Jump to content

Hello! Welcome to the Largest Bariatric Surgery Community Online!

Welcome to BariatricPal.com, the largest weight loss surgery social network in the world! Our goal is to provide a unique platform for patients and potential patients alike that enables you to make informed choices involving your surgery decisions as well as providing you the support you need to meet your goals. Sign up now to access exclusive member features!

Join our community. It's free!

Democrats vs republicans

9208
Views
Started by loserbob, Aug 26, 2010 9:38 AM
211 replies to this topic
211 replies to this topic

    loserbob

    Aspiring Evangelist

  • Posts: 692
  • Joined: Apr 2008
  • Surgery: LAP-BAND
Posted August 26, 2010 - 9:38 AM

#1
Lets try not to get out of hand. Keep nasty remarks to yourself(hopefully I can practice what I preach!). Lets all try so we can keep coming on here and having fun.


    loserbob

    Aspiring Evangelist

  • Posts: 692
  • Joined: Apr 2008
  • Surgery: LAP-BAND
Posted August 26, 2010 - 2:27 PM

#2
Can anybody tell me what Bush did to make our country better? Also why is Obama expected to turn everything around in 19- 20 months? Like Ive said in the past, Im independent(my wife might disagree)and dont care who fixes the economy as long as its fixed. Im quite sure Bush made this problem though! It definitely seems to me that the reps would rather see Obama fail so they can look good come election time. This coming from someone who in the past thought everything Hannity and Beck said was the gospel. Ive come to grips with the fact that being independent Ill never have a legit candidate so I have to vote for the person whose ideas are more in line with mine.


Posted August 26, 2010 - 3:27 PM

#3

Can anybody tell me what Bush did to make our country better? Also why is Obama expected to turn everything around in 19- 20 months? Like Ive said in the past, Im independent(my wife might disagree)and dont care who fixes the economy as long as its fixed. Im quite sure Bush made this problem though! It definitely seems to me that the reps would rather see Obama fail so they can look good come election time. This coming from someone who in the past thought everything Hannity and Beck said was the gospel. Ive come to grips with the fact that being independent Ill never have a legit candidate so I have to vote for the person whose ideas are more in line with mine.


To answer your first question: Nothing.

It is a fact that before Obama was sworn in the elected republican leaders said that their objective was to have Obama fail by voting no one everything. And if he fails, the country fails, too, but they don't care. They only look to enhance their re-election prospects. They want to take this entire country down with them, too. Strip it of all the social support systems that separates us from third world countries. Tax cuts for rich, deregulate big business and war at any cost. That's the republican plan. And the hell with everyone else. By the way, did you know that of all the programs that Pres. Obama and congress got passed they have never gotten more than 3 republican votes. Never before in the history of congress have we had such obstruction. And these are the people some want to elect more of? :P

Pres. Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009 and on January 21, 2009 people wanted 8 million jobs created.

I think the government has done as much as it can do to create jobs. Interest rates are near zero. There have been programs to help housing with tax credits, and it did for awhile. The stimulus has helped create and more so save jobs. But the private sector is lagging.

Now it's time for the private industry to step up, stop sitting on two trillion dollar in assets and start hiring. It's not like there isn't work to be done. Just try to get some home improvement done and find out how long you have to wait. I had to wait 3 months for inside painting. I had to wait a week for AC repair. Businesses won't be happy until they have to pay zero taxes, no employee health insurance and have no regulations. They need to quit whining and start hiring. Ford knew he had to pay his auto workers more so that they could afford his product. Private business needs to hire so people will have money and spend it on their and other products. The economy won't improve until they start hiring so if they are waiting for the economy to improve before they do so - it won't.

And the republicans are going to block anything to improve the economy because they don't want the economy to improve - because they believe a bad economy will improve their election prospects. And it will because people can't analyze the situation and see who is trying to dig us out of this hole and who got us in it in the first place.

Now, is that enough ammunition for you, bob, so that you're not bored? LOL :o

Edited by Cleo's Mom, August 26, 2010 - 3:29 PM.



    ariscus99

    Bariatric Guru

  • Posts: 445
  • Joined: Feb 2008
  • Surgery: LAP-BAND
Posted August 26, 2010 - 5:34 PM

#4


It is a fact that before Obama was sworn in the elected republican leaders said that their objective was to have Obama fail by voting no one everything. And if he fails, the country fails, too, but they don't care.


You can prove everything in this statement correct? I'm really curious to see the transcripts and or video's of every republican representative saying these things. If you can in fact show proof of this outlandish statement you just made I'll vote for obama in 2012.


Posted August 26, 2010 - 7:10 PM

#5

You can prove everything in this statement correct? I'm really curious to see the transcripts and or video's of every republican representative saying these things. If you can in fact show proof of this outlandish statement you just made I'll vote for obama in 2012.


In an interview with the New York Times McConnell said charges that he blocked the president’s agenda are okay by him because of the results.
“I am amused with their comments about obstructionism,” McConnell said to the Times. “I wish we had been able to obstruct more. They were able to get the health care bill through. They were able to get the stimulus through. They were able to get the financial reform through. These were all major pieces of legislation, and if I would have had enough votes to stop them, I would have.”



March 25, 2009 -- Updated 0737 GMT (1537 HKT

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- -- It's OK for Republicans to want President Obama to fail if they think he's jeopardizing the country, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told members of his political party Tuesday night.

I didn't say every elected republican, I said leaders and mcconnell is the republican senate leader. Boehner is now the apparent de facto republican leader making major speeches and he has kept the republicans in the house in line and in lock step voting against every Obama agenda item. And Jindal wants to run for president.

I have heard this claim made over and over again on MSNBC by Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann and others and I don't think the republican leaders have denied it because they are proud of wanting to block everything of Obama's and try to precipitate failure to the best of their ability.

And it is unreasonable to expect videos for everything unless you, too, post them for everything you claim.

Edited by Cleo's Mom, August 26, 2010 - 7:15 PM.



    ariscus99

    Bariatric Guru

  • Posts: 445
  • Joined: Feb 2008
  • Surgery: LAP-BAND
Posted August 26, 2010 - 7:31 PM

#6

I didn't say every elected republican, I said leaders and mcconnell is the republican senate leader. Boehner is now the apparent de facto republican leader making major speeches and he has kept the republicans in the house in line and in lock step voting against every Obama agenda item. And Jindal wants to run for president.

I have heard this claim made over and over again on MSNBC by Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann and others and I don't think the republican leaders have denied it because they are proud of wanting to block everything of Obama's and try to precipitate failure to the best of their ability.

And it is unreasonable to expect videos for everything unless you, too, post them for everything you claim.


Ok I'll give you that you didn't say every republican, you did say leaders. But you've failed to prove that, and you've also failed to prove that they said they just don't care if America fails so longs as obama fails.

And if he fails, the country fails, too, but they don't care.

is how you put it. Same thing basically. And you failed to prove this. I don't expect video of everything, I will expect real proof of outlandish statements like the ones you made tho. Just as you would.


Posted August 26, 2010 - 7:55 PM

#7

Ok I'll give you that you didn't say every republican, you did say leaders. But you've failed to prove that, and you've also failed to prove that they said they just don't care if America fails so longs as obama fails. is how you put it. Same thing basically. And you failed to prove this. I don't expect video of everything, I will expect real proof of outlandish statements like the ones you made tho. Just as you would.


If Obama's agenda to help this country out of the worst economic collapse since the great depression fails then American fails. If the stimulus had failed to pass, if the bailout of GM and Chrysler had failed to pass, if the cash for clunkers and the home buyers tax rebate had failed, if unemployment hadn't been extended, then America would fail and a lot more people would be suffering. And if the republicans cared then they wouldn't have voted no on everything and obstructed everything. If they were concerned about not having the wall street abuses that caused this collapse from happening again, they would have voted for financial reform. But they don't care, so they voted no. They sure care about extending the tax cut to the top 2% millionaires, though.

These agenda items aren't perfect. I am sure Pres. Obama would have preferred to have inherited a budget surplus like bush inherited and spent his political capital on clean energy, education, transportation, infrastructure, etc...but instead he has had to tackle very difficult problems. Tough problems require tough solutions, but the republicans just vote no. They aren't interested in getting us out of the mess we're in. Why should they? They are the ones who got us in it. :o

And I think I proved my point to my satisfaction. I can't find one vote on an agenda item that republicans voted for America to succeed.

Edited by Cleo's Mom, August 26, 2010 - 8:04 PM.



    ariscus99

    Bariatric Guru

  • Posts: 445
  • Joined: Feb 2008
  • Surgery: LAP-BAND
Posted August 26, 2010 - 8:13 PM

#8

And I think I proved my point to my satisfaction. My comments were only outlandish to those who deny the obstructionist republicans and their contempt for the middle class and the unemployed.


The republicans vote no based on what they believe(some of them, some vote no, to obstructionist). Not everyone in this country, believe it or not, thinks that the answer to everything is a handout. To say that because they vote against handouts means they have contempt for the middle class is, once again, naive, none of these people can be who they are without the middle class and believe it or not, most of them know it.

I started back to school again this semester working on my second degree this one in science, in hopes to become a physician sometime in the not to distant future. And along with attending classes, I've been shadowing several different physician's in my area, a couple who are friends, a cousin, and some that I don't know, at several different hospitals, and I find it interesting to listen to what these people have to say when it comes to politics, because like with most things they go above and beyond what most people do in their research of topics and the thought process behind their beliefs can typically be more eloquently expressed. And I have found that just about none of them want anything to do with the democratic side of things, they mostly feel that all obamacare is going to do is restrict the medical practice, and I've actually been teased a great deal for trying to go into medicine at this point in time. I've also been given a great deal of literature to read in my off time to try to better see where they're coming from. One such article, tho it's old I have been told to read by about half a dozen doctors is this one from 1993 when the last fight for socialized medicine was going on, it's worth a read cm if for nothing more then to get a better idea as to the mindset of MANY republicans. It's only a 5-10 minute read but gives good insight even if you disagree with the basis.

Health Care Is Not A Right

by Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. Delivered at a Town Hall Meeting on the Clinton Health Plan. Red Lion Hotel, Costa Mesa CA. December 11, 1993

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen:

Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea -- which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical -- it does not work -- but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. So I'm going to leave it to other speakers to concentrate on the practical flaws in the Clinton health plan. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan -- not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it -- to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.

What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with -- and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these.

Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit -- to a certain type of action on your part and its result -- not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.

That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history -- and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.

Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents -- rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.

You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it -- period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens -- to their individual rights -- to their real rights -- in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?

The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights -- and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism (this is the right name for Clinton's medical plan) is clearly evident in any field at all -- you don't need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.

How would these alleged new rights be fulfilled? Take the simplest case: you are born with a moral right to hair care, let us say, provided by a loving government free of charge to all who want or need it. What would happen under such a moral theory?

Haircuts are free, like the air we breathe, so some people show up every day for an expensive new styling, the government pays out more and more, barbers revel in their huge new incomes, and the profession starts to grow ravenously, bald men start to come in droves for free hair implantations, a school of fancy, specialized eyebrow pluckers develops -- it's all free, the government pays. The dishonest barbers are having a field day, of course -- but so are the honest ones; they are working and spending like mad, trying to give every customer his heart's desire, which is a millionaire's worth of special hair care and services -- the government starts to scream, the budget is out of control. Suddenly directives erupt: we must limit the number of barbers, we must limit the time spent on haircuts, we must limit the permissible type of hair styles; bureaucrats begin to split hairs about how many hairs a barber should be allowed to split. A new computerized office of records filled with inspectors and red tape shoots up; some barbers, it seems, are still getting too rich, they must be getting more than their fair share of the national hair, so barbers have to start applying for Certificates of Need in order to buy razors, while peer review boards are established to assess every stylist's work, both the dishonest and the overly honest alike, to make sure that no one is too bad or too good or too busy or too unbusy. Etc. In the end, there are lines of wretched customers waiting for their chance to be routinely scalped by bored, hog-tied haircutters some of whom remember dreamily the old days when somehow everything was so much better.

Do you think the situation would be improved by having hair-care cooperatives organized by the government? -- having them engage in managed competition, managed by the government, in order to buy haircut insurance from companies controlled by the government?

If this is what would happen under government-managed hair care, what else can possibly happen -- it is already starting to happen -- under the idea of health care as a right? Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing?

Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.

You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.

Some of you may ask here: But can people afford health care on their own? Even leaving aside the present government-inflated medical prices, the answer is: Certainly people can afford it. Where do you think the money is coming from right now to pay for it all -- where does the government get its fabled unlimited money? Government is not a productive organization; it has no source of wealth other than confiscation of the citizens' wealth, through taxation, deficit financing or the like.

But, you may say, isn't it the "rich" who are really paying the costs of medical care now -- the rich, not the broad bulk of the people? As has been proved time and again, there are not enough rich anywhere to make a dent in the government's costs; it is the vast middle class in the U.S. that is the only source of the kind of money that national programs like government health care require. A simple example of this is the fact that the Clinton Administration's new program rests squarely on the backs not of Big Business, but of small businessmen who are struggling in today's economy merely to stay alive and in existence. Under any socialized program, it is the "little people" who do most of the paying for it -- under the senseless pretext that "the people" can't afford such and such, so the government must take over. If the people of a country truly couldn't afford a certain service -- as e.g. in Somalia -- neither, for that very reason, could any government in that country afford it, either.

Some people can't afford medical care in the U.S. But they are necessarily a small minority in a free or even semi-free country. If they were the majority, the country would be an utter bankrupt and could not even think of a national medical program. As to this small minority, in a free country they have to rely solely on private, voluntary charity. Yes, charity, the kindness of the doctors or of the better off -- charity, not right, i.e. not their right to the lives or work of others. And such charity, I may say, was always forthcoming in the past in America. The advocates of Medicaid and Medicare under LBJ did not claim that the poor or old in the '60's got bad care; they claimed that it was an affront for anyone to have to depend on charity.

But the fact is: You don't abolish charity by calling it something else. If a person is getting health care for nothing, simply because he is breathing, he is still getting charity, whether or not President Clinton calls it a "right." To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil. It is charity still -- though now extorted by criminal tactics of force, while hiding under a dishonest name.

As with any good or service that is provided by some specific group of men, if you try to make its possession by all a right, you thereby enslave the providers of the service, wreck the service, and end up depriving the very consumers you are supposed to be helping. To call "medical care" a right will merely enslave the doctors and thus destroy the quality of medical care in this country, as socialized medicine has done around the world, wherever it has been tried, including Canada (I was born in Canada and I know a bit about that system first hand).

I would like to clarify the point about socialized medicine enslaving the doctors. Let me quote here from an article I wrote a few years ago: "Medicine: The Death of a Profession." [The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, NAL Books, c 1988 by the Estate of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff.]

"In medicine, above all, the mind must be left free. Medical treatment involves countless variables and options that must be taken into account, weighed, and summed up by the doctor's mind and subconscious. Your life depends on the private, inner essence of the doctor's function: it depends on the input that enters his brain, and on the processing such input receives from him. What is being thrust now into the equation? It is not only objective medical facts any longer. Today, in one form or another, the following also has to enter that brain: 'The DRG administrator [in effect, the hospital or *** man trying to control costs] will raise hell if I operate, but the malpractice attorney will have a field day if I don't -- and my rival down the street, who heads the local PRO [Peer Review Organization], favors a CAT scan in these cases, I can't afford to antagonize him, but the CON boys disagree and they won't authorize a CAT scanner for our hospital -- and besides the FDA prohibits the drug I should be prescribing, even though it is widely used in Europe, and the IRS might not allow the patient a tax deduction for it, anyhow, and I can't get a specialist's advice because the latest Medicare rules prohibit a consultation with this diagnosis, and maybe I shouldn't even take this patient, he's so sick -- after all, some doctors are manipulating their slate of patients, they accept only the healthiest ones, so their average costs are coming in lower than mine, and it looks bad for my staff privileges.' Would you like your case to be treated this way -- by a doctor who takes into account your objective medical needs and the contradictory, unintelligible demands of some ninety different state and Federal government agencies? If you were a doctor could you comply with all of it? Could you plan or work around or deal with the unknowable? But how could you not? Those agencies are real and they are rapidly gaining total power over you and your mind and your patients. In this kind of nightmare world, if and when it takes hold fully, thought is helpless; no one can decide by rational means what to do. A doctor either obeys the loudest authority -- or he tries to sneak by unnoticed, bootlegging some good health care occasionally or, as so many are doing now, he simply gives up and quits the field."

The Clinton plan will finish off quality medicine in this country -- because it will finish off the medical profession. It will deliver doctors bound hands and feet to the mercies of the bureaucracy.

The only hope -- for the doctors, for their patients, for all of us -- is for the doctors to assert a moral principle. I mean: to assert their own personal individual rights -- their real rights in this issue -- their right to their lives, their liberty, their property, their pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence applies to the medical profession too. We must reject the idea that doctors are slaves destined to serve others at the behest of the state.

I'd like to conclude with a sentence from Ayn Rand. Doctors, she wrote, are not servants of their patients. They are "traders, like everyone else in a free society, and they should bear that title proudly, considering the crucial importance of the services they offer."

The battle against the Clinton plan, in my opinion, depends on the doctors speaking out against the plan -- but not only on practical grounds -- rather, first of all, on moral grounds. The doctors must defend themselves and their own interests as a matter of solemn justice, upholding a moral principle, the first moral principle: self- preservation. If they can do it, all of us will still have a chance. I hope it is not already too late. Thank you.




Posted August 26, 2010 - 8:54 PM

#9
Cleo's Mom - quote: And if he fails, the country fails, too, but they don't care.

Ariscus99 quote: is how you put it. Same thing basically. And you failed to prove this. I don't expect video of everything, I will expect real proof of outlandish statements like the ones you made tho. Just as you would.

I don't need to prove this statement- it is my opinion based on the facts of how the republicans have voted.


Posted August 26, 2010 - 9:04 PM

#10
Dingell: Health Care Should Be a Right, Not a Privilege


By Rep. John Dingell
Special to Roll Call
March 23, 2009, 12 a.m.
Related Content


Health Care Policy Briefing


In my more than 50 years of serving in the House, no issue has captured my attention or passion quite like health care reform. Since my first day in office, I have been committed to this issue, and today, more than five decades later, my commitment remains steadfast. The resolve to achieve universal health care is just as noble as it was when I first entered Congress, but the urgency is far greater.
I work from the driving principle that health care should be a right, not a privilege, a belief that my father shared during his 23 years as a Member of Congress. Every new Congress since 1956, I have carried on my father’s torch by introducing H.R. 15, a bill he once championed that would provide universal health care for all Americans. He laid the groundwork for national health insurance, and I have devoted my career to seeing it happen.
Over this time, I have witnessed major gains in expansion of health care coverage, and have also seen opportunities lost. Take 1935 as the first example. After the establishment of Social Security, President Franklin Roosevelt, working with my father, who also served in Congress, planned to address health care for all. But — and this will sound familiar — an impending recession and the impending danger of international conflict, coupled with partisan political battles over enlarging the Supreme Court, forced our leaders to pass on the issue of health reform. I remember my father talking with former UAW President Walter Reuther about how this issue could someday break the back of the auto industry.
Under the bold leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, I helped move Medicare and Medicaid through Congress in 1965. We hoped the success of these programs would catapult a call for further reform into the national conversation, but Vietnam prevented that from happening.
It took almost 30 years before another president came along and committed to providing all Americans quality and affordable health care. However, President Bill Clinton’s efforts were met with grand resistance and millions of dollars to wage a campaign of misinformation against the plan. A series of television advertisements claimed we couldn’t afford it and that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare that would pry patients away from beloved family doctors. The effort died in my committee when it failed by one vote.
With our economy under strain and our patients, businesses and states suffering, we now have another opportunity to accomplish our mission of comprehensive health care reform. The stars have aligned in favor of progress, and this time if for no other reason than economic necessity, we can be successful, because we must be.
If we do not act now, we risk missing a tremendous opportunity, and history has shown us that ignoring the problem does not cure our health care woes. For economic and humanitarian reasons, we need health care reform now — and waiting will only make it harder to do, as well as more damaging to the nation we live in.
We spend more on health care than any other nation on Earth and have less to show for it than any other Western country — yet we keep delaying reform. Health care spending continues to rise at the fastest rate in our nation’s history, last year more than 7 percent — more than twice the rate of inflation. The United States spends more than $2.2 trillion on health care each year, approximately 16 percent of the total economy.
The high cost of health care causes a bankruptcy every 30 seconds. By the end of the year, it will cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes. Premiums have grown four times faster than wages over the past eight years, and in each of these years, a million more Americans have lost their health insurance.
Right now, an American company is laying off a worker it can’t afford to cover. Right now, a pregnant woman is forgoing prenatal care because of its high cost. Right now, a sick child is not being treated because a trip to the doctor is too expensive. As you read this newspaper, dozens of people are filing for bankruptcy in the wake of a serious health problem. And by the end of the day, two people in my home state of Michigan will be dead because they lack health insurance.
In the budget plan he released earlier this month, President Barack Obama demonstrated that he has the courage to face one of the toughest challenges of our time — health care reform. The recent health care reform summit is a major step toward accomplishing this massive undertaking. Obama understands that we cannot fix our economic problems without reforming the nation’s health care system — the two are intertwined at all levels of our society.
This is not just a humanitarian issue or just an economic issue — it is an urgent issue that we must face now. It is now time for Congress, providers, industry, advocates and the American people to meet Obama’s level of urgency and to do our part in showing that we are just as serious about providing quality, affordable health care for all Americans
It is not going to be easy. My long history with health care reform has taught me to expect misinformation campaigns and an active and well-funded opposition. This process will be no different.
However, with sustained, focused leadership from the president, swift action by Congress, an expectation of shared sacrifice from all interested parties, and continued pressure from the American people, this time we can pass comprehensive health care reform. I look forward to working with the president and his team in crafting a plan that will make quality and affordable health care accessible for all Americans.
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) is the chairman emeritus of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and will play a key role in the committee’s deliberations on health care reform.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Featured Surgeons

Recent Status Updates

View All Updates

Trending Topics