Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Just pretend

September 13, 2009

Advertisement

To the editor:

The health care debate … Wednesday night, I distinctly heard President Obama say that people who have medical insurance will see no change in their coverage, that Medicare will not see cuts, that he will not sign a plan that increases the deficit and that individuals and small businesses who can’t afford existing plans will have an opportunity to buy insurance from a premium-funded public option. I then listened to the Republican response from Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana who said that the president’s plan will balloon the deficit, government will take over health care, and … I turned off the TV.

I offer a challenge to all politicians and, in fact, to anyone in the conservative camp with health insurance: Pretend you have no coverage for the duration of this debate. Pull out the checkbook or credit card at the doctor’s office and at the pharmacy when you pick up the antibiotics or cholesterol drug. Become familiar with a new decision-making process as you determine if you or your child are sick enough to see the doctor or visit the ER, then if you can pay for the labs or that MRI or mammogram. If it goes on long enough, you can check out the waiting room at Health Care Access or see how broke you need to be for Medicaid.

Keep in mind that you won’t get the full experience since you’re pretending and if it turns into a nightmare you can just wake up.

Comments

Bob Hechlor 4 years, 7 months ago

It would not be unusual for a clinic to have 500 insurance companies that are in their database. How has that competition been of help?

0

Bob Hechlor 4 years, 7 months ago

These government bashers need to understand that we are the government. If we say we don't take from the government, we are saying, we don't take from ourselves. We just give to others. That is how it is in a democracy. It is also up to us to make democracy work. Freedom of speech that comes from wealthy special interest political contributions is not real freedom of speech. It leads to controlling speech in our world. If you have money, as it stands now, you can run ads of TV, like the chamber of commerce promoting coal plants. If you have money, you have access to congress. You can pay people millions to lobby congress people. You can charter planes and buses to move people to Florida to stop the vote counting or disrupt town hall meetings. I think we need to get money out of politics as much as possible and get the voices back in and in ways which help us learn, share and plan in ways which benefit the people of this country and which help people contribute to being the best country in the world. We need to be an example of what works instead of an example of a country bogged down in conflict and which only works for those who already have wealth and power and screws over those who don't. We don't have to worry about communists taking over. We already have the moneyed elite running this country and that is what needs to change. We need to get back to one person, one vote and curtail the dominant influence of big corporate special interest groups. (This message was brought to you by a person who works and pays taxes and raised children and has helped others and been helped by others and is not jealous or envious of the wealthy people and has dealt with inadequate healthcare for self and that of others.)

0

Leslie Swearingen 4 years, 7 months ago

Just to be clear on this, how many of you are truly angry because I am eligible for Medicaid and can get the health care I need? When I was in the Salvation Army shelter I would get angry at those who did nothing to help themselves while I was doing everything I was asked to and didn't seem to be getting anywhere. Things moved slowly but they did move. Now I have a home and they don't. I am sorry for them and that it turned out this way. I think some have tortured minds that will not let them rest. I pray for those who are still homeless and out there trying in their own way and searching. We can only be who we are, no more, no less. Now I am not angry at them, I love them as my brothers and sisters of God and wish them well.

0

BigAl 4 years, 7 months ago

Great letter. The far right in this country has very selective memory.

0

porch_person 4 years, 7 months ago

Satirical moved his talking points over here from http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/sep/13/tens-thousands-protest-obama-initiatives-capitol/#c989368. We had a long discussion about them there.

In the end, we found that Satirical didn't know that a small number of health insurance companies control health insurance, that Satirical can't seem to understand that a group of companies which control the market might not want to compete and cut each other's throats, that tort reform isn't the answer to health care reform, that it's really tough to get relief after a bad medical outcome by going through the courts and that Satirical likes to misrepresent Obama.

0

Bob Hechlor 4 years, 7 months ago

Satiri something

We aleady have hundreds of insurance companies and managed care companies and now we have privatized government companies and this is what drives providers crazy, trying to keep up with all of their demands, their different policies and pay schedules and staff and phone numbers that machines answer, and on and on. Sometimes, providers can spend a few minutes thinking about patients. Could this be why many providers quit seeing people who want to use their insurance? Could this be why 73 % of doctors want a single payor plan or the public option? If we could plan our accidents and illnesses, we could get exactly the kind of coverage we would be needing, assuming it was affordable, but since obviously, those things are not planned, we have the casino approach, we pays our money and we takes our chances or we takes our jobs and we takes our chances. So, the Limbaugh approach is not likely to work out. Limbaugh makes millions a year. He'll be fat and sassy until he gets an incurable disease. Thanks to the ignorant conservatives who pay into his health plan, he will die before he runs out of money. Since he doesn't have a wife and kids, he should consider giving it back to his ignorant supporters. Maybe he could start the Limbaugh Insurance Company and all of you conservatives can select that option.

0

Bob Hechlor 4 years, 7 months ago

rightwinger, wrong topic. this is about healthcare. Must of thought you were on the Limbaugh blog.

0

Bob Hechlor 4 years, 7 months ago

Satirical, it is just astounding how you imagine that you are so wonderful and fantastic and great and righteous and upstanding whereas, people that you categorize and stereotype as liberals are all just a bunch of freeloading, homeless, lazy, uneducated creeps who are not fit to share space with you. If you had any remote idea of how ignorant, arrogant and deluded you sound, you would be embarrassed to show your face. In truth, you are so selfish that you cannot imagine anyone caring about others. You can't imagine hard working liberals who educate, care for others, contribute greatly to civility and order and create systems to keep people functioning as high as they possibly can, even if their talents will not always fit into this commercialized and industrialized society. Go back and read your posts and do so with new eyes and you may see how your high and mighty attitude is showing through. It is not a bad thing to care about others, even those you don't know. It is not bad to want others to have a chance at a good life, even if their abilities are devalued in the larger society. And don't give me this crap about the free market one more stupid time. Look at those idiot contractors in Iraq drawing big paychecks and making total fools out of themselves and providing poor sevices and why is that? Because their friends got voted into the whitehouse by people like you.

0

rtwngr 4 years, 7 months ago

Logan72 - I defy you to name me ONE freedom that you, personally, have lost due to the patriot act. As far as WMD, it might interest you to know that there was 500 tons of yellow cake uranium found in Iraq. It was quietly sold to Canada by the Iraqi government and delivered in July of 2008.

0

Bob Hechlor 4 years, 7 months ago

Tort costs = 1% of healthcare costs Administrative costs = 30%

Wonder what would give us the most return if we were more efficient.

Stupid conservative answer = tort reform.

Liberals trying to educate stupid conservative = See, 30 is 30 times larger than 1. With 1, even if you save 1/2 of 1, it is still only saving .5% If you save 1/2 of 30, that would be 15 % savings, 30 times the amount saved on tort reform. But then facts, you know, kinda important, but hey believe whatever makes you feel good.

0

Bob Hechlor 4 years, 7 months ago

Farmers out there, hey, you wouldn't still be farming if the government didn't subsidize you. Yah, you hate government, except when they cross your palms with the dollars. Truth is, this bill would help you, but you would rather see the money go to wall street bankers so that they can keep partying. Yah, you all need to get out of the field once in awhile and actually see what is going on.

0

Bob Hechlor 4 years, 7 months ago

Seth, the trouble with specifics is that you have to understand them and be able to take it in, in about five minutes, because after that, you start daydreaming about the next basketball game or how much you are going to be drinking when you go out Friday night or how good that pizza is going to taste. Do you really expect the president can compete for your brain time? I really doubt it. And if you were really interested, you could read the 1000 page bill written by attorneys that apparently is lacking in detail. So, just admit it now, the lack of specifics, which we have heard repeated now about several hundred thousand times was on the Limbaugh list of talking points. Did you get any details about why this might be a reasonable argument? Probably not. That would be too much to commit to memory.

0

Bob Hechlor 4 years, 7 months ago

New poll says, 63% of doctors favor single payor and another 10% favor the public option. Well, but those doctors, you know, aren't the brightest of people. Oh wait, actually they are the brightest aren't they?

0

Bob Hechlor 4 years, 7 months ago

jumpincatfish, sorry that after two words, you are finished. That is likely an attention problem which could be fixed if you had decent healthcare.

0

seth5792 4 years, 7 months ago

Just like every speech Obama has given since he declared his run for president, it had no details, just a lot of RAH RAH RAH.......please for once I wish this guy would explain in detail how he plans to accomplish something.......he is so freaking generic.

Everyone wants health care reform but how will we pay for it. By improving efficiency and wasteful spending!!!!!!!!!! If that was the case we could reform just about every single issue in the government.

We need specifics..........until then I will be against any measure set forth.

Every time Obama talks its just Blah, blah, blah........every press conference, or presidential address, sounds like a damn campaign speech..........Somebody needs to tell this guy, that somehow he did get elected, it's time to stop campaigning, and start DOING

0

Bob Hechlor 4 years, 7 months ago

lawrenceguy - how long are you going to be proud of your ignorance? It is amazing what some people are willing to do to demonstrate how out of touch they are. So, I guess you can just rant, rant your brain away. Unfortunately, that won't be of help when you lose your job when your employer moves his operation to China or India. Also, don't concern yourself with the country getting sicker and being unable to compete in the world economy. And, yes, this is my liberal rant. Thing is, we liberals also work, more than you and have higher standards of ethics at the same time. You just envy us because we can actually come up with reasonable arguments and don't sit at the feet of Limbaugh each day, waiting for our talking points. We stay informed instead of updated on the most effective rhetoric and semantic trickery. But soon lawrenceguy, your hands will be wrung out from watching legislation pass to help people stay well in this country. What a sad day for you, sufferer of an enlarged ego gland.

0

75x55 4 years, 7 months ago

"When does consensus determine morality?"

0

aequitas41 4 years, 7 months ago

I am a 25 year old student and in the fall of next year I will be in nursing school full time. I just got a full time job that offers some of the best health insurance in Lawrence. However, when I start nursing school, I will no longer be able to work full time, meaning I will lose my benefits. I have struggled while in college to afford any type of healthcare. I went to the dental clinic where I paid the lowest amount possible, meaning $60 per cavity only to have to have them replaced now because they are falling out. I have friends who aren't as lucky as I am, who are in school full time, working full time for a local lawrence business with absolutely no benefits. Many require prescriptions but cannot get them since they cannot afford them. I'm sorry, but the health care system in this country is severely flawed. I'm not saying this plan is the best plan, but at least something is being done. I'm sure changes will need to be made to make this plan the best for as many people as possible. It's frustrating to hear so much animosity towards a plan that is only trying to provide equal health care rights to everyone.

0

jumpin_catfish 4 years, 7 months ago

I have two words for Obama's healthcare plan: You lie!

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

parrothead8 (Anonymous) says…

"Maybe ALL decisions aren't about the bottom line. Maybe some of them are for the good of our health and our planet…like the increased bus ridership that causes thousands fewer short car trips around Lawrence each month."

Your supposition is based on faulty assumptions.

1) You assume every one of those trips would have been made if the bus was not available (and free for college students).

2) You assume every one of those trips would have been made by car instead of on the bus.

3) You assume that every one of those trips by car supposedly replaced by bus trips would have been less economical/more polluting - if there's three people in a car that goes from point-to-point it's cheaper and less polluting than a bus with two people that have to ride the whole route.

Maybe the college kids are riding the bus because it's free and have chosen not to ride their bikes or walk. That both increases pollution and cuts down on exercise.

"And how does the increase in ridership significantly increase their costs? Those big diesel engines don't labor any harder to transport 20 people than they do to transport two. The buses still go on their normal routes…it's not like they're picking everyone up at their homes and going miles out of their way."

Well, let's see, for one thing the increase was mostly on a new route that started August 17th, just before the kiddies came back to school. Now, I don't claim to be as much of an expert as you seem to be on the efficiency of the diesel engine, but I'm fairly certain new routes add to costs.

0

parrothead8 4 years, 7 months ago

"The mT recently reported a significant increase in ridership. This will significantly add to their costs, without increasing revenues, since almost all of the increase came from people riding for free. The mT is getting more expensive to operate, and without a commensurate increase in revenue, it will be ever-more dependent on tax dollars to support the free-riders. (Incidentally, these people are not the poor, elderly handicapped folks trying to get to their doctors' appointments as the mT proponents whined and cried - they're college kids taking the bus home from school, at the same time the city is making 2nd-graders walk 3 miles.)"

Maybe ALL decisions aren't about the bottom line. Maybe some of them are for the good of our health and our planet...like the increased bus ridership that causes thousands fewer short car trips around Lawrence each month.

And how does the increase in ridership significantly increase their costs? Those big diesel engines don't labor any harder to transport 20 people than they do to transport two. The buses still go on their normal routes...it's not like they're picking everyone up at their homes and going miles out of their way.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…

"Uh huh. typical rightwinger move. The whole sentence reads, “Just like the T, the non-happening SLT and the homeless shelter. “"

Oh, sorry, geek, I was trying to take it easy on you. But if you really want me to make the entire 'argument' more laughable, hey, you ask, I deliver.

The mT recently reported a significant increase in ridership. This will significantly add to their costs, without increasing revenues, since almost all of the increase came from people riding for free. The mT is getting more expensive to operate, and without a commensurate increase in revenue, it will be ever-more dependent on tax dollars to support the free-riders. (Incidentally, these people are not the poor, elderly handicapped folks trying to get to their doctors' appointments as the mT proponents whined and cried - they're college kids taking the bus home from school, at the same time the city is making 2nd-graders walk 3 miles.)

The SLT (and on a much smaller scale the homeless shelter) is a fine example of what happens when the government tries to do anything. It could and should have been built ten years ago for about a tenth the cost. Instead huge expenditures have already been made with nothing to show for it. When it is eventually completed (and it will be, geek), we'll see the glorious result of what happens when opposing camps from differing political philosophies try to resolve their differences and shepherd a project through a dozen or so government bureaucracies - which is to say a camel (you know, a horse built by committee) made of gold, sitting in a swamp.

Both the SLT and the homeless shelter are prime examples of the NIMBY philosophy rampant even in good ol' Larryville. Both are prime examples of things that should have been done and would have been done, with a lot less hassle, time, and expense, if it weren't for everyone saying 'we need to do this, BUT ...'.

So tell us all, geek, which part of those wponderful examples you used are demonstrations of the world turning for the better???

And if those are the things you're using to argue the ability of the government to deliver on its promises, operate efficiently, and/or be capable of being trusted with essential services, then the opposition humbly thanks you for making their points for them.

0

geekin_topekan 4 years, 7 months ago

Now there's a banner to rally under to show how well the government can run things, geek. ++++ Uh huh. typical rightwinger move. The whole sentence reads, "Just like the T, the non-happening SLT and the homeless shelter. ", in reference to the fact that regardless of all the whining and snivvling from a losing party, the real world continues to turn for the better while some of you would rather p and moan in these forums. Good place for you really. Carry on.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…

"Just like the T..."

Now there's a banner to rally under to show how well the government can run things, geek.


Satirical (Anonymous) says…

"(1) Why won’t he also include tort-reform?"

Ever wonder why attorney's tend to make their political contributions to Democratic candidates?


denak (Anonymous) says…

"There are already “death panels” at hospitals. Hospitals routinely make decisions to deny people care because they can't pay for a transplant. They routinely make decisions to shunt a patient to “county” or sometimes out on the street when they can't pay. It is called “dumping.” The mentally ill patient would probably want to stay until he or she is truly stable but they aren't because the insurance company decides when one is stable and not the doctors. If their insurance runs out, out they go."

Maybe THAT's the problem, not who pays for it, Dena.

0

Satirical 4 years, 7 months ago

Let me repeat DenaK's argument:

I know someone who had something very bad happen to them, which was out of their control, and makes you feel sympathetic for their plight. Because they are unable to afford the costs of the very bad thing that happened to them, I think the government (society) should pay for it.

Since the government already pays for somethings such as national defense which benefit everyone, they should pay for this as well....

Do I really need to explain all the flaws in this argument?

0

Richard Heckler 4 years, 7 months ago

HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments. HR 676 would save hundreds of billions annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and HMOs.

HR 676 http://www.healthcare-now.org/

Doctors for Single Payer http://www.pnhp.org/

Unions for HR 676 http://unionsforsinglepayerhr676.org/union_endorsers

Organizations and Government Bodies Endorsing HR 676 http://www.pnhp.org/action/organizations_and_government_bodies_endorsing_hr_676.php

Health Care In the USA http://www.dollarsandsense.org/healthcare.html

Consumer Reports On Health Care http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/health_reform/

National Health Insurance does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits will be based on customer service and clinic performance based on the clients experience. This is my perception of competition.

0

Richard Heckler 4 years, 7 months ago

So many jobs do not come with health insurance. Or they offer under insured coverage because no one can truly afford the most expensive medical insurance in the world.

For 2010 think $18,310 for one year coverage of the best you can get? Does anyone spend that much in a year? The majority do not. HR 676 offers more than adequate coverage to a family of four making about $60k for $2700 per year that includes long term care. Go To: http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/

After spending that much there are NO guarantees. AND they can cut a client off anytime no matter what.That would not happen under HR 676.

0

denak 4 years, 7 months ago

"...We farm for a living.Who pays for our heatlh insurance,Me and mt wife,who is going to keeep paying for it,no matters what the Oh so wonderful president does—My wife and I -we don't want any more government control..We as farmers deal with enough government crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...."

So, as long as the government helps you with your farm...and farmers like you...with farm subsidies, your fine with taking government money but the moment that the President wants the government to fund health care that will cover a 16 year old Type 1 diabetic, you aren't.

Funny how so many people are oppose to health care reform on the basis of "I don't want to pay taxes for other people" and yet, have no problem taking other government money in the form of farm subsidies, school loads/grants, money for 1st time homebuyers, SSI, Montgomery GI bill, unemployment, and a myriad of other programs out there that most people, at one time or the other in their lifetime, use, although they try to claim otherwise.

As to the point the LTE is trying to make, it isn't hard to pretend because I have a good friend whose life is living nightmare. She works, has an advanced degree and a son who has Type 1 diabetes. Some of you say you don't want health care reform because your choices will be taken away from you. Well guess what, daily other people's choices are taken away from them with the current system. The system we have now isn't working. It is forcing people into bankruptcy. It is forcing them to not get medical care because they can't afford to pay. It is forcing them to jump from one job to the other not because the second job is better but because the insurance offered is slightly better than the other job. It is forcing them to make medical desicions not on the basis of what is best medically but what can be paid for at that time. All these objections to the President's plans are alredy happening. There are already "death panels" at hospitals. Hospitals routinely make decisions to deny people care because they can't pay for a transplant. They routinely make decisions to shunt a patient to "county" or sometimes out on the street when they can't pay. It is called "dumping." The mentally ill patient would probably want to stay until he or she is truly stable but they aren't because the insurance company decides when one is stable and not the doctors. If their insurance runs out, out they go.

The nightmare scenario that some people predict is already here.

Dena

0

Satirical 4 years, 7 months ago

Fifth, here is a run-down of a few more arguments you might want to consider, unless you, like Obama, plan on ignoring all conservative arguments.

(1) Why won’t he also include tort-reform? Medical malpractice is a huge cost in the industry, but Obama and the Dems are resisting removing that costs because when trial lawyers (who largely support Dems) earn a huge profit is it justified, but when insurance companies earns profit they are just being greedy….right…. Obama doesn’t want to bite the hand the feeds him, so any tort reform, which actually could lead to huge savings, will be minor if it happens at all.

(2) Why won’t Obama allow true competition and allow insurance companies to compete in all 50 states? Everyone (who knows basic economics) understands how competition lowers costs and increases efficiency. If this is true, then why won’t Obama allow insurance company from Missouri come into Kansas and compete for customers? This would save costs, but again Obama isn’t considering it. Why?

Myself, just like almost every conservative I know, wants Health care reform. But I don’t want to replace something horrible with something atrocious and call it progress simply because my family gets free medical coverage. Unlike liberals, most conservatives don’t vote based on what they can get from the government, but rather, what is best for the country as a whole.

0

Satirical 4 years, 7 months ago

Fourth, while I compliment Obama for stating, as you say, “that he will not sign a plan that increases the deficit,” the problem as I partially stated before is - Obama has no idea how to pay for this program. If Obama is forced to either sign a bill adding to the deficit or scrap it, he will definitely do the former (or claim it will be paid for with more imaginary “savings”). If you listened to Obama’s speech you should realize his spent barely any time on how to pay for it.

Again, he claims most will be taken care of by cutting Medicare and Medicaid waste. Again, if this waste is so apparent and problematic, why didn’t he pass the cost cutting measures sooner in his presidency, or why didn’t Clinton or Carter get rid of this? What will likely happen is Obama will pass a plan and pay for it will alleged savings and cuts, but won’t be able to find the 450 + billion of waste he claims is in the system right now.

0

Satirical 4 years, 7 months ago

Third, perhaps you should have listened to both sides of the debate so you really understand the arguments of the other side, rather than fall victim to Obama’s rhetoric and assume everyone who disagrees with him must have some evil agenda. You claim “Medicare will not see cuts.” To test the veracity of this statement it must be compared to his other promises, such as how he is going to pay for this legislation.

Obama stated “most” of the 900 billion costs will come from Medicare and Medicaid cuts. Obama claims there is hundreds of billions of waste that both liberals and conservatives have somehow missed, which will be easily removed. (Both the left and the right were in control since these programs were created, and arguing all this waste was created in GWB’s first 6 years is naïve.)

Do you really trust a government that created all that waste to so effortlessly remove it? And to directly contradict your argument, are you really so confident some bureaucrat who decides what programs/costs are waste, and will be cut, won't affect any programs that are beneficial to seniors? Therefore, based on all his promises, Medicare and Medicaid will see cuts, and some of them may adversely affect senior citizens.

0

Satirical 4 years, 7 months ago

Second, you need to listen closer to what Obama actually said, not what you wanted to hear. He didn’t say, as you claim, “people who have medical insurance will see no change in their coverage.” He said no one will be required to change their insurance. While technically this is true, Obama is playing a rhetorical game to fool the simple minded. The key word is “required.”

Employers will choose the cheapest option. So, if it is cheaper for a company to pay the penalty tax (and de facto forcing employees to go with government insurance), than to provide the insurance coverage they are currently receiving, employers will make a change. While this change isn’t “required”, Obama knows employers’ decisions to do what is cheapest will likely lead to many people who currently have insurance through their work to be dropped. It is called capitalism 101. (Unless Obama missed that class and instead took Socialist Utopia 101)

0

Satirical 4 years, 7 months ago

Ms. Bailey,

First, let me say that I have a job which currently doesn’t offer any medical benefits. I am married and have three small children. So, I don’t have to pretend to play your game since I live it everyday. No one is saying health care status quo is acceptable, but neither are the reforms Obama is proposing.

0

notjustastudent 4 years, 7 months ago

My mother paid for a health care plan year after year that wouldn't pay for the remooval of moles because it was considered a vanity procedure, regardless of the mole. She got this plan because, after doing the math, it would allow her to pay for one removal per year, versus paying more for a plan that paid for part of the procedure, but would cost so much that she still wouldn't be able to afford it. But one mole removal a year, based on which was determined high risk by her dermatologist, was not enough to stop her from getting invasive melanoma 3 times. To her horror, the radiology treatments recommended by her doctors were not covered by her insurance as she thought it would be (it wouldn't have been covered by most other plans available to her, either). My mother wore sunscreen everyday, but when she was younger people thought that spf 100 actually did something. Now, I face some of the same decisions, as I am also very fair skinned and covered head to toe in moles and freckles. I already pay out of pocket for dermatologist visits, but unlike my mother, I don't have to worry about raising three children while working full time as a teacher.

I sit here and listen to people talk about laziness, and I wonder what it takes to be considered active enough to deserve the kind of health care they need to live.

0

parrothead8 4 years, 7 months ago

"Typical liberal rant - I don't want to pay for my healthcare (insert any service required), but want to receive the service and expect everyone else to pay for it. It is my right as a lazy liberal!

You want healthcare - get a job with benefits. That may require you to WORK."

Cripes, what an elitist, snobby remark. ALL liberals are unemployed and sit around coffeehouses complaining about what they don't have, right? Way to generalize. By your logic, all unemployed people are lazy. I assume that includes unemployed conservatives, as well as unemployed autoworkers, teachers, and police officers. All lazy bums.

More and more companies in this country are NOT offering benefits to their workers. Where do you suggest all of these lazy people go to find jobs?

And what do you suggest for my "lazy" uncle, who barely gets by while providing food for thousands of people with his farm, and who has unfailingly voted Republican for 40 years, yet cannot afford good health insurance?

I would hope that in a country as great as America, the richest nation on earth, that we could find a way to take care of everyone's health. Oh, and by the way...I have a job. With benefits. I'm a liberal, and I work about 70 hours a week. And there are many more like me.

0

Pilgrim2 4 years, 7 months ago

goodcitizen (Anonymous) says…

Grammar Lesson: Affect is the verb—as in “It won't affect me”. Effect is the noun—as in “it won't have any effect”.


Yeah, if only they had paid more attention to they're English lessons in school.

0

goodcitizen 4 years, 7 months ago

Grammar Lesson: Affect is the verb--as in "It won't affect me". Effect is the noun--as in "it won't have any effect".

But......... "Rare Uses of Affect and Effect" from this link: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx

"So what about those rare meanings that don't follow the rules I just gave you? Well, affect can be used as a noun when you're talking about psychology--it means the mood that someone appears to have. For example, "She displayed a happy affect." Psychologists find it useful because they know that you can never really understand what someone else is feeling. You can only know how they appear to be feeling.

And, effect can be used as a verb that essentially means "to bring about," or "to accomplish." For example, you could say, "Aardvark hoped to effect change within the burrow.""

0

Jimo 4 years, 7 months ago

"Typical liberal rant - I don't want to pay for my healthcare (insert any service required), but want to receive the service and expect everyone else to pay for it. It is my right as a lazy liberal!"

Typical wingnut ranting. The poor? I spit upon you. The middle class? I spit upon you. The wealthy? How do I love thee, let me count the ways. Big business? How may I subsidize you more?

As Barney Frank would ask: on what planet do you spend the majority of your time?

0

Alia Ahmed 4 years, 7 months ago

Tom,

Why do you think these people weren't equally angry about the increased spending of the last administration as well as the erosion of our personal freedoms through the Patriot Act and lies about WMD in Iraq that have led to more American deaths than occurred in all terrorists act directed toward the US by foreign and our own home-grown terrorist combined? Hmmm.... what's different about this president running up the deficit?

Part of the increased deficit is truly trying to protect our country from a total economic collapse, regardless of who you feel is responsible for the mess we are in. You may dsagree whether that is the best route to take it terms of the bank and auto industry bailouts, but our economic woes were and are real, whereas the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were not. In terms of money spent, which has the stronger possibiity of a return on our investment? Clearly for the families of injured and killed soldiers, their investment and loss can not be measured in dollars and cents, but in heartache and grief.

0

geekin_topekan 4 years, 7 months ago

Hey Tom,be,lawrenceguy and whoever else hates their fellow American. Your guy lost. Get over it. Affordable health care is on the way. Just like the T, the non-happening SLT and the homeless shelter. Real people in the real world know what is going on and are taking action. Enjoy your screens on this beautiful day. We'll be out here doing real world stuff.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 7 months ago

Scott, I guess I really mean that I see much, much bigger problems out of this adm/congress. As we saw yesterday, America is really mad, and it's not just about ObamaCare.

0

scott3460 4 years, 7 months ago

"“and … I turned off the TV.” Of course you did. You had already heard what you wanted hear. The promoters of “free health care for all” rely on the gullible to get this poisonous bill rammed through."

Or, what was forthcoming from the corporate media was going to be an entirely predictable ginning up of a dispute that would generate viewership and advertising revenue. It is not a completely unreasonable move to ignore the punditry offered by the mainstream corporate media and to simply watch an event and draw one's own conclusions.

0

scott3460 4 years, 7 months ago

"It won't effect me one way or another and I really don't care."

Anyone who participates in these forums certainly ought to be able to evaluate the veracity of that statement. You, Tom, certainly appear to care a great deal. Why are you claiming otherwise?

0

Alia Ahmed 4 years, 7 months ago

northtown- don't many farmers benefit from "government control" through price supports, CRP and even food stamps? Food stamps are administered through the USDA as it was designed to help poor people eat as well as support farmers who could't sell the fruits of their labor when the number of people who couldn't buy food increased.

According to Wikipedia, this is what the first administrator of the program said about it. "We got a picture of a gorge, with farm surpluses on one cliff and under-nourished city folks with outstretched hands on the other. We set out to find a practical way to build a bridge across that chasm."

Most people are in favor of "government controls" when they personally see a direct benefit from them and unfortunately opposed when the problem doesn't effect them (yet).

Many people, especially Republicans, were opposed to Social Security and Medicare when those to programs were being debated and enacted and said it would lead down the road to socialism just as opponents of healthcare reform do today. Ask anyone who receives those benefits and oppose healthcare reform if they will turn down or return those benefits since they are afraid of "the road to socialism"

Some people say that Social Security benefits and Medicare are different because they pay in to that system. They have paid into those systems through payroll taxes but their benefits are not limited to the contributions they made. Most people probably receive more benefits than they contributed. It's the contributions of current workers that provide the benefits for the current recipients.

There are many forms of "government control" that you and I benefit from everyday including national defense and highways that you and I drive on and that your crops travel to elevators and food manufacturers plants. The same "government controlled highways" then bring those finished products to the store so you and I can purchase them. The same mechanism is at work, citizen pay taxes to maintain roads and everyone gets to use them, regardless of the amount of taxes they pay in.

I know that I won't change your mind or anyone else's who opposes this president, healthcare reform or anyone other program that is perceived as "government controlled". But, I still try to provide a different perspective for "food for thought".

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

Weezy_Jefferson (Anonymous) says…

"Ah, the popular conservative mantra. There's the problem right there."

And how is that different from saying 'Sure, it will cost a ton of money, but who cares, OUR taxes won't go up, just theirs?'

Oh, sorry, forgot the popular liberal mantra, "But - that's *different."

0

northtown 4 years, 7 months ago

We farm for a living.Who pays for our heatlh insurance,Me and mt wife,who is going to keeep paying for it,no matters what the Oh so wonderful president does--My wife and I -we don't want any more government control..We as farmers deal with enough government crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0

be3 4 years, 7 months ago

Typical, more deadbeat lazy liberals looking for handouts.

0

Leslie Swearingen 4 years, 7 months ago

This is an excellent letter. A lot of people in Lawrence know exactly what you are writing about. They may not respond, but they are reading you and nodding yes. There are people working two jobs who still don't have health insurance and can't afford it. They are just one segment of our society that needs relief and help. There are no guarantees in life and before you get too smug about what you are accomplishing, and all with no help or support whatsoever, you might remember that things change, and very fast. Thank you for writing this.

0

Weezy_Jefferson 4 years, 7 months ago

TomShewmon says: "It won't effect me one way or the other and I really don't care."

Ah, the popular conservative mantra. There's the problem right there.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 7 months ago

The majority of Americans do NOT want nationalized healthcare....end of discussion. It won't effect me one way or another and I really don't care. It's the 'big picture' with these jokers that is scary. They are sleazy, lying, self-important, arrogant, radical, far-left idealogues. If Obama and congress shove it through with a public option, they'll all lose their jobs. I hope they do. Well, Reid appears to be out as the numbers stand today anyway. So does Dodd and a few other Dems, going on current poll numbers. It's speculated Dems will lose up to 40 seats in the house next November.

0

barrypenders 4 years, 7 months ago

Progressive democrats want rebublicans money. Apparently, rebublicans grass is always greener. The insecurity for progressive democrats well being is a systemic value that cannot be satisfied by 72 virgins. Maybe ACORN can coherce 'wise latinas' to eradicate this insecurity that requires demanding property from rebublicans. Progressive humans antiestablishmentarianism is rampant and has not been cured throughout their history.

Keep it in the fairway

Darwin bless you

0

monkeyhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

"The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney 08.24.09"

http://www.thoughts.com/CKP09/blog/health-care-bill-its-problems-371157/

0

mr_right_wing 4 years, 7 months ago

CORRECTION: "Health [control] debate"

and once again.... "Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it and whose members will be exempt from it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke."

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

"The health care debate … Wednesday night, I distinctly heard President Obama say that people who have medical insurance will see no change in their coverage, that Medicare will not see cuts, that he will not sign a plan that increases the deficit and that individuals and small businesses who can’t afford existing plans will have an opportunity to buy insurance from a premium-funded public option."

And of course, a politician would never mislead you, Lisa.

I distinctly heard him say things about the economy and unemployment and closing Guantanamo and a bunch of other things. But THIS time, he means it, right?

"I offer a challenge to all politicians and, in fact, to anyone in the conservative camp with health insurance: Pretend you have no coverage for the duration of this debate."

I offer a challenge to all liberal politicians - imagine you'll have to live with the plan that you pass for the rest of us.

0

monkeyhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

"and … I turned off the TV." Of course you did. You had already heard what you wanted hear. The promoters of "free health care for all" rely on the gullible to get this poisonous bill rammed through.

If you actually believe this is about your health and not about control and power, then I hope you get the health care you deserve.

0

appleaday 4 years, 7 months ago

Typical, Lawrence guy. You don't seem to realize that there are people who can't work because of injury and disability. You also don't realize the high cost of health insurance for small businesses. People who are self-employed (and who work very hard) often can't afford the premiums because insurance companies can charge whatever they want. And there are plenty of insurance companies who can deny coverage or stop covering people that THEY deem uninsurable for whatever pre-existing condition they want. Quit being so smug. A lot of companies are laying off a lot of employees (people who would "get a job" if they could. The president has asked for an honest debate -- sharing of ideas and consensus on the end result. What has happened is a huge group of people who refuse to tolerate any change at all based on some unfounded fear of "Socialism." By the way, if you think you're not paying for other people's health care now, think again. All of those uninsured people get the most expensive health care the system offers because they wait until they're very sick to get care and wind up in emergency rooms and hospitals. The hospitals and doctors have to write off those bills and they do that by passing on the costs to your insurance company and to other self-paying customers. That's a kind of socialism in a way and it makes no sense.

0

Mixolydian 4 years, 7 months ago

I have a high deductible health insurance policy with an HSA through the employer. Extremely affordable for families.

I don't have to imagine it...I do pay for the doctors visits, I have paid for the labs and the MRI's.. It's a good thing. The choice is in my hands...not Obama's.

Please. Think this through yourselves. Not through the republican or democrat policy planks.

0

lawrenceguy40 4 years, 7 months ago

Typical liberal rant - I don't want to pay for my healthcare (insert any service required), but want to receive the service and expect everyone else to pay for it. It is my right as a lazy liberal!

You want healthcare - get a job with benefits. That may require you to WORK.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.