Obama’s endorsement will have questionable results viewing the fact that he has just completed one year in the White House which has been named by many of the “Hope and Change” people as “The Year of Disappointment”. At this point it is obvious that the Obama administration has run amuck with their alleged power and the voters of America are standing up to be counted when the opportunity to bring back some checks and balances to the ultra-liberal administration presents itself, even in a race for a seat historically held by an ultra-liberal. Losing the super-majority, while not completely stopping the chances of Obama-Care passing, will put the brakes on the Senate cramming it down the throats of the American public by giving pause for discussion and debate.
In addition, a Republican win in liberal Massachusetts could point to disastrous results in the current election cycle. The Corrector predicts that if Brown wins, Democrats will be abandoning the Obama sinking ship in record numbers, either by retiring, or by just saying they are pursuing “other opportunities” Montana’s pair of sellouts, Senator Baucus and Tester, should take note.
Even the liberal Public Policy Polling poll has 20% of people who voted for Obama only 14 months ago, supporting Scott Brown. Furthermore, the poll goes on to show that 25% of those polled think that ACORN operatives will do something to “steal” the election for Coakly, including 12% of those that labeled themselves as liberal.
Good Luck Scott Brown in winning this race to save the American taxpayer.
One whould probably consider that the American taxpayer is going to pay for this anyway about it.
ReplyDeleteThe people that shout loudest for the defeat of nationalized health care seem to forget that without health insurance, people show uo sicker, and quite often in the emergency room.
Under the current system, employers are asked to pay more and more to insure their employees. These employees are an asset of the company. If an employee is highly trained and/or licensed,it is important for the employing company to retain them, and keep them healthy.
I think many employers would agree that the current system of health care cost increases are unsustainable with regard to continuing good business.
Insuring every man, woman, and child in this country, with the same policy that members of congress are benefitted, would cost around 100 billion dollars.
On a related note, acccording to some well run, longitudinal studies, alcohol related medical problems cost the US 110 billion dollars a year.
Other countries do not have the problem with alcohol, because they do not accept the misinformation and disinformation that is promoted by the AA faith and the recovery industry.
www.orange-papers.org
A win by Scott Brown tomorrow will again tell our elected officials that the majority of the voters are against this Obama fiasco.
ReplyDeleteYou Like the music of Ray Stevens? Check out his u-tube song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc_-L4fyLUo#watch-main-area
Just saw on the news that miss Martha's poll rating has dropped to 43%. Yeah, so much for Obama going to Boston to help her out
ReplyDeleteDeConstructor, enough with the liberal talking points for a change, please. Let's face it, this healthcare bill is a complete joke. It may have been born with good intentions, but now it is the rotten kid no one can stand anymore. The bills, both the Senate and the House version, are bloated with pork (or buyoffs) for certain Senators in the form of Medicaid waivers and offsets for increased State expenses, i.e. Landrieu of Louisiana, and Nelson of Nebraska and Nelson of Florida. Neither bill will cover all those people not currently covered in fact the Congressional Budget Office concluded that as many as 27 million will still be uninsured by the time these bills go into effect in late 2013. So what’s the point? Cover 20 million more people than we already do for $1 Trillion? That comes down to $4100 a month for each man woman and child. You state that we can insure every man, woman and child in this country for $100 Billion (using the Congressional plan) and this is assuming you understand the Congressional healthcare plans which are like yours and mine, individually based so the cost varies dramatically. So let’s test your theory with an average health care plan. Let’s assume a an average plan would cost according to the Kaiser Family Foundation $400 per month, or $4800 a year. The population is currently around 309 million which is $1.48 Trillion per year. With health care already accounting for nearly 16% of GDP this would make healthcare as much as 26% of GDP which is the opposite direction we want to go. Not to mention how they indent to pay for this bill. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I’ll fight to the death to stop Baucus and his cronies from taxing my healthcare benefits!!! I work hard for my benefits and our unions protect our contracts including healthcare benefits for myself, my wife and my three kids. I voted for change and honest debate. Now I see we get special treatment and deals on the backs of other workers. What has happened to this Country!!! Throw this bill in the trash and start over.
ReplyDeleteRR59501-
ReplyDeleteYou need to refigure your math.
I am unaware of how much your individual health insurance costs, or how much you need to contribute, although I can make a pretty close guess.
Here is the problem.
The costs are rising so fast, that no company can keep up with them, causing employers to raise how much the employee must contribute Even when Uncle Warren takes over your business, he doesn't have enough money.
Out of ALL the money spent on healthcare last year in the United States, one dollar out of 700 went to compensate the CEO of UnitedHealth. This is sick and wrong.
We should not use the figures that you are quoting because there is no end, and it is not sustainable.
The country does not have a choice, we need radical change in the health care system.
I agree with you about being disappointed about the outcome of the debate and action happening in congress.
Max Baucus sold out the people of Montana, to the interests of the health care and insurance industry.
I think that is why he made the drunken show he did on the floor of the Senate. He knows his time is over and Schwietzer is knocking on his door to take his seat.
The biggest problem is that Obama tried to compromise and be bipartisan. We do not need tweaking in health care, we need a revolution.
Deconstructor, my point is your math makes zero sense as well. I realize nothing we do is sustainable, but nothing proposed is sustainable as well, because it does not address cost except by way of price controls, WHICH DO NOT WORK!!!! We cannot allow such a "radical" as you call it reform, not only is it not necessary because most people are happy with their current care as long as some of the shenanigans of the insurance companies are brought into check. If we can work on tort reform, cross state line competition, and grouping (like my insurance is my local is just a small group within a big group of locals and we get our "cadillac" coverage much cheaper. Why can't we do that for the American people?? Why do we need to creat a subsidized echange plan. Fix the mistakes in the program and leave the rest alone!! How much screaming is it going to take to tell Congress you idiots are all wrong and you're gonna pay for your stupidity come November. And what bipartisanship are you referring to with Obamaman??? Biggest liar we've elected to date. He let cousin Harry and sister Nancy run the show and here we are!!! Wake up and smell the roses, the Dems were handed the chance on a silver platter and just like the Reps before them, they squandered every single opportunity. Unfortunately I think this loss is going to hurt really bad!
ReplyDeleteRR59501
ReplyDeleteI think that we are basically in agreement on most of this issue.
Nationalized health care would be like an extension of your local going together and getting everyone in the country a "cadillac" policy.
That is why the marketing should have been a lot better (Medicare For ALL) instead of the opposition using terms like "death panels"
Additionally, the term "socialism" is used like it is some type of trump card, forgetting that we have socialized emergency services, k-12 schools, garbage and water services, and a library here in Havre.
Price controls do work, and they are necessary, because of the lack of competition in health care. They say they are competetive, but they lie.
A national version of Montanas PSC might be a start.
Other countries do this way, way better than we do.
Not very long ago, my father had to have an emegency root canal in Egypt. He felt it was as good a job as he could have gotten here, and there was a very modest bill.
It is very sad to see that our political leaders are so indebted to the industrys, that they will lose their seats before doing what is right for the American people, owners of this country.