Scott Brown

What do you think?

What do you think? Originally Posted by ss4699

Honestly it upsets me. Not that he got elected, but I would really like to see this country get universal health care and I think if we get a health care bill, it will be way watered down now. We weren't going to get true universal health care, but it was a step towards it. Universal health care works in other countries so it should work here. It upsets me to know that poor people will die because of a lack of health care...men, women and especially children. It truly breaks my heart. I don't think it is a political issue as far as a human issue, but it has become a political issue. I, as long as many of my fellow hobbyists, are fortunate enough to have good jobs with health care. Unfortunately, not everyone can have a good job. It's just a fact. There are not enough good jobs to go around. Now insurance companies tell those that deny cases that they are not denying health care, just payment for that health care. But, we know that health care is EXTREMELY expensive and for many, denial of health care is a death sentence. As I mentioned, I have health care, but I am emphatic to those that need it. If I needed to pay a little more in taxes so that someone's child could get rounds of chemotherapy for childhood cancer, then I would happily pay it. I'm honestly not that greedy (don't take that as me calling some of you greedy by the way). In what many label as a Christian country, I just don't get how we care more about money than human lives.

The part of me that enjoys seeing the hubris of the powerful brought low is cackling with glee. From a practical standpoint, I hope it will make them separate out the parts of the health care bill that everyone agrees on--keeping insurance companies from dumping people for being sick, eliminating the whole "pre-existing condition" thing, making it easier for individuals to get affordable insurance, etc., from the parts that are more divisive--forcing people to buy insurance whether they want it or not, a government-run insurance plan, etc.

Ultimately, the problem with the health care system is...US. We want the latest and greatest drugs and the most advanced technology available even after we develop combinations of diseases that can't be fixed, to be used to eke out every last second of biological life regardless of its quality. Oh, and we want it to be free. Until those expectations become more realistic, elected politicians have no chance to create meaningful reform.

Gryphon,

I don't want it to be free, just reasonable. I've spent over 2 grand on medicine in the last 3 months and I have insurance. Hell, the co-pay on migraine meds is $75. Without insurance, that medicine costs around $230 for 10 pills.

Gryphon,

I don't want it to be free, just reasonable. I've spent over 2 grand on medicine in the last 3 months and I have insurance. Hell, the co-pay on migraine meds is $75. Without insurance, that medicine costs around $230 for 10 pills. Originally Posted by MsElena

Maybe this is better for PM, but just to let you know they have inexpensive migraine medication in Mexico, without a perscription, that can be found at the airport or farmacia. It’s like $5/pill for the same thing that is $23/pill here.

kgbigpapa, I agree with some of what you wrote, but will admit to being very happy with Mr. Brown's victory. Not because he is a republican and made the Massachusetts democrats look silly, but because the people stood up and spoke out against what can only be described as Washington arrogance. As I have posted before, the only cure for what ails this country politically is to send the remaining 534 elected members of congress home, all of them.

Scorpio, you couldn't be more right!!! They are no longer act as a representative government, they act as a ruling class, and yes we get what WE pay for, we need term limits, and starting with a new class of reps in the next election....when I say ruling class, this goes back more than a few years..

An excerpt from an AP story 01/21/2010:
---------------------------------------------
By all accounts, Democrats have made no final decision on their options, which included breaking the health legislation into several smaller bills. But without the 60th Senate vote they need to kill Republican delaying tactics - thanks to Tuesday's stunning Massachusetts special election win by Republican Scott Brown - Obama and others were talking about legislation that would attract broad support.

"I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.

"We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up. And we know that small businesses are going to need help," he said.

In a bid for GOP support, participants suggested other elements that could be added. These included allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, according to Rep. Timothy Walz, D-Minn.
------------------------------------------------------

My take:

Now while I disagree with the portion of Obama's statement that health insurance companies are taking advantage of people, I absolutely agree with the portion of Obama's statement that we have to have some form of cost containment and we need to assist small businesses in purchasing insurance.

The idea proposed about allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines has been proposed by the Republicans for many years, but has been rejected because it allows free market forces to bring down the cost of insurance through competition rather than through regulation. Allowing small businesses in similar industries to pool their resources and purchase group insurance so that the experience pool of members lowers the risk of exposure to the insurance company will also bring down costs. And, since most doctors and hospitals base their fees on what Medicare will pay, containing those expenses will reduce the cost of services and fees. These measures, if enacted, would bring the cost of coverage down without the government take over that was proposed in the legislation written in 2009.

So, the impact of Brown's election seems to have brought the talk of health coverage reform to a more reasonable discussion of solutions. And, yes, it is health COVERAGE reform, not health CARE reform.

I don't want it to be free, just reasonable. I've spent over 2 grand on medicine in the last 3 months and I have insurance. Hell, the co-pay on migraine meds is $75. Without insurance, that medicine costs around $230 for 10 pills. Originally Posted by MsElena

LouisVII Quote:...., but just to let you know they have inexpensive migraine medication in Mexico, without a perscription, that can be found at the airport or farmacia. It’s like $5/pill for the same thing that is $23/pill here.

This is not a new issue. US allows "extra costs" to be added in here but not there if they are shipped outside but made here. The costs of developement are added in along with the cost of production. If they are produced there, quality and formulation can be a problem....but thousands cross the border every day to bring home less expensive....thanks for sharing Louis

kgbigpapa, I agree with some of what you wrote, but will admit to being very happy with Mr. Brown's victory. Not because he is a republican and made the Massachusetts democrats look silly, but because the people stood up and spoke out against what can only be described as Washington arrogance. As I have posted before, the only cure for what ails this country politically is to send the remaining 534 elected members of congress home, all of them. Originally Posted by scorpio31

I may have posted this somewhere else, but the original intent of the bi-cameral legislature proposed by the founding fathers was to have had the House of Representatives be the "citizen legislature", in that, the framers wanted turnover in the House to have representatives elected that reflect the mood of their consituents. This is why the House has two-year terms. The framers' intent was to have a representative to serve for a maximum of six years then return to private life and let a new representative take over. The Senate was originally designed for long-term service, in that the term would be for six years and the senator would be selected by the legislature of the individual state, instead of by popular vote. Amendment 17 changed the selection of senators to popular vote. In addition, amendment 17 states that "when vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

Regardless, IMHO, the only way you are going to get any kind of fresh ideas in either house is to term-limit the House and Senate to a service of no longer than 12 consecutive years in either body (six terms in the House; two terms in the Senate). I would go even further in term limiting the House to three terms (six years) to match the original intent of the framers.

Ultimately, the problem with the health care system is...US. We want the latest and greatest drugs and the most advanced technology available even after we develop combinations of diseases that can't be fixed, to be used to eke out every last second of biological life regardless of its quality. Oh, and we want it to be free. Until those expectations become more realistic, elected politicians have no chance to create meaningful reform. Originally Posted by Gryphon

Nail on the head.

I agree 100%; however its not going to ever happen. The one's in power tend to say in power and they are the last persons to vote for term limits. Too bad.

Papa, without the public option what we were going to get is not universal healthcare other than the part forbidding the insurance companies from excluding people. The bill lost my support when the public option dissappeared. I could not see how we were insuring poor people which was the original intent of the plan without the public option. Whether they allow you not because of prior conditions if you can't afford the premiums then your still not going to have insurance. After they removed the public option the bill to me became a pile of junk which was being passed only to say hey look we passed a health care bill.

Scorpio I agree with you, Brown represents a reaction to the shove it down their throats arrogance of Washington leadership. I am not painting everyone Rep or Dem with a broad brush, rather the leadership such as Frank, Pelosi, Baccus and the Rep from New York who said he did not care what the people he represents wants, he will vote for the health care bill because he knows whats best for them. Wish i could remember his name, its a young guy, last name starts with an M I think. I mean come on were being governed by Stuart Little can it get any worse.

Well guys all of the above is going to get worse with the supreme court decision today declaring limits on corperate donations to elected officials as unconsitutional. Now we truly will have the best government money can buy.

Well guys all of the above is going to get worse with the supreme court decision today declaring limits on corperate donations to elected officials as unconsitutional. Now we truly will have the best government money can buy. Originally Posted by dirty dog

I didn't hear that yet, but I find it interesting that an entity may have the freedom of expression as opposed to an individual. Does this now mean that corporations will be taxed as individuals and not as corporations? Imagine a corportation having to pay taxes on almost all its earnings, such as individuals, instead of being able to deduct everything.