Comparison of House & Senate Health Bills

[Excaliber]

How will it be paid for? "Tax payers", to broad, evades the question.

Some 20 million, "many" of whom are illegal aliens, will not be covered. Who are those folks and why won't they be covered?

"Throw the bum's out" isn't really a viable solution, more bum's will be voted in!

[Excaliber]

Personally I consider it a question barely worthy of a response, certainly not worthy of a discussion.

Where does it say millions should have Social Security? Or Medicaid? Or foodstamps? Some things just get done because they meet the needs of the people, some things are just "self evident" to the average reasonable man on the street.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Personally I consider it a question barely worthy of a response, certainly not worthy of a discussion.

Where does it say millions should have Social Security? Or Medicaid? Or foodstamps? Some things just get done because they meet the needs of the people, some things are just "self evident" to the average reasonable man on the street.

What is self evident is that we are $12 Trillion in debt now. Projected to be $22 to $24 Trillion in debt if Obum gets 8 years. That is money we HAVE spent that we did not have. Our present day promises amount to an additional $105 Trillion that we don't have, aren't going to get, but will spend.

Our country CAN collapse! And the weight of the "needs of the people," will be the likely cause of that collapse. The 'people' need to take care of their own needs. Actually we passed the NEEDS stage years ago, now we are stupidly trying to address the WANTS of the worthless. An impossible task.

One can cut down all the trees and vines and replace them with concrete and steel. All you have done is change the decor of the jungle. Its laws will always remain. Those that cannot survive will eventually perish. They'll destroy the nation first, then they will die soon after without their support system.

[Jamo]

I received this via e-mail yesterday...seems appropriate.

[I hereby warn myself about doing long cut & paste posts.]

Social Security

Your Social Security

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know
this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to
your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't
matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary



2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their
annual Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65% on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be
deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather
than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund
the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social
Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85%
of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be
interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund'
and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security
(FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote
as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to
immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democrap Party. immigrants moved into this
country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a
dime into it!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ ---------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around
and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and
maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what
isn't so.

But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE
TERM!!!

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to
take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

[Excaliber]

...stupidly trying to address the WANTS of the worthless.

Dan, I think your response, to use your words, is "stupid", just saying...

These folks you refer to as "worthless" include people like a man, or woman, with three kids and a mortgage who lost their job and ran out of unemployment. Or, same folks, where the bread winner suddenly came down with a life threatening illness and insurance refused to cover it. Your use of the word "worthless" in describing these folks has been used repeatedly. Your position is clear, you could care less, don't want a discussion, just need a soap box.

Jamo's Social Security points:
I find #4 particularly troubling. As I recall the SS fund had grown SO large it was assumed there would easily be enough for that "rainy day" in the future. THAT was a huge mistake!

Giving SS to immigrants at age 65 is another HUGE mistake. Mexico has a similiar problem by providing it's National Health Care insurance to ANY resident of Mexico. Like Americans who move there and never paid a dime into the system and yet reap it's rewards.

The other points I don't really have a problem with. Times change, the program was modified along the way accordingly. I think it is miss leading to characterize it solely as a Democrat responsibility. Many of these items had substantial Republican support as well.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Dan, I think your response, to use your words, is "stupid", just saying...

These folks you refer to as "worthless" include people like a man, or woman, with three kids and a mortgage who lost their job and ran out of unemployment. Or, same folks, where the bread winner suddenly came down with a life threatening illness and insurance refused to cover it. Your use of the word "worthless" in describing these folks has been used repeatedly. Your position is clear, you could care less, don't want a discussion, just need a soap box.

Jamo's Social Security points:
I find #4 particularly troubling. As I recall the SS fund had grown SO large it was assumed there would easily be enough for that "rainy day" in the future. THAT was a huge mistake!

Giving SS to immigrants at age 65 is another HUGE mistake. Mexico has a similiar problem by providing it's National Health Care insurance to ANY resident of Mexico. Like Americans who move there and never paid a dime into the system and yet reap it's rewards.

The other points I don't really have a problem with. Times change, the program was modified along the way accordingly. I think it is miss leading to characterize it solely as a Democrat responsibility. Many of these items had substantial Republican support as well.

Life is not fair, will never be fair, can never be fair. Some win, some lose, some suffer, its called reality. IT CANNOT BE CHANGED. IT CAN BE WISHED FOR AT A MASSIVE AND WASTED.
EXPENSE. It cannot be changed.

Should everyone that wants a Cobra get one from the Gov't.?

Again TEMPORARY help should be the job of churches and charities. They are thrilled to do it.
Unemployment comp. as long as it was contributory while working, I have no problem with. Then they can go do menial jobs after it runs out. Solving the illegal alien problem.
Soc. Sec. paid out to those that paid in to it the minimum or more years, commensurate with the amount they paid in, OK.

And I did not say Democrats, I said liberals. Both parties have liberals. And both have fiscal idiots. And both have stupid social dreamers. And thus, $12 Trillion already flushed, and another $100 trillion plus presently scheduled to be flushed down the same crap-hole.

The dreams and compassion are beautiful, but actually impossible. $12 Trillion already spent that WE DID NOT HAVE, should be all the proof needed to realize that social giveaway programs cannot be realistically funded. They stop OR eventually the US of A stops. Both cannot be sustained.

[Excaliber]

It has been proposed by some, that Capitalism cannot sustain itself in the long run. Where the acquisitors accumulate the bulk of the wealth, held within a few hands until ruin comes upon all. Perhaps some are seeing these unfolding events as signs of that time to come? Perhaps there is some truth in that...

I see the bulk of the current economic programs as justified in the short term, like it was in the 1930's. Extra ordinary Government programs with extra ordinary power over banks, corporations even the common man on the street. My concern is what will the picture look like AFTER the crisis is over (which could easily take another decade). What will we be left with then?

Perhaps it is time for the intellectuals to take power from the acquisitors. But for now we are in the warrior's phase of change. Dan is preparing his army.

Churches and private help centers are currently in a crisis themselves. This thing is far bigger than all the charities combined can hope to address. In such a case, that is when the Fed's step in.

[sunman]

Here is what Social Security has to say about email facts, straight from the horses mouth. I know nothing, I have no opinion about the subject.

Sunman

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/histor...rnetMyths.html

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by sunman

Here is what Social Security has to say about email facts, straight from the horses mouth. I know nothing, I have no opinion about the subject.

Sunman

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/histor...rnetMyths.html

So # 1. is FALSE, the program was never voluntary..

And # 2 is also FALSE, it was 1% of $3000, not $1400.

And #3 is FALSE, FICA was never tax deductible.

But #4 is essentially true, Johnson did put Soc. Sec. in the regular budget. Having a separate accounting column does not keep it out of the General Fund. Every dept. has its separate accounting entry.

And # 5 is also TRUE.. FDR may not have promised no taxes on the annuity payments, but they started out untaxed. Also shows both Republicans and Democrats can screw the public equally well. SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1983
H.R. 1900/P.L. 98-21

[Excaliber]

...so, how 'bout those Health Bills? Is that some good news or what?

I sure hope Obama doesn't get distracted what with all this security stuff getting in the way of reform...

[Bill Wallace]

Yeah, how about those health bills? The politicos decry 18% of the gnp being spent on health care but have done nothing in either version of these bills to limit coverage to catastrophic coverage. Instead, they will continue to allow states to pile on mandates so taxpayers have to pay for "services" provided by doctor wannabees, euphmistically described as "allied health professionals" in the trade (social workers, marriage counselors, naturopaths, homeopatchs, midwives, etc. etc.).

Secondly, the bills do little to refom the payment system, which enables service suppliers to create demand for their services. If fire fighters and policemen were paid like physicians and nurses, then some of them might very well start fires and create crimes in order to generate more income.

Fortunately Cobra owners are used to puckering up. Those skills will prove very useful when the final legislation takes effect. We'll need to rely on those skill so we can stay fixed to our seats in the waiting rooms while all the previously uninsured folks see our doctors to insist upon receiving their preventive care services that we will all be paying for.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Bill Wallace

Secondly, the bills do little to refom the payment system, which enables service suppliers to create demand for their services. If fire fighters and policemen were paid like physicians and nurses, then some of them might very well start fires and create crimes in order to generate more income..

Some firefighters do start fires.

Anyways, doctors and nurses are paid like firefighters and policemen, it's called hourly wage.

[Excaliber]

My biggest concern with whatever bill eventually passes, is that the legal aspects of it are fraught with ton's of loop holes. Just waiting to be exploited by good and bad people alike.

[Excaliber]

Serious question I suppose, simple answer.

You cannot have more than $2,000 in assests to qualify for this "welfare" program. Those that DO qualify are all ready on it. That leaves out the 20 to 40 million, depending on how you count them, that health reform is trying cover.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Serious question I suppose, simple answer.

You cannot have more than $2,000 in assests to qualify for this "welfare" program. Those that DO qualify are all ready on it. That leaves out the 20 to 40 million, depending on how you count them, that health reform is trying cover.

It is a simple answer. Like was said before, just "expand" medicaid benefits, meaning make more people eligible for it, to insure the other 40 million on top of the 60 million already on it. Congess (democrats) have already expanded medicare and medicaid multiple times over the last 40 years to include people who were not eligible when the programs were first initially started. There is nothing new about this concept. It's been proven to work. Right ?

[Excaliber]

Expanding welfare is not a viable option, I can't believe you guys would seriously consider this as a solution to National Health Care. Your pulling my leg, right?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Expanding welfare is not a viable option, I can't believe you guys would seriously consider this as a solution to National Health Care. Your pulling my leg, right?

I believe welfare is a living assistance program ( food, shelter, clothing, money) and Medicaid is the health insurance program. I assume you mean Medicaid. I believe you can be on one and not the other.

Anyways, why is it not a viable option? With Medicaid Insurance, you have access to all of the best healthcare systems and doctors in the US including Mass General, Hopkins, Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, and even the University of Chicago, and countless others.

[Excaliber]

Proper and politically correct terminology would not refer to Medicaid as "welfare", but that's what it really is when the smoke clears. You could have various combinations of welfare cash, food stamps, heating bill help and Medicaid. Mix or match a wide variety of Government programs primarily geared to address the needs of the very poor.

The problem is substantially more complex than simply adding 40 million people to the welfare rolls. The concept of which borders on ludicrous, again, you can't be serious about this? An apparently reasonable Republican suggesting that we add 40 million to the welfare rolls? Come on, you really are pulling my leg!

Reminds me of Rush Limbaugh's latest quote after getting out of the hospital, "There is not ONE thing wrong with American health care." The guy is completely out of touch with reality.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

The problem is substantially more complex than simply adding 40 million people to the welfare rolls. The concept of which borders on ludicrous, again, you can't be serious about this? .

Tell me why.

[Excaliber]

Let me ask you a question. Why is it a Medicaid option, in some form, some manner, is not included in the 2,000 pages of the proposed health care bill(s)? As a primary solution to the problem. Why is it this issue was never the topic of serious discussion during the debates? There is no compelling reason it deserves any more discussion now than it did then. It is simply not a viable option to those who understand the problems that 40 million people face trying to buy health insurance, not apply for welfare.