Let me rephrase that "the bill." I meant they seem determined to defeat ANY health care proposal. They've had more than a year since Obama's inauguration to come up with a plan that's more to their liking. Yeah, it's very likely the Democrats would defeat it, but they haven't even tried to put one forth. Which tells me it's more about being contrary than about doing something good for the country.

Woody, the GOP has come up with an alternative. but the Democratic Congress won't even consider it. Again, this is what has people frustrated.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/03/politics/main5510731.shtml

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

You're right about the GOP having ample opportunity to show some sort of initiative on the matter. The Democrats aren't acting like a majority. Pass the bill and start work on other things to benefit the American people.

It seems like the GOP wouldn't give a yay vote to anything?

That's how I'm seeing it.

Lawmaker angered by ad featuring his children

This is what it's come to.
We can be 180 degrees apart on the issue with no hope of reconciliation or compromise, but there is - under no circumstances - an excuse for this.

Through all of this, it really comes down to whether or not you want the government taking control more and more of your life (along with your freedoms) with much higher taxes....versus competition of the public sector. Perhaps most people don't see it (or believe it but that is Obama's master plan and vision for this country). I shake my head at the premise (moving forward) that the government will allow a person to have an abortion but they will not allow you to choose your own healthcare choices.

As one example, just yesterday it was announced that Walgreens will no longer fill prescriptions for Medicaid patients in the state of Washington's 121 stores because they are going broke because of cuts and lack of re-imbursement.

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/03/18/1344646/walgreens-no-new-wash-medicaid.html

So take this scenario to it's logical conclusion. Down the line it will end up as government runned pharmacies or a bailout to the drugstore pharmacies, both, which are govenment takeovers of yet, another industry.

It kills me that with so many people struggling out there and with the economy being down for such an extended time period that there is virtually NO ATTEMPT by the government to curb spending. They have the pedal to the metal and are doing nothing to help small businesses which drive the economy.

I also heard today that if a person has a silver platter health insurance plan they are on (and choose to keep), they will be assessed a 16% tax on the cost of that policy, YET, the UAW workers would be EXEMPT from that tax!!! Oh, that's right, the UAW was a big force in getting Obama into office. Crazy stuff...

Come down off the ledge, sir! You don't have much control over your current insurance, If you receive insurance from an employer, the employer is apt to change insurers to get the best rates possible for themselves. Moreover, your doctor may choose to not deal with certain insurers. I don't know what you are expecting the government to control. I don't understand why you wouldn't be able to make your own health care choices!

The other parts of your post amount to speculation about the unknown future. I do know that people die everyday because they can't afford medical care.

That says it all right there, as far as I'm concerned.
Frankly, I'd be perfectly content if they dropped the whole thing, but that isn't going to happen. On the other hand, I can't get worked up about it because I have yet to see a health insurance plan that is exactly what the consumer wants. I suppose those who can afford to buy whatever coverage they want from whatever provider they want are happy with things as they are. But for everyone else, it's a crap shoot. Each year, I have to do with less coverage or pay a higher premium. This while my paycheck is smaller because of the recession.
I sign up only because it's better than having no insurance at all.
Here's a story for you. At the newspaper, we were insured by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi. The service was flexible and probably as good as one can expect while working for somebody else. I had some services done, and had no problems with the coverage kicking in.
At the end of 2003, I left the paper and tried the life insurance game. That company also had Blue Cross and Blue Shield. I thought I was in good shape.
Wrong!
Because Liberty National's corporate office was in Birmingham, it was Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama. That slight difference meant they would NOT pick up the tab for "pre-existing conditions" without my jumping through a number of bureaucratic hoops.
Ridiculous.
It's the same damn company, but with a regional headquarters in a different state, and they treated me like I was a NEW customer.
Do I want the government taking over anything? No.
But do I fear it? No.
If free market competition is the best way to make health care efficient and affordable, why hasn't that been done?
This debate is like asking the sexual assault victim whether an acquaintance or a stranger is the preferred attacker.

What can you and your family expect right away?

Why weren't you interested in curbing spending on Iraq, our biggest welfare recipient? I would much rather pay $100,000 to treat a single cancer victim for a year than spend $1,000,000 per bunker buster bomb.

Happy 7th Anniversary, SH?

Ars...as far as the tax credits, It's smoke and mirrors.

Under the plan, small businesses would get a refundable credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid on behalf of their employees. To be eligible, small businesses will have to offer a quality health plan to all of their employees and cover a meaningful share of the cost of employee health premiums.

This sounds like rhetoric to me. What is the cost of the plan? Since this doesn't make sense I want to see on paper how it will work. How do you add more emplyees with a better plan and pay half the cost? Seriously???

Like the tax credit for hiring new workers. Perhaps I am naive but I had always believed that jobs can only be created when there is an increase in demand for goods and/or services. Why would any legitimate business person hire anybody for any reason other than to meet the need for this increased demand? If I have 5 employees that can properly service all my customers then why would I hire a sixth employee to get a $5000 tax credit? Why would I hire someone - even for a $5000 credit - if the future is so uncertain. The hiring credit is about 2-3 months pay. After that do I let the new employee go?


I wasn't interested in curbing spending in Iraq so we could fight the fight over THERE instead of here but maybe if we just go home and be nice tothem they won't fly plans into buildings anymore?

7th Anniversary??? At MI?