Limbaugh: Health Care's Got to be Priced the Same Way a Hotel Is--You Want to Stay at the Ritz, You Pay for It.

We are free to raise taxes on ourselves to pay for collective services such as defense, post offices, roads, education and health.

Health care is not a right. It is a SERVICE that is provided by health care professionals and those professionals need to be paid.

Health care is not a right. It is a SERVICE that is provided by health care professionals and those professionals need to be paid.

We'll see if you whistle the same tune when you get diagnosed with colon cancer and get stuck with a half-million-dollar bill for treatment. We simply can't leave things the way they are... Say what you will about 'free markets', the current system is unsustainable. People just cannot afford to go to the doctor anymore, plain and simple. I mean, really, what good is the 'best health care system in the world' if nobody can @!$%#ing afford to use it??! It's just like a Lexus -- yeah the sonofabitch can park itself, but if it costs $120,000, it doesn't mean squat to the average joe schmo.

the observer, wow quite an interpretation of the constitution and declaration of independence

please explain this (second section of the Declaration of Independance

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

So above were it says Life does that not include health care?? If a person needs medical help to maintain life is that not then a right???

Or is this just gibberish because it has nothing to do with owning guns?

So above were it says Life does that not include health care?? If a person needs medical help to maintain life is that not then a right???

No it does not include healthcare. John Locke wrote in the Treatises of Government, which Thomas Jefferson borrowed: "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." This had nothing whatsover to do with the government demanding free healthcare.

When you deny one the right to health care, it's harm

Who is ever denied healthcare? I work in a hospital a s nuclear medicine technologist and I can assure that no one is ever turned away from the ER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER,NEVER. And I work in downtown Detroit, where poverty runs amok. Besides this does not change the fact that Locke's words were never to imply free healthcare.

patriotic

well you seem to have a very nice twist on interpreting what a right is vs a death sentence

First off since you are in the health care profession you should know more than others how the uninsured cannot afford to make a doctors visit, they are removed from most all preventative care and diagnostic until it reaches a point of being a very serious condition and then they visit the ER for treatment-- no one mentioned people being turned away from the ER where is that coming from , just another twist of words???

The guaranteed rights are not dependant on who earns more money-- they are rights for ALL sure the more money a person has the more luxuries they can afford to have-- that should have nothing to do with health care -- I know many poor people who's lives are worth way more than rich dick heads like dope head limbaugh but he is speaking out like he is because he has millions-- take his money away and this blow hard would be the first with his hand out for welfare-- just like all the others who blather on about bottom feeders just a whole lot of ignorant hypocrites

Who's proposing free healthcare?

BO is.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/health_care_obama/2009/07/19/237484.html?s=al&promo_code=83A3-1

http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/CONTENT/article.aspx?RsrcID=51380

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/07/27/translating_obamacare_into_plain_english_97328.html

patriotic -- not really

Why do you ignore the bulk of the topic and zero in on this claim of yours regarding free health care proposed by President Obama -- are you aware that President Obama did not give the congress any draft of a health care reform? Whether you are aware or not, it doesn't change the fact that the President did not give a bill to Congress, he told Congress to come up with a reform bill so each and every one of your comments regarding any of these drafts of health care bills as belonging to President Obama is either through your lack of understanding of what is going on in the government or just you trying to spread lies-- so which talking head are you getting your fact-less info from?

I see you are still twisting words to fit your view-- there is nothing that proposes free health care

Suggest you take a remedial reading course and take of the red glasses before reading it may help

did you read what you wrote? you said the "pursuit" of happiness and than complained that people may not be happy.

You don't have the right to happiness.

That's another one of those Liberal Ideas, "I deserve happiness", "I don't have to pursue it, I just want it and deserve it", "I shouldn't have to put any effert towards it"!

It is kind of hard to pursue happiness when you have terminal cancer and can't afford a diagnosis or basic health care.

I am not asking for anyone to make me happy, I know that doesn't happen. If the callousness of capitalist business practices keep me from getting needed care, and deprive me from getting annual exams or tests that would keep me healthy, it becomes impossible for me to pursue happiness and it infringes on my very RIGHT TO LIFE.

I find it very hard to believe that people will rant and rave about the murder of millions of unborn babies, yet once you are actually born they will call you a lazy bum and deny you rights listed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Since I don't have the right to be happy, I don't have the right to pursue happiness, I don't have the right to life, and I don't have the right to liberty, I guess the only right that I still have in America is the right to bear arms. Thank God!

If you are not health and can not afford any health care, you definitely are not happy and you may not have life for very long. People who are sick are in bed don't have the liberty to go out and pursue their dreams.

Even if I believe in the absurd premise that healthcare is a right, where does it say that this right has to be affordable? Who decides affordable? I have a right to firearms. Does this mean I would then have a right to free guns or cheap ones? I have a right to inhale nicotine . Do I deserve the right to affordable or free cigarettes? This premise of "healthcare is a right," taken to extremes shows the absurdity in the presmise to begin with. You show me how to best define "affordable" becasue I can gurantee you your version and my version won't line up.

Guns and a year of cigarettes are a lot cheaper than health care for a major illness or injury.

But you have a good idea. Since we have freedom, and people don't want to pay for the bad decisions others make concerning their health, the only solution is to make those bad decisions unaffordable.

If we raise the taxes on all firearms, munitions, cigarettes, and alcohol to the point where those things become unaffordable for most of the populace, that will eliminate many health problems and allow the government to raise enough money to perhaps subsidize at least the major medical portion of health insurance coverage for all Americans.

If businesses or individuals want to buy plans that cover more, they are welcome to.

Thanks Patriotic Dissenter for a very patriotic idea!

Since we have freedom, and people don't want to pay for the bad decisions others make concerning their health, the only solution is to make those bad decisions unaffordable.

You are right. We do have freedom and that includes my freedom not pay your way through life via healthcare or any other "right" you make up. You demand free/affordable healthcare and claim it is a right. I demand free/affordable guns and owning guns is a right afforded to me by the 2nd amendment. So where are my free guns? It's my right . The right to free/affordable healthcare is covered specifically under what amendment? The healthcare amendment? The government owes me everything amendment?

If we raise the taxes

Liberals never cease to show their true colors. Tax,tax,tax,tax.

I am a liberal, and I am proud to support America through my taxes. I don't understand how you can rant about free OR affordable health care, when you HAVE been paying for OTHER peoples' health care for years.

You are paying FICA and Medicare taxes on your income. Where is the outrage about that? Or do you just resent paying taxes that might go to provide health care to anyone under the age of 65?

I did not say free, I said subsidized (and only for people who could not afford care otherwise)...

BTW -

Rush clarified this statement today

Health care, other than catastrophic, accident, severe illness -- health care's got to be priced the same way a hotel room is or a car is.

Rush thinks the government should cover catastrophic, accident, or severe illness health care for ALL Americans.

patriotic -- not really confused is more like it

You yet again continue the right wing nutter practise of twisting peoples words and just making things up

What talking head has told you that you will be paying for someone else's health care any more than you are doing right now today? You said you worked in the health care industry so you must be fa,illiar with the fact that uninsured people are forced to wait until what ever ails them makes them sick enough to go to the ER then their care is very expensive and the costs of that care is passed onto everyone who uses the hospital -- or are you ignorant of that fact???

rbach, the disease of making things up is called "rabbitholia". Too bad that there is no side effect that would cause lockjaw and/or impairment of fingers to type.

Thanks for introducing me to "right wing-nutter kool-aid". Once Tyler bitched about it, I had to eat the forbidden fruit.

Patriotic Dissenter, you sound like a fellow who would disparage the skill and learning of a mechanic. I know the tone and you have it. Thank God I longer throw pearls before swine.

No pearls for you.

(What incredible restraint I just showed by not calling him a tightwad @!$%#)

(What incredible restraint I just showed by not calling him a tightwad

You think that by sanctimoniuously blathering where or where not my tax dollars have to go, you are somehow better than me? It shows that you have absolutely no respect for what you earn and are willingly to just give it away. But you just don't blindly give away what you have rightfully earned; you make those that actually do value their labor and expect to keep it feel bad about it? Sell your crappola someplace else, I ain't buying your b.s.

patriotic -- hardly

you are the only one blather nonsense here -- first you have no details as to what the current health reform bill will actually do- second you have no clue about the reality of all of us currently paying higher prices for health care to offset those with no insurance and no money -- third you have absolutely no facts as to whether or not the health care reform will actually cost anyone -- but all those unknowns certainly do not stop you from spewing and sputtering and blathering outright nonsense -- you have not given one single detail or fact that would help your wild claims yet you ignore all the details and facts others have showed you-- so you the unpatriotic one is the only one spewing crappola--- thanks though it is a real laugh -- next thing we know you will be picking up on the birther movement and go to tea parties--- yippee ignorance is truly bliss

you are the only one blather nonsense

What you just wrote is the epitome of nonsense. Nice try deflecting.

first you have no details as to what the current health reform bill will actually do

You have me confused with BO and your liberal democrats. It is they who have no idea. And judging from your nonsense you have no idea either, just what BO tells you.

second you have no clue about the reality of all of us currently paying higher prices for health care to offset those with no insurance and no money

Really? Well, seeing that I was born and raised in Canada and moved here when I was 19, I think I do have just a better understanding of what socialized medicine does and is. Try living in Canada and being told you just had a TIA and OHIP (Ontario Hospitalization and Insurance Plan) says the MRI won't be done until 6 weeks. And then you call over to the Henry Ford Hospitals in Detroit and had that same MRI done in 2 days. Please do not pretend to know what you obviously have no idea, just what BO and the libbies tell you.

third you have absolutely no facts as to whether or not the health care reform will actually cost anyone

Look up North to Canada and you will see what those of who already know: healthcare is rationed and you end up paying PST, GST, Federal taxes until you give 50% or more of your paycheck to Ottawa. Go out and experience what socialized medicine is like before blathering because you just have no idea what you are talking about. None.

Have fun living in your fantasyland.

patriotic -- not even close

Wow what a closed minded right wing reply -- you make me laugh every time you twist and turn peoples word

So were is any of your facts and details regarding the current health care bill in the US? What details in the US plan are the same as the Canadian plan? Will be waiting for any factual details (you know the details you seem to not have)

Nope no deflecting on my part just pointing out your deflection attempts that are not working

Nope don't have you confused with anyone except the rest of the blather low to no information right wing nutters all blowing smoke with zero facts I am so sure that President Obama has more intelligence on every topic than you posses I would love to see you in a debate with him-- I am sure he would lop off your head and hand it to you before you realized the debate even started

You show much judgement, intolerance and hatred toward President Obama -- are you a racists or do you have some other criteria on ranking our president?

You write about an instance in Canada and with zero details of the US plan you automatically think it will be the same as the Canadian plan -- wow that shows an awful lot about your lack of common sense

You the unpatriotic one appear to be the only one ignoring reality and stewing in your fantasy world

Patriotic Dissenter, regarding:

where or where not my tax dollars have to go

How would you like it, straight up or sideways?

How would you like it, straight up or sideways?

Nothing worse than what Chairman Maobama did to you dupes who bought his Chicago, b.s: bent over and dry

With a littel bit of tweaking, the system itself can provide comprehensive health care, without the massive overhaul that Obama and Congress are proposing.

Going to the ER only when you are ill is not comprehensive. Preventative care is comprehensive and needed to avoid those costly trips to the ER. As a taxpayer, I'd rather pay into a system that allows a person to see a doctor regaularly than to go only when they're knocking on death's door.

Reason one is that I think it is highly unethical to allow our people to live that way and two, we're supposed to be the greatest nation - how can we be if we allow this to go on?

The government insurance may not pay for grandma's hip replacement, so if grandma thinks she might need a hip replacement one day, she better have better insurance.

I visited a 'hospital' in East Timor several years ago. Basically an open building with no glass in the windows, no screens or mosquito netting, filthy and with flies everywhere. Family members were responsible for feeding, clothing and cleaning. Cooking was done over an open flame outside the building.

I would imagine that those people would have looked at a Motel-6 type hospital as one of the best places on earth.

We should be thankful for what we have.

Good point. The problem is the docs don't want to staff the cheap hospital. Seen the state of health care in rural America? They can't find decent GPs. I have a buddy that got to work of his medical loans by working in some Appalacian hospital for 4 years.

Another government sponsored program that excused him of $150K in gov't debt. We now get to foot his bill (and many, many like him) with our tax dollars.

Know what he did the day after his tenure there was up? Went to the hospital where he could earn the highest salary. Don't blame him. He worked it right. All I'm saying is the Motel-6 hospitals will have difficulty staffing. And will end up doing so with people who don't want to be there. And will most likely be doing that with another government program.

Yes, but those Appalachian hospitals were staffed with qualified doctors that the government put in there as a way of the doctors repaying a debt. After he worked it off, he was free to go to the highest bidder. That's a form of government sponsored health care that works.

Why not continue or expand that practice as an 'incentive' to work in the medical profession while at the same time providing health care services to those that can least afford it?

sacheson - "All I'm saying is the Motel-6 hospitals will have difficulty staffing."

True for the most part but there are always going to be new doctors coming onto the scene to replace those with more experience who have moved from Motel 6 hospitals to top of the line hospitals. The difficulty in the staffing is more of a turnover issue than not having enough docs at least where I live.

proud2bconservative - Good post.

Sounds like there is a need for some regulation in the private health care insurance industry. Your examples are probably common throughout the industry and it is something that needs to be addressed.

I'm happy with my insurance. I've never been denied treatment or had to argue about bills between myself, the provider and the insurance company. I have co-pays and deductables and can't complain about what it costs me out of pocket.

Of course, now that I'm getting older, I'm seeing the doc's more often :-(

If we go to Obama's plan, at what point will I be told to go home and die?

I don't think we'd ever be told to go home and die. Doctors are doctors - the government won't change that.

I do believe that we'd realize 50% tax rate (for those of us that pay taxes) to support the ever expanding budget that we'd realize. I think we'd notice an increase in procedures / tests ordered so docs could make up for being shorted on government pay. I think we'd notice an increase in prescriptions. I think we'd realize an unhealthier populous. And I think the industry would soon learn that it's easier to take advantage of the government than private industry. Burdens I'm not willing to take on.

Reform is needed. Obamacare is not.

Greg - can you describe what the diff between the policies would be? I'm having a hard time visualizing what elective policies are in my current plan.

Cosmetic surgery shouldn't be covered.

I paid for my own vasectomy - but I know my neighbor's plan covers that. So maybe that's something that could be removed.

But the huge costs are incurred with horrible diseases like cancer. I can't see how a policy could determine levels of adequate treatment for cancer based on your ability to pay.

Our policy is through Aetna. We have health, dental and eye care with a $ 20 co-Pay. We pay $585/month for 5 people. My $ 56,000 - 1 week hospital stay cost us $ 3,750 out of pocket. My policy is considered a Cadillac of policies.

CVS, Walgreen's and Walmart are now providing a universal preventative check up for little money out of pocket.

You pick a menu, which has the price just like a food menu, wait around 10 to 20 minutes, they give you a checkup, diagnose you, write a prescription if you need it, send you on your way.

Even with my insurance, we have used this for our kids for just general cuts, scraps, illness.

Major catastrophic are already supplied through the Hospitals, as under law, they can not deny you health care because you can't pay.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

So yes, everybody has Health Care, no matter their circumstances.

The fasllecy is, 45 million are without health care is false. They may be without Health Insurance, but not care.

Then you have to figure in the 12 million Illegals that get lumped in, the people who they count, that are not insured for a week or so, and those they count that choose not to have health care, even though they can afford it.

Yes. OK - sounds like you are much like me in that regard. Didn't know where you were going - thanks for the clarification.

Funny - we do the exact same thing.

Another annoyance of mine - you reference the preventative check stuff. Again - a problem with the current system is the people that don't take advantage of it. "Why pay when I can go to the ER and get it for free?"

The falesy is, 45 million are without health care is false. They may be without Health Insurance, but not care.

Don't get me started on this argument. Too many used to entitlements.

I guess we've agreed and didn't know it! LOL!

To many things to get solved before August, and this government isn't going to solve anything. Only going to compound the problem!

Morning G,

My policy is considered a Cadillac of policies.

So I guess there is no need for the Mustang after all! LOL

So yes, everybody has Health Care, no matter their circumstances.

You have to factor how much that actually costs taxpayers. Yes, the hospitals are bound by law to treat extreme cases, but this is not free, and the costs are charged back to the taxpayers. Imagine if these individuals had health care. The total cost wouldn't have to come from the Taxpayers.

The fasllecy is, 45 million are without health care is false. They may be without Health Insurance, but not care.

It's not a falsely, it's semantics. 45 million are without Health Care (Insurance). Many are routinely turned away because they do not have health care (insurance), thus the fact that they have no Health Care! Tax dollars go to subsidize insurance companies, and then we pay when the uninsured go to the emergency room and are unable to pay the bills. If we can cut the amount that goes towards Insurance Company subsidies, and cut the amount charged back to the government for uninsured visits to the hospital we could be saving the taxpayers a butt load of money!

Then you have to figure in the 12 million Illegals that get lumped in, the people who they count, that are not insured for a week or so, and those they count that choose not to have health care, even though they can afford it.

So lets say 33 million americas. Does it sound better to say that over 10% of the population of the riches nation on earth it without health care insurance? Still sounds bad to me!

Go Jets!

OF, Great Morning:

So I guess there is no need for the Mustang after all! LOL

Will you stop rubbing it in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but this is not free, and the costs are charged back to the taxpayers.

Its free for them, and yes, its not free for us. Same as the bill being proposed, we will still pay for those that can't afford it, but this time, it will be in writing that its mandatory.

45 million are without Health Care (Insurance).

The reading I've done does show that there are a lot of people that really don't fit that scenario. As to subsidizing health care, I think its more on the Medicare and Medicade programs that are feeling the pinch because of costs.

To me, reducing product costs and tort reform should be the only bill being proposed. That would reduce costs.

There are too many factors that drive up cost's for one bill, that wants inclusion for everyone, to remedy. This year is not the time for it.

I have given Oabama cudos for getting it to light, but I condemn the way its being done with no reading and no real thought.

Pats RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will you stop rubbing it in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry couldn't waste an opportunity! LOL

Its free for them, and yes, its not free for us. Same as the bill being proposed, we will still pay for those that can't afford it, but this time, it will be in writing that its mandatory.

Another misconception. From what I understand, if you are unable to afford the health care plan offered buy the government you will granted a "Hardship" waiver. It's not like they have to join the plan anyway and the taxpayers pick up the tab. But if we don't do something for them, we will end up paying a lot more when they go to the emergency room to see their General Practitioner [sarcasm].

There are too many factors that drive up cost's for one bill, that wants inclusion for everyone, to remedy. This year is not the time for it.

When is?

43.6 Million Americans Uninsured

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Uninsured/

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

What additional costs are created by the uninsured population?

• The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis.¹⁴
• Hospitals provide about $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year.¹⁴
• Another $37 billion is paid by private and public payers for health services for the uninsured and $26 billion is paid out-of-pocket by those who lack coverage.¹⁴
• The uninsured are 30 to 50 percent more likely to be hospitalized for an avoidable condition, with the average cost of an avoidable hospital stayed estimated to be about $3,300.¹⁴
• The increasing reliance of the uninsured on the emergency department has serious economic implications, since the cost of treating patients is higher in the emergency department than in other outpatient clinics and medical practices.¹¹
• A study found that 29 percent of people who had health insurance were “underinsured” with coverage so meager they often postponed medical care because of costs.¹⁵ Nearly 50 percent overall, and 43 percent of people with health coverage, said they were “somewhat” to “completely” unprepared to cope with a costly medical emergency over the coming year.¹⁵

you mean like all the members of congress?

do not want to pay more to help less fortunate country men.

Then what are charities for? Billions are paid into these orginizations every year, to help the less priviledged.

Are you saying Acorn is a fraud for not supplying the under priviledged, because that's one of there Mantra's.

Some charities are good and some are just out right frauds. Nevertheless, the amount of people that are suffereing due to the economy or other reasons far out weigh the number of charaties capable of helping them.

Make a not to compare how the sytem is now and what happens when ALL the baby boomers hit the retirement and medicare sytem and see what happens.

the amount of people that are suffereing due to the economy or other reasons far out weigh the number of charaties capable of helping them.

You'd be suprised the amount of people out of work, that weren't concidered under priviledged.

Those folks aren't crying out for government wellfare, they cry out that the joke of a stimulus package and this health insurance bill has not nor will do anything to get the economy back on track. Now Obama and the White House is back tracking and telling us it will be 2 years before we see any change, BUT THEY DECLARED IT A HERE AND NOW EMERGENCY to get it passed!

G,

Are you saying Acorn is a fraud for not supplying the under priviledged, because that's one of there Mantra's.

You should be ashamed or yourself! That was so low brow, Rush-esque, and i know that's not your usual M.O.

37 Million americans in this country live below the poverty line! Those billions that you speak of, in donations, first have to pay for overhead! So just because a charity collects $1 million doesn't mean that the entire Million goes to those who need it!

How much does the charity spend on administrative overhead and fund raising? The less the charity spends on these expenses, the more money will be available for worthwhile programs. Better charities spend an average of only 23% of their budget on overhead and fund-raising, although that can vary dramatically depending on the type of charity and how they raise their funds.

So for every $1 donated, .77 cents actually goes to the needy, but that's with "Better charities".

Those billions that you speak of, in donations, first have to pay for overhead!

Sounds like another reform bill in the works!

On Acorn, Its almost impossible to find what they have contributed even though they get millions from the government.

Does the Red Cross get that much in government funding?

G,

health insurance bill has not nor will do anything to get the economy back on track.

#1 the health insurance bill has not passed yet so it can;t do anything for the economy!

This makes absolutely no sense! You like others are seeing this so short-sided! If the single biggest expenditure for this U.S. government is Health care, why not make it cost less!??!?! This is one of the pieces to ensure that the economy is solid for the future! If the gov is pouring money into the health care system at an alarming rate with no relief in the near future it makes sense to address that!

Now Obama and the White House is back tracking and telling us it will be 2 years before we see any change

There was no back tracking! He's said that all along! The stim was to work in phases! 1. stop the free fall 2. stabilize the economy 3. start to put people back to work!

The market was in freefall, we were losing millions of jobs with no end in sight! You don't call that an emergency! get real!

G,

http://www.charitablechoices.org/Categories/all.asp

This is a list of charities that receive federal funding. can you tell me what contributions they have all made?

If the single biggest expenditure for this U.S. government is Health care, why not make it cost less!??!?!

My biggest expenditure is not health care but, my water bill, electric bill, House payment, car bill, car insurance, school, property tax and property insurance is.

Ever wonder why I don't want this bill to go through?

I have enough to deal with, without worrying about those that don't do it.

OF: I agree that a lot of charities are badly mismanaged due to excess overhead. If they would trim their overhead to the most basic items, a lot more money would go toward providing services to those in need.

And, as I've said before: Charity? Leave that to the rich. No one wants to disappoint them.

My biggest expenditure is not health care but, my water bill, electric bill, House payment, car bill, car insurance, school, property tax and property insurance is.

You listed several things! A "Single" largest expenditure means 1 thing! Focus!

in 2008 20% of the federal budget went to health care. 21% each to defense and Social security! This year that number flips making health care the largest expenditure of the fed gov.

Dude, you have the same worries any responsible man has. You are also responsible for leaving this country better than it was when you popped up on the scene, and that means Health Care Insurance for all Americans. LOL

Focusing: Must Focus, Must Focus ----------------HHHUUUUMMM---------------

Focused!

Single largest expenditure for me = Cost of living.

How's that!

Health care is only third in line on the expense ladder for me.

There still needs to be some weeding out of the not insurable, Illegals, Fraud, tort reform etc... before this can become a viable bill for all.

Cost of living.

O.K. fine. If someone told you that you could save some money on your "Cost of Living" expenditures would it matter if it was your water, electric, or mortgage? It just so happens that it could be health care.

I totally agree with you regarding illegals! Giving "illegals" anything from the government seems a little oxy-moronic!

It just so happens that it could be health care.

But I'm massively (If thats a word) Happy with my Health Insurance. According to Section 102, If I change anything, i loose everything. And YES, its still there in the bill.

As for Illegals, Whats in the Bill on Descrimination, says they can get Health Insuraance as it says so.

Dean Heller (R) put forth an amendment proposal to the bill that it would state "Illegals could not get this health care" and it was voted out of the House Ways and Means Committee, by the Democrats.

This Bill can't go through as is.

But I'm massively (If thats a word) Happy with my Health Insurance.

So keep it!!! We already went over Sec 102, and that's not what it says!

The dems put 160 amendments in this bill from Reps! Lets not act like the reps have no say in this! If the reps were smart they would be using this as their cause for opposition instead of these false vilification's of the Canadian and French systems! The bill will continue to be worked on for a few more months, but the illegals, is not a deal breaker for me.

If what you say is true, why is the CBO contradicting everything Obama is saying on cost's.

If the bill still needs to be worked on, it doesn't need to be voted on until a final, final is ready. Get It!

I am concerned about the CBO's numbers on this...

Why aren't more folks concerned? That's my question. We're all taxpayers.

What does the CBO's cost analysis have to do with sec. 102. And I see you are back to taking the CBO for gospel! LMAO!!

It's not going to be voted on until the fall.

It's not going to be voted on until the fall.

It won't get voted on this year! To many Democrats hurting on the re-election in 2010. Its a political thing you know.

As for the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), if I had been on the vine back in those days, I'd be saying the same thing about Bush's over spending. Obama is wose than Bush.

The CBO is an insider of government. HELLO!! They know better than the so called experts Obama claims to have apparently!

Why aren't more folks concerned? That's my question. We're all taxpayers.

Because the CBO doesn't take into account several factors! They don't take into account that 2/3 of the cost will be covered by money already in the system that will simply be reallocated. It doesn't take into account the number of job and tax revenue that will be generated. It also doesn't take into account savings! It's just a snap shot of the total cost, that's it! i use this analogy a lot. I have a Food Saver, the vacuum packing machine. Well it cost me about $200 a few years ago. The CBO would only count that $200, but it wouldn't count how much i could save by buying in bulk and not having to shop for meats, and things that freeze well. That Machine paid for itself in saving in 4 trips to the supermarket, but the CBO only shows that it cost $200. Nothing would ever get done if we only looked at the cost like the CBO!

Obama is wose than Bush.

They must have legalized drugs where you live!

Bush blew through Clinton's $128 billion surplus in his first year. The 2004 deficit reached $415 billion, a record. Still, its real size is masked by the fact that Bush has shifted $150 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to make the shortfall look smaller. It’s like pretending you’re richer when you move money from one pocket to another. Both sums have to be repaid, so the real amount borrowed is the $415 billion “nominal” deficit plus the $150 billion from Social Security or $565 billion. In 4 more years he doubled the national debt, and we have nothing to show for that spending but collapsed economy, 2 wars, and 3,500 dead American soldiers (and counting).

Do I have to post your comment just last week about how you didn't take the CBO numbers seriously, after quoting them as a source? You should run for a political office, you have the "flip/Flop" down pact!!! LOL

Great point. I would like to see how fast congress would move if they were paid middle-class wages and then given health insurance that was taken from that pay. Especially the ones with huge families.

St. Clown

Don't hold your breath for that one to happen. Congress and people like lamebaugh are in different worlds than the rest of us.

SG

Exactly right although the repub mouthpieces won't come right out and say it. Guys like lamebaugh and members of congress are as far removed from their audiences and the rest of us as are space aliens. How people can think the sun rises and sets on someone not of their world is a mystery to me.

Regretably, health care is just another commodity like wheat, oil, steel and what not. As such it goes to the highest bidder which is what the repubs are saying and will do all they can to preserve.

Our current system is unjustly inequitable. As far as I'm concerned preservtion of health is a fundamental right. How it is paid for is the issue.

One of the measuring sticks of a civilized society is the extent to which it provides basic necessities (food, shelter, preventative and critical medical care) for those unable to provide for themselves or their families.

Exactly what I was thinking. Throughout reading the comments here, I was wondering why no one had noted that some people can't afford the Motel 6. Unlike staying in a motel, health care is a necessity to survive. If you can't afford even the cheapest options, you're essentially screwed under the current system. The entire point of Obama's initiative is to make it more affordable so that these types of people can have something to rely on. The comparison spectacularly misses the point by dismissing these people entirely.

how can anyone with a brain compare healthcare quality with hotel quality? The maids/parking attendants at the hotel aren't nurses or doctors....all you expect out of a hotel is clean sheets right? Hospitals are not comparable to hotels---apples and oranges

Trying: I think you are the exception, rather than the rule. But I must beg the question--why do you have a car that you make payments on? Wouldn't it be better to sell it and downsize to something you can pay outright--and therefore put that money toward building a cushion in case of emergency?

I don't deny you the right to life/liberty/happiness. But I don't think it should be at the expense of other taxpayers--which is what Mr. Obama is doing with his stimulus.

He is most acertinaly not the exception, He is in fact most likely the rule! The problem with most Americans is that we buy into our own B.S. Most, Americans very rich and extremely poor and every one in between are hard working. Unfortunately there are those among us who want to heap every one who is poor in the lazy or worthless category. Just as there are those who want to heap all rich people into the self interested non caring category. Both are crap! Most Americans are hard working people. Take a good look at other countries, See how their work day comperes to oures. See how many people work more than one job in other countries.

I don't make "payments" on my car, it is over 10 years old. I pay for gas, oil, repairs, insurance, registration, inspection, and tires as needed, and any work I possibly can I do myself.

I know a lot of people who are in the same boat as I am, just when we thought we could take a breather and just concentrate on saving for our retirement, we are out on the street, our retirement is gone, and we are considered too old, too expensive, and over-educated to be hired by anyone.

I guess we are supposed to start our own businesses now, but what if you are not inclined to be an entrepreneur? What if you have no good ideas for a new business?

Does that mean we are worthless? That we do not deserve to get health care unless we are in danger of dying?

(Maybe the government could take all of the unemployed people over the age of 45 and do what Cuba did, put them all on a boat and send them to another country...)

hey trying

I agree 100%

But please stop giving the right wing any ideas, they are dangerous enough without reminding them what Cuba did

But if they sent us all to Cuba we could have health care!

We also might be able to grow their economy with all our skills that are not wanted here any longer...

I totally agree with that Nica--I believe the perks that Congressmen/women get from the backs of taxpayers are an insult to taxpayers.

So, yes, get the hell off the system and pay your own darned way!

Obama has all but said, government wouldn't go on the plan he proposes for us. They have a freebie on our dime.

Hawaii and SCHIPS is a great example of this entire problem. People that could afford insurance were jumping on the band wagon to get government health care because it cost less.

Wonder what's going to happen to the country, and are they going to be able to afford it better than Hawaii could? Doubt it!

so answer the question greg - don't pontificate - just answer the question

first my response:

Obama has all but said, government wouldn't go on the plan he proposes for us. They have a freebie on our dime.

I would think they would be jumping on the band wagon for the insurance we are getting if its so great.

Better not hold your breath though!

If its so good, they better damn well get what we are getting. If not, Its the same old "Do as we say and not as we do".

not an answer to the question still - greg - stop pontificating to - you just like to see your over inflated words on the screen - answer the question asked - i did not ask for a dissertation on what you think is wrong with the system

Do you'll think this is an answer to anything? Making Congress get their own insurance? Gimmie a break! Their are certain perks that come with certain jobs! If you want great free government health care insurance run for office! Simple! Being a taxpayer doesn't entitle any of you to the perks of Congress, the same way you don't get to go into the Locker Room after the Knick beat the Celtics by 24pts simply because you bought a ticket! Trying to take away Congress' Health care is like drinking your problems away! It's not worth the headache and when you sober up the same problems are right there!

I guess I haven't figured out the question if Nica keeps asking!

stop pontificating to

Why is it pontifacting in my answer. Because its not your way of thinking?

If this is the real question as OF has put it:

Making Congress get their own insurance?

It ain't gonna happen because they aren't us!

after the Knick beat the Celtics by 24pts simply because you bought a ticket!

EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greg wrote and quoted:

after the Knick beat the Celtics by 24pts simply because you bought a ticket!

EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously man--Knicks rule!!

Knicks rule!!

Not this year, seriously! LOL!

Watch ur mouth!!!! LOL

Knicks!!!!!!!

so how many of you supporting Rush think that the elected officials of this country since they most likely can afford to pay for their own "RITZ" coverage should get the hell off of the welfare insurance that we as taxpayers provide them & buy their own

Hey! Everyone knows it is not welfare if you are rich are a elected official. It is an entitlement. It's only welfare if you are poor.....

gee Greg - the question is not that hard - do you think we should keep having to fund the health care of our elected officials? Not really a brain teaser - i asked what you THINK - you were pntificating because you went off on a tangent about the evils of Hawaii & Obama but you never said what you think - not if it will happen BUT if you think they should still receive something that some of us cannot afford for ourselves BUT are paying for it for them

For the -------------- and challenged.

My response:

If its so good, they better damn well get what we are getting. If not, Its the same old "Do as we say and not as we do".

To be more specific for you, If they are going to pass this health bill for us, it should be mandatory they go on the same plan.

Not very hard to understand Nica unless you just want talking space.

You are the one that rambles on Greg - to be specific i asked IF they should have the Ritz paid for by us and you went on a rant about Hawaii & Obama (oh jeez - just like you repeating the same BS) - i didn't ask about what they are proposing - that is not what Rush was commenting - he said people that pay for the Ritz get the Ritz & people that pay for Motel 6 get the Motel 6 - i did not ask about the bill - maybe you should read BEFORE comments form in your mind - i asked if we should pay for the Ritz for the elected officials - not putting them on a proposed package - get it?

and it is funny you of all people should talk about talking space since most of your comments are paragraphs long & say nothing new

Rant much!

Again, for the Illiterate:

If congress is proposing a bill on health care they say we have to follow, they should be required to be on the same policies we are. If they are not willing to do that, can the bill.

Pretty simple Nica.

My rant on the other issue was to back up my comment that government run and funded health care doesn't work.

nica

it seems you just cannot get a simple answer to your question

Since all our elected officials in DC have the best health plan in the world which is paid for by us tax payers not to mention their 100% pay through retirement -- seems like the biggest drain on our welfare system all reside in DC

My vote is NO they should not be getting free health care and YES if they pass a health care reform they must be included in the very same plan-- their lives are not worth any more than a skid row homeless person

talk about yourself much greg? Illiterate

here is the question again:

so how many of you supporting Rush think that the elected officials of this country since they most likely can afford to pay for their own "RITZ" coverage should get the hell off of the welfare insurance that we as taxpayers provide them & buy their own?

nothing to do with the proposed plan - i am asking IF they should pay for their own as we do - NOT if they should be included in a plan that is proposed - NOTE "BUY THEIR OWN" - simple question greg

thanks rbach - i was getting a headache from his non-answers & swerves to make this an Obama issue - my question was simple

i am asking IF they should pay for their own as we do

Y E S !

Simpler for you?

Now, a question for you:

Do you support the Health Plan that is being proposed by this administration and are you willing to take tax payer money to fund it, even though they pay for their own policies willingly, so you have an advantage funded by government?

wow nica

finally you got an answer-- just like pulling teeth ;-)

So nice how people are against a plan when the details haven't been released as yet -- ah but the right wing talking points (those points minus all fact and substance) has them out blathering nonsense they love to imitate their leader dope head limbaugh --- blather, blather , blather

At least start here before you babble:

http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/07/americas-affordable-health-choices-act.shtml

Then go here to get smarter:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf

thanks for the link greg - i was going to tell you i wanted to read the proposal before stating whether or not i agree with this proposition and there it is - so i shall peruse it at length when i get a break

i do believe that the health care system needs to be reformed - from the little portion i have read from the link i am in agreement so far

i do believe that the health care system needs to be reformed

Now that I can agree on, but, the way its being done now is a travesty!

if they are really finally going to do it, this needs to be looked at and studied better than we are told in school how need to study to pass the test.

This isn't a test and shouldn't be an experiment like its being treated as. This is real life!

really our health care system that is currently only good for the rich -- our health care system with prices rising so fast people are being priced out of any and all preventative medicine -- our health care system that has more and more uninsured do to inflated insurance premiums -- yeah right nothing needs to be reformed here -- I have swamp land I am trying to sell give me a call greg I think I found a sucker -- oops I mean a buyer

@ rbach:

Another non-reader, just a talker. Read comment # 20.23 over and over and over, until you understood what I said.

I agreed there was reform needed, just not this way. DUH!

It cracks me up that anyone can take Rush Limbaugh seriously on ANY topic, least of all health care. There are certain things that capitalism is well-suited for: buying cars, computers, etc. But human life should not be for sale. We don't have the God/Goddess-given right to drive a Lexus, but we have the right to not die of fully-treatable illnesses.

and greg what way do you propose - the Rep way - "sit back & wait - it will work its own way out" - that has served this country in this area very well over the past 8 years (SARCASM)

greg

now why would I want to re-read any of your posts? Most of them are not worth the time to read the first time---

My comment started with a general statement and the mention of you in my swamp land quip was dealing with you not having facts -- you see the health care bill is not even all on paper as yet so you could not possibly know what is in it or what is not in it -- you are basing your opinion on the talking points of nutters who also have no clue of details and facts, hence my swamp land quip

So get some facts and details before blather --- DUH!!

But human life should not be for sale

And this relates to capitalism how? Capitalism, in this instance, refers to insurance companies cometing against one another to drive down prices. This rhetoric of life can't be for sale is as disingenuous as BO saying that by passing the UnStimulus bill that unemployment will not go north of 8%.

We don't have the God/Goddess-given right to drive a Lexus, but we have the right to not die of fully-treatable illnesses.

But you don't have the right to make me pay for your "right not to die of fully treatable illnesses."

wow nothing patriotic as yet just a lot of right wing talking points minus all humanity and substance

Supposedly if we believe the "christians" this country is a "christian" country and we should be taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves -- that is one of the primary teachings of Christ --

You seem to be ignoring reality and facts-- there is not one single insurance company that is concerned about driving down costs to the insured-- they are concerned with the bottom line profits and nothing else and that sir is capitalism

Your constant blathering comments about President Obama make very evident your slant or should I say twist on any subject and quite frankly detracts from any validity your points may have

So since you are blathering like you knew what the health care plan is all about -- show the rest if us just how knowledgeable you are and give details of this plan that you do not like, rather than just spewing right wing talking points and animosity

Kinda of what I was saying, but I'm pontificating I guess.

If its so good, they better damn well get what we are getting. If not, Its the same old "Do as we say and not as we do".