The US has very good health care providing you work for a great company or are rich. We are the only western nation in the world that ties health care to employment. With health care costs rising at a rate of 9% per year companies especially small business will no longer be able to afford insurance for their employees in the near future. Large city hospitals are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year providing health care through their ER's for the uninsured which the tax payer has to pick up anyway. Since Pres. Truman reform has been tried but each time it is squashed by the big insurance companies who right now are spending 1.5 million a day on lobbyists to do it again with fear and misrepresentation. This country is at a crossroads(pay me now or pay me later) after decades of neglect when it comes to health care because more and more will either lose their insurance or will not be able to afford it in the near future. Read the NY Times Sunday Editorial page for today. It breaks down the proposals being debated and how it will affect people of different age groups and costs involved. In order to make an informed decision about this subject people need information not talking points from 24 hour cable TV opinion networks or politicians on either side of the aisle.
I don't know if a gov't run program is the way to go or not. But what I can tell you in just a few years most corporations will not be able to afford the health insurance they provide today. Most polls I read say that 72% of the American people want health care fixed. You may have a great health plan but ask any Steamboat teacher about their's and they will tell you it sucks. If this country can throw away 1 trillion dollars in Iraq why can't it do something for the American people. I don't know one Iraqi who pays taxes in the US and they hate us on top of that.
COBRA is not guaranteed if your company ceases operations and goes out of business. That happened to all 2000+ of us so I should know because I got stuck with the bills like many of us. Most uninsured people use the emergency room for their primary care which is the cause of overcrowding not heart attacks etc. This is not a problem in Steamboat but go to any major city and you will see what I mean. If they had health coverage they would not be there. That is a fact, talk to any ER physician in a major city and he will tell you that. What is better no health coverage or some kind of coverage government or something else?
Health care is not a Republican or Democrat problem it is an American problem that needs to be fixed after decades of neglect. The US spends 19% of GDP on health care when other western countries spend less than 12% and they cover all their citizens and we cover 85%. From my personal experience I can attest that the present system of employer based health coverage sucks unless you work for a Fortune 500 company or you are a Senator of Congressman. This is why 100% of our Congresman choose the Government option over private insurance. Private insurance is increasing in cost by 9% a year so in a few years those that have a good employer based health care may lose it or have their costs and deductables increase dramatically. A government option not mandate may be the way to insure most of the uninsured providing the costs can be made reasonable. Some say this will cost 1 trillion dollars over 10 years which may be true. However this happens to be the same amount of money the government wasted in Iraq in 6 years which so called conservatives never complained about. If you lose your job you lose your insurance. Cobra may be an option but not in all cases like mine. My company went out of business in 2002 and all 2000 employees were denied Cobra. On top of that if you had a claim that had not been processed and paid it was now your responsibility at the non insured rate. In my case the insurance company would have paid $900 but now I had to pay $2500. One of our employees who had a heart attack was left with a $50000 bill. In another case I took my Father who was a disabled Vet to an emergency room in the Houston area at 9am. He was finally seen at 5pm and died a few days later because of internal bleeding. It took so long to be seen beacaue the emergency room was packed with the uninsured. Private health insurance has a 30% administive cost and a government plan would have only 3% cost. The difference is executive bonuses, advertising and whole departments whose jobs are to find ways to deny claims. Also insurance companies are spending 1 1/2 million dollars a day on lobblyists to try and stop a government option which should tell you they are afraid of any competition. I don't know what is the best solution but one thing I do know is the present system stinks.
When Pres. Bush decided to invade Iraq it was to preclude a mushroom cloud from happening over the US as he stated in his State of the Union message in 2003. Unfortunately this was all false and the CIA had told Bush not to use this in his message because there was no evidence Sadam had purchased nuclear material from Africa. After the invasion which was grossly mismanaged it was learned that WMD's did not exist so the goal was changed to make Iraq a secure, unified and democratic country. When this was accomplished then we would declare victory and go home but not before.(Stay the Course) Last year Pres. Bush signed the agreement of withdrawal which is under way. One tillion dollars and 35,000 casulties later all Bush has accomplished besides killing 100,000 Iraqis was to totally destablize the MidEast and make Iran a power to deal with which it was not till our invasion. Iraq is not unified, it is not secure and not democratic in any sense and in fact is governed by a Shiite regime who is in the process of aligning itself more and more with Shiite Iran. This is what will happen after all our troops leave next year. On top of that Afganistan is a total mess and now Republicans want to attack Iran. Having been in a war I can attest that it is not fun. It is easy to be a hawk as long as someone else has to do the fighting and dying. As hawks like Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney said "they and their children had better things to do with their lives than serve in the military." If you want a detail analysis of what the invasion of Iraq has done or not done read "Unintended Consequences" by Amb. Peter Gailbrith at the Steamboat library.
Mr. JLM forgets to mention in his many rants that the US was responsible for removing the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 and replacing him with the Shah. This was to get Iranian oil and in return he would buy military hardware from our defense industry. The Shah was as vicious as Sadam if not worse. When I was in Iran in the 1970's you could see that his days were numbered. This is what caused the Islamic revolution. Thanks to our intervention a democratic country became what it is today. Any chance of change will have to come from the Iranian people and if Obama gets involved old wounds of the past will ruin any chance of success. Starting a third war in Iran as Republicans want is just plain counter productive and stupit. They would be better off taking a vacation in Argentina to cool off.
Eisenhower last comment before leaving office was that beware of the military industrial complex, they will bankrupt the country. He was right and he was a Republican.
I find it interesting that when Reagan took office in 1981 the national debt was 900 billion and when Bush left office in 2009 the national debt was 11 trillion. During this 28 years we were under Republican control 20 of the 28 years. The only President that had a balanced budget and surplus was the one Democrat Clinton. So all this talk about the Republicans being conservative is a mith just like FOX is "Fair and Balanced". They actually spend more than Democrats. The big difference is who they spend the money on. Republicans spend it on Defense Contractors, foreign governments and tax breaks and Democrats spend it education, health care and the infrastructure. I would rather both quit spending so much but it is better to spend it on Americans instead of Middle Eastern countries and the military industrial complex which is a total waste.
I too am against the spending bill that just passed and was signed by Pres. Obama. I had hoped he would have vetoed it until all earmarks were removed. The problem is that Congressman and Senators believe in one thing and that is spending money. Republicans as well as Democrats had millions of dollars of earmarks in this bill. In the last 28 years the gov't has increased at alarming rates. Ironically most of the expansion of gov't have come under Republican Administrations. Reagan increased it by 69%, Clinton by 32% and Bush by 68%. The same Republican Congressman and Senators that are now fiscally responsible are the same people who did not say a word as Bush spend money like a drunken sailor and allowed Wall St. to drive our economy off a cliff. When Bush took office the Federal Budget was 1.8 trillion and running a surplus of 320 million and when he left it was 3.2 trillion and running a 1.2 trillion deficit. He increased the Federal deficit from 5 trillion to 11 trillion. It was Bush that bailed out the irresponsible bankers (TARP) and auto executives before he left office. Is Obama doing the right things to turn this around I really don't know but I hope he succeeds. It took 8 years to get us into this mess and anyone that believes he can turn it around in 50 days is not being realistic. Unfortunately the Republican leadership would rather see Obama fail and in turn the country than admit they got us into this mess in the first place. It is called taking responsibility for ones actions which has been missing from Washington for a long time.
The military was being downsized in the late 80's. I should know because I was in the military at that time. This was a shift to a more technical force after the cold war ended. This continued into the present Bush Administration and was called the Rumsfeld Doctrine. A high tech combat force that cold defeat any conventional army. The problem is it did not work in Iraq, an insurgent war, which is why Iraq was such a disaster for almost 5 years till Rumsfeld was fired. It is great to be pro war when you or your family are not doing the fighting and dying. The fact is even if you have a Draft the rich and powerful always avoid it. I saw this first hand in Vietnam when almost all my comrades where from low to middle income families. The Bush's, Cheney's, Romney's etc. all find a ways to avoid service. When Romney who was pro Iraq War was asked why none of his 5 sons were in the military his answer was they are serving their country working on my campaign. In other words my sons are too rich to serve. I personally know people who served with Bush in the Guard. He was an ok pilot when and if he would show up. That is why they where know as the Champagne Squadron. All sons of the rich and powerful avoiding service in Vietnam where they may get hurt. For almost 6 years our military has been dumped on with 3 to 5 tours of duty in the Middle East. Maybe a Draft with the sons and daughters of our Congressman being called up first followed by the children of the rich would be the best way to go. If we did that the war would be over in a week.
Conservative commentary: Let's work together
The US has very good health care providing you work for a great company or are rich. We are the only western nation in the world that ties health care to employment. With health care costs rising at a rate of 9% per year companies especially small business will no longer be able to afford insurance for their employees in the near future. Large city hospitals are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year providing health care through their ER's for the uninsured which the tax payer has to pick up anyway.
Since Pres. Truman reform has been tried but each time it is squashed by the big insurance companies who right now are spending 1.5 million a day on lobbyists to do it again with fear and misrepresentation. This country is at a crossroads(pay me now or pay me later) after decades of neglect when it comes to health care because more and more will either lose their insurance or will not be able to afford it in the near future.
Read the NY Times Sunday Editorial page for today. It breaks down the proposals being debated and how it will affect people of different age groups and costs involved.
In order to make an informed decision about this subject people need information not talking points from 24 hour cable TV opinion networks or politicians on either side of the aisle.
July 26, 2009 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
John T. Salazar: Time for health care reform
I don't know if a gov't run program is the way to go or not. But what I can tell you in just a few years most corporations will not be able to afford the health insurance they provide today. Most polls I read say that 72% of the American people want health care fixed. You may have a great health plan but ask any Steamboat teacher about their's and they will tell you it sucks. If this country can throw away 1 trillion dollars in Iraq why can't it do something for the American people. I don't know one Iraqi who pays taxes in the US and they hate us on top of that.
July 20, 2009 at 8:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
John T. Salazar: Time for health care reform
COBRA is not guaranteed if your company ceases operations and goes out of business. That happened to all 2000+ of us so I should know because I got stuck with the bills like many of us.
Most uninsured people use the emergency room for their primary care which is the cause of overcrowding not heart attacks etc. This is not a problem in Steamboat but go to any major city and you will see what I mean. If they had health coverage they would not be there. That is a fact, talk to any ER physician in a major city and he will tell you that.
What is better no health coverage or some kind of coverage government or something else?
July 20, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
John T. Salazar: Time for health care reform
Health care is not a Republican or Democrat problem it is an American problem that needs to be fixed after decades of neglect. The US spends 19% of GDP on health care when other western countries spend less than 12% and they cover all their citizens and we cover 85%. From my personal experience I can attest that the present system of employer based health coverage sucks unless you work for a Fortune 500 company or you are a Senator of Congressman. This is why 100% of our Congresman choose the Government option over private insurance. Private insurance is increasing in cost by 9% a year so in a few years those that have a good employer based health care may lose it or have their costs and deductables increase dramatically. A government option not mandate may be the way to insure most of the uninsured providing the costs can be made reasonable. Some say this will cost 1 trillion dollars over 10 years which may be true. However this happens to be the same amount of money the government wasted in Iraq in 6 years which so called conservatives never complained about.
If you lose your job you lose your insurance. Cobra may be an option but not in all cases like mine. My company went out of business in 2002 and all 2000 employees were denied Cobra. On top of that if you had a claim that had not been processed and paid it was now your responsibility at the non insured rate. In my case the insurance company would have paid $900 but now I had to pay $2500. One of our employees who had a heart attack was left with a $50000 bill.
In another case I took my Father who was a disabled Vet to an emergency room in the Houston area at 9am. He was finally seen at 5pm and died a few days later because of internal bleeding. It took so long to be seen beacaue the emergency room was packed with the uninsured.
Private health insurance has a 30% administive cost and a government plan would have only 3% cost. The difference is executive bonuses, advertising and whole departments whose jobs are to find ways to deny claims. Also insurance companies are spending 1 1/2 million dollars a day on lobblyists to try and stop a government option which should tell you they are afraid of any competition.
I don't know what is the best solution but one thing I do know is the present system stinks.
July 20, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Social media and the 'Angel of Iran'
When Pres. Bush decided to invade Iraq it was to preclude a mushroom cloud from happening over the US as he stated in his State of the Union message in 2003. Unfortunately this was all false and the CIA had told Bush not to use this in his message because there was no evidence Sadam had purchased nuclear material from Africa. After the invasion which was grossly mismanaged it was learned that WMD's did not exist so the goal was changed to make Iraq a secure, unified and democratic country. When this was accomplished then we would declare victory and go home but not before.(Stay the Course) Last year Pres. Bush signed the agreement of withdrawal which is under way. One tillion dollars and 35,000 casulties later all Bush has accomplished besides killing 100,000 Iraqis was to totally destablize the MidEast and make Iran a power to deal with which it was not till our invasion. Iraq is not unified, it is not secure and not democratic in any sense and in fact is governed by a Shiite regime who is in the process of aligning itself more and more with Shiite Iran. This is what will happen after all our troops leave next year. On top of that Afganistan is a total mess and now Republicans want to attack Iran. Having been in a war I can attest that it is not fun. It is easy to be a hawk as long as someone else has to do the fighting and dying. As hawks like Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney said "they and their children had better things to do with their lives than serve in the military." If you want a detail analysis of what the invasion of Iraq has done or not done read "Unintended Consequences" by Amb. Peter Gailbrith at the Steamboat library.
June 30, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Social media and the 'Angel of Iran'
Mr. JLM forgets to mention in his many rants that the US was responsible for removing the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 and replacing him with the Shah. This was to get Iranian oil and in return he would buy military hardware from our defense industry. The Shah was as vicious as Sadam if not worse. When I was in Iran in the 1970's you could see that his days were numbered. This is what caused the Islamic revolution. Thanks to our intervention a democratic country became what it is today. Any chance of change will have to come from the Iranian people and if Obama gets involved old wounds of the past will ruin any chance of success. Starting a third war in Iran as Republicans want is just plain counter productive and stupit. They would be better off taking a vacation in Argentina to cool off.
June 27, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Local Taxpayer Tea Party is today
Eisenhower last comment before leaving office was that beware of the military industrial complex, they will bankrupt the country. He was right and he was a Republican.
April 19, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Local Taxpayer Tea Party is today
I find it interesting that when Reagan took office in 1981 the national debt was 900 billion and when Bush left office in 2009 the national debt was 11 trillion. During this 28 years we were under Republican control 20 of the 28 years. The only President that had a balanced budget and surplus was the one Democrat Clinton. So all this talk about the Republicans being conservative is a mith just like FOX is "Fair and Balanced". They actually spend more than Democrats. The big difference is who they spend the money on. Republicans spend it on Defense Contractors, foreign governments and tax breaks and Democrats spend it education, health care and the infrastructure. I would rather both quit spending so much but it is better to spend it on Americans instead of Middle Eastern countries and the military industrial complex which is a total waste.
April 19, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
John C. Doolittle: Cut the budget bill
I too am against the spending bill that just passed and was signed by Pres. Obama. I had hoped he would have vetoed it until all earmarks were removed. The problem is that Congressman and Senators believe in one thing and that is spending money. Republicans as well as Democrats had millions of dollars of earmarks in this bill. In the last 28 years the gov't has increased at alarming rates. Ironically most of the expansion of gov't have come under Republican Administrations. Reagan increased it by 69%, Clinton by 32% and Bush by 68%. The same Republican Congressman and Senators that are now fiscally responsible are the same people who did not say a word as Bush spend money like a drunken sailor and allowed Wall St. to drive our economy off a cliff. When Bush took office the Federal Budget was 1.8 trillion and running a surplus of 320 million and when he left it was 3.2 trillion and running a 1.2 trillion deficit. He increased the Federal deficit from 5 trillion to 11 trillion. It was Bush that bailed out the irresponsible bankers (TARP) and auto executives before he left office. Is Obama doing the right things to turn this around I really don't know but I hope he succeeds. It took 8 years to get us into this mess and anyone that believes he can turn it around in 50 days is not being realistic. Unfortunately the Republican leadership would rather see Obama fail and in turn the country than admit they got us into this mess in the first place. It is called taking responsibility for ones actions which has been missing from Washington for a long time.
March 12, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Local Democrats celebrate Obama win, voter turnout
The military was being downsized in the late 80's. I should know because I was in the military at that time. This was a shift to a more technical force after the cold war ended. This continued into the present Bush Administration and was called the Rumsfeld Doctrine. A high tech combat force that cold defeat any conventional army. The problem is it did not work in Iraq, an insurgent war, which is why Iraq was such a disaster for almost 5 years till Rumsfeld was fired. It is great to be pro war when you or your family are not doing the fighting and dying. The fact is even if you have a Draft the rich and powerful always avoid it. I saw this first hand in Vietnam when almost all my comrades where from low to middle income families. The Bush's, Cheney's, Romney's etc. all find a ways to avoid service. When Romney who was pro Iraq War was asked why none of his 5 sons were in the military his answer was they are serving their country working on my campaign. In other words my sons are too rich to serve. I personally know people who served with Bush in the Guard. He was an ok pilot when and if he would show up. That is why they where know as the Champagne Squadron. All sons of the rich and powerful avoiding service in Vietnam where they may get hurt. For almost 6 years our military has been dumped on with 3 to 5 tours of duty in the Middle East. Maybe a Draft with the sons and daughters of our Congressman being called up first followed by the children of the rich would be the best way to go. If we did that the war would be over in a week.
November 7, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )