming into our country that they have "medical insurance", a passport and sometimes, depending on what country they came from, a visa. They needed to take a test concerning the ability to speak and understand English. Have documented what their period of stay would be, etc. Now, just because they come "south of the border" we are to close our eyes??? At one time, we could just walk over to Mexico, not any longer. If you desire for some reason to go to Mexico, you must show documentation of your homeland and period of time you will be in Mexico. What is wrong with this picture???
September 15, 2009 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Mexico's immigration laws:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.ph....
September 15, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
No, YY4U, Mexico will NOT "just let you in". Please note what "open_eyes" has posted and from my own experience. The last time I went to Mexico, I had to have a VALID ID,which my Drivers License would do, state on a form my "expected length of stay" AND the reason why I was doing so.
YY4U, please keep in mind why we are discussing this and the possible reasons "why" our medical situation has risen to the state that it is in.
You have been a super "poster" and very informative at times. I believe this forum is to discuss and hopefully educate each other on a given topic, am I wrong?
September 15, 2009 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, thanks so miuch for the information "cut and paste". Very interesting and I sincerely wish OUR congress would take a look concerning.
September 15, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
I'm still waiting for Emerson to come up with some answers, but alas if the omnipotent barry can't answer those questions maybe I expect too much of Emerson.
September 15, 2009 at 8:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Hmmm.... when I bring it up I see Mike Huckabee's pic. No Coulter anywhere. Sorry, I know you think she's hot, didn't mean to get you all hot & bothered & distracted from the reading. Try these:
I saw pics of both Obama & Jay Leno on this site. Neither attracted me enough to distract from the article....... ;-)
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/l...
Or, if you'd like info from somewhere I'm sure you'll never see a pic of Coulter, here's an article from MSNBC titled:
Mexico bars immigrants from thousands of jobs
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12250584/...
September 15, 2009 at 10:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
YY4U, you left out an obvious avenue to becoming rich - politics. You'll get kickbacks, bribes, & donations, not to mention preferred housing rates from Fannie & Freddie while they're busy foreclosing on the rest of us, take your family & friends on vacations on the taxpayer dime to Italy like Pelosi, make $100 million like Gore, or, if you prefer to save up for a rainy day, just stash tens of thousands of $$ in your freezer ;-)
September 15, 2009 at 10:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
YY4U, I believe "open_eyes" was responding to your question "Who would want to visit Mexico", also from past
experience, with going on a cruise and entering a port of Mexico, if we got off the ship, were required to show our passport.
I sincerely hope,YY4U, you were able to "cool down"and in a "relaxed" state ;-) while reading the sights "open_eyes"
had posted!!!!!
Open_eyes, so glad that our president and Jay Leno didn't distract from your ability to read, I can't say either are attractive. I do imagine that if they had posted some "hot" hollywood actress, you might had said differently!! I did notice the advertisement for a travel site (plane), now that is exciting!!! Where can we go? Surely not Mexico, but Hawaii,watch out!!!!!!!
September 16, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
YY4U, the above post did concern "Health", YOURS!!!! Therefore, not off subject! I believe that could be called
"Health Reform"!!!!
September 16, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Here's the new Senator Max Baucus Health Plan filed today.
Get after it.
http://finance.senate.gov/healthrefor...
September 16, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
For you partisan junkies who want to make up your mind immediately, Senator Max Baucus is a Democrat from Montana.
September 16, 2009 at 9:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
So what if the health care bill says no coverage for people here illegally. Just make everyone legal and there ya go....
Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
September 18, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
If you disagree with Obama you are a racist.
If you disagree with Senator Max Baucus you are partisan.
It's always something and never legit.
What are you goin' to do?
Blindly follow I guess.
R.
September 18, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
If the same people that disagree with Obama agree with, say, Michael Steele, Condi Rice, Alan Keyes, etc....... what does that make them then?
September 21, 2009 at midnight ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"So what if the health care bill says no coverage for people here illegally. Just make everyone legal and there ya go...."
Reagan did just that, everyone on the right still worships him...
"If the same people that disagree with Obama agree with, say, Michael Steele, Condi Rice, Alan Keyes, etc....... what does that make them then?"
Someone questioning a politician? Carter is full of you-know-what, this race crap is a joke.
September 21, 2009 at 12:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Wrong, goodoleboy. Many on the right do NOT "worship" that aspect of Reagans presidency. As I've said before, EVERY admin has things I like and dislike, Just because someone overall approves of someone's presidency does not mean they worship every aspect. I know many people that are very favorable overall of Reagan's presidency but very unhappy with that aspect of it. Me included.
Question is - are there many on the left that are unhappy with some of Obama's moves? Of course there are. Just like every president. And also those die-hard ones that would continue to worship him if he sold the entire US lock, stock and barrel to another country for $1.
But you are incorrect when you state "Everyone".
====================================
Dead right on that point, goodoleboy. This race crap is a joke.
September 21, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32920370/...
I completely agree with what President Obama says in this article. There is still racism, of course, but the real debate is the role of our government. There are a few on here that seem to believe it's all about race. I hope they listen to the president and try to understand where the other side is actually coming from and not just lazily assume they are motivated by racism.
R.
September 21, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
"Sometimes they vote for me for that reason, sometimes they vote against me for that reason," Obama said"
Dead on, Mr. President. All those screaming racism pointing to the latter half of Obama's statement never seem to point out the other side of the coin (the first half of his statement). Both exist. Always have and unfortunately probably always will. But that is not what is driving this.
September 21, 2009 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
More people on here should read the article I linked.
bump
R.
September 21, 2009 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Rephrase time it was late last night=)
Most right wingers worship Reagan.
If Obama grants amnesty as Reagan did, he will lose my vote next election for that issue and that issue alone.
September 21, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )