This post started in the previous post's comment thread.
Every poll taken, From Rasmussen, Zogby, NPR, AOL, Facebook, Wall Street Journal/NBC News, The Washington Post, Gallup, Pew, and countless others, has shown overwhelming opposition to Obama's plan.
And yet, the Democrat Legislators continue to ignore the will of their own constituents. One Lawmaker, (I forgot which one) said she is even more resolved to pass Obama's health care legislation than before as a result of so much vocal opposition exhibited at the various town hall meetings across the country.
Others are simply refusing to hold or attend any more Town Hall meetings during the August recess. They don't want to be unduly influenced to change their minds, apparently.
These Democrat legislators are blatant in their refusal to listen to the people and do the jobs they were elected to do.
This reminds me of the lynch mobs in the old western movies.
When the victim of the mob expressed displeasure at being hanged without benefit of a fair trial, they were usually told,"You're going to get a fair trial, followed by a first class hangin'!"
Captain Fogg is an idiot.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Fogg's an idiot and thus so is anyone who agrees with him.
ReplyDeleteThese fools think that because something isn't specifically written it then cannot come to pass. But how will they keep costs down but by rationing the care? Who will lose out and how when they do? They think that competition will improve with a gov't option, but they ignore the fact that the gov't can write and re-write their own ticket. They don't hold themselves to natural market forces. Private companies must. Private companies will go out of business as a result.
I was once chided for the use of the term "the law of unintended consequences". Yet we suffer constantly from it as a result of leftist near-sightedness. They can't see beyond their own rhetoric. The truly stupid are on the left.
"But how will they keep costs down but by rationing the care?"
ReplyDeleteThe CEO of United Health Group made $102,000 an hour last year. You don't think United Health Group rations health care so he can earn that much money?
Which makes more sense as to "rationing" health care? A health insurer whose motive is to provide for the general welfare or one whose motive is to maximize shareholder profit?
"These fools think that because something isn't specifically written it then cannot come to pass." It amuses me that when liberals tried to use this argument against the Bush policies you scoffed.
"The truly stupid are on the left." If you have been watching any news shows today, you would understand how ridiculous this statement is. "With Obama care I'm afraid that my daughter might have to stand in line for toilet paper." Talk about truly stupid!
Jim,
ReplyDeleteApparently you don't understand what insurance is, what it is for and how the insurance companies exist by being in that business. I'll give you the Reader's Digest version:
An insurance company offers for a price the financial protection against the unforseen, generally of a catastrophic level. That right there is there inital purpose. They make their money by the premiums customers pay for policies written for terms on which both sides agree. For the customer, he's paying a small amount regularly against the possibility that something very nasty and expensive will happen. Another way for the customer to get this protection is to delay the gratification of living life so that he can store his excess funds to insure himself. A tough gig for most people, so they opt to pay those premiums. All the while, the customer does NOT intend that any extremely nasty thing will happen to him, but the premiums insure that he will be covered in that unlikely event.
From the insurance company side, they offer to pay the costs of that catastrophic event should it occur and they make their money knowing that the odds of paying such costs to every policy holder is low. They also hope that such catastrophic events never occur. In other words, they don't make money paying claims.
It is foolish for anyone to expect that these companies would willingly and eagerly pay for something that is already broken. For example, you cannot get homeowners insurance while your house is in flames. In the same way, it is foolish to expect that an insurance company will say, "Yeah, we don't care that you have an extremely weak heart. C'mon down and will fix you up with a policy for twenty dollars a year!"
At its basic level, insurance is for the unexpected, the catastrophic illness or injury that for the average person would be too costly and expensive to save against. The downside of insurance is that once people get a policy, they think they don't have to worry about medical costs. They think they can put in a claim for the common cold and regular visits to the doctor. People do not live as if they must pay for medical attention. Through pressure from the market, lobbying groups and state and federal intervention, insurance is forced to provide for more situations that go far beyond what the whole notion of insurance was meant to be about.
Yet, for some issues, one can get insurance for just about anything. Dancers insure their legs for big bucks because it's their livlihood. Athletes are prohibited from dangerous activities because they are valuable to their teams. Lousy drivers can still get insurance if they pay more for it.
Insurance companies are in the business to make money, just like every other freakin' business in the world. To force them to cover everybody for everything is absolutely stupid. Insurance companies don't ration health care. They simply decide what procedures they will cover and which ones they won't. The procedures are still available to the patient, but at their own cost. Why is this such a troubling issue? It is everyone's responsibility to pay their own way. It is everyone's responsibility to know how their own insurance plan works, what they will cover and what they won't, and then be ready to pay more to get the coverage they want. How is this wrong?
And where do you get off deciding what level of income is too much for someone else? If an insurance company wants to pay big bucks to their CEO, that's their business, not yours.
continued-
"It amuses me that when liberals tried to use this argument against the Bush policies you scoffed."
ReplyDeleteHere's the difference: there was no reason except Bush hatred for such sentiments during his term. But we know what socialized health care has done everywhere it's been tried and we know what socialists like Obama want to do. We also know that what he says about the plan he hasn't even read must be taken with a grain of salt. We already know that gov't run systems always cost far more than advertised (and this one's already projected as being crippling by the CBO), and rarely as efficiently as a private company would.
I stand by my statement regarding the stupidity of the left. And watching the news helps confirm this. You can point to the hyperbole of a pissed off citizen and pretend it was something else, unless you actually believe the person was being serious, which would confirm my statement even more. If you think gov't can run health care, particularly THIS gov't, then there's no doubt of YOUR stupidity. Wise up. The country can't afford what Barry wants to do. The country can't afford the gov't running health care no matter which party is in charge.
Actually, it's $59,615.38 per hour. Jim has his math wrong.
ReplyDeleteJim, all of your ear kissing arguments in this thread don't address the point at all.
ReplyDeleteThe point is our Democratic legislators are totally ignoring the will of the people. We are their boss. They do not have any right to pass any legislation that goes contrary to what the majority of the populace wants.
They work for us. They are violating their oath of office. They are not doing the job they have been hired to do.
They should be fired, and I suspect they will be the next time they are up for re-election.
And that is how it should be.
Put it this way. If the shoe was on the other foot, say, your legislator does exactly opposite of whatever you elected him to do. Would you think he still represents you?
This is the point. The Democrat legislators now in office do not serve the people who elected them. They would rather appease a minority of people and their party leaders than do what the American people believes is right.