It has been week of Batman and Robin style fighting!
Bam! An Oregon football player sucker punches a Boise State player. The Oregon player is suspended for the rest of the season.
Smack! A BYU player drives the Oklahoma quarterback into the ground. The quarterback is out for 2-4 weeks. It's a legal play so no suspension.
Pow! A Republican representative calls Obama a liar during his speech. Will the representative get punished? Hopefully. Prediction: The representative will be chosen as Keith Olbermann's silly "Worst Person In the Woooorld!"
8 comments:
I don't know about the Senetor's need to be punished...as you state, he'll get his punishment from the far left press...maybe even the right will blast him a bit. But....this should make us all feel better about everything.
Quote from Obama's speech....
"Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."
Now Alan, you need not worry any more about how they are going to pay for it as you have his promise that it won't add a dime to our deficite.
I don't understand though what he means by "if the savings we promised don't materialize." What does that mean? How will he prove savings?
The fishy thing for me is that if we can save so much money by cutting costs and reducing fraud, why aren't we doing that now? If it can be done, why wait until 2013 (mighty convenient date that is) when the program is due to start. I am deeply incredulous that we can pay for gov. health care insurance by savings alone and since Obama is a Democrat, he won't cut spending. In fact, I would consider joining the Democrats if they can balance the budget (without taxing the life blood out of us).
And about the Wilson outburst, I think I recall the Democrats booing en mass during one of Bush's State of the Union speeches. Not just one, but nearly all of them.
I was caught off guard with the comment (heckler) as was everyone. I fully agree that the floor of the House during a presidential speech is neither the time or place for such rudeness. The office of the President of the United States deserves more respect than that. He should be ashamed.
Very nice title and very nice connections Alan.
Fortunately, Rep. Wilson apologized right away. We all know that such rudeness comes from both sides of the isle.
I think that there are ways to prove savings in health care like in other industries. Records are kept and analyzed for a b-zillion things. Many of those savings require new laws that close loopholes, present new requirements (like a law requiring various health orgs to share all records of tests doctor to doctor so that tests don't need to be uselessly and expensively replicated), those are two of many examples of how savings can be achieved. Sometimes, it takes the years Alan alluded to to implement changes. The industries often demand the time for the implementation.
I don't think that President Obama states that these savings alone will pay for gov health care. There will be tax increases for some, those insured will be required to pay for it. Let's just say that the charge is $250 per person per month x 12 months =$3000 per year x let's say 10 million insured (no where close to the 47 million claimed to be without insurance) = $30,000,000,000. Not peanuts. Business refusing to provide will pay an 8% fee (I admit 8% of what I don't know!) My point is that the proposal is not pure financial folly as critics seem to believe.
As I have stated before, I disagree adamantly with President Obama: I don't any longer believe gov health insurance should be or even can be deficit neutral. Many of our vital programs are nothing but financial drains: military, education, transportation etc. We see them as vital and invest in them for the good of all. Health insurance, as far as I am concerned, is on an equal footing as these other programs that do not ever directly create money to pay for themselves, they are considered the core of a healthy and prosperous nation, health insurance for all at all times must be equally valued without regard to it being deficit neutral which I believe it cannot ever be. I believe like you that to claim it can be is a deceptive.
I think your 10 million uninsured is closer to the mark. the 47 million or 30 million or whatever the number happens to be on any particular day includes illegal aliens, people who do not need insurance (the well-off for whom insurance premiums are less than pocket change), and young people who refuse to have insurance.
If we are to have a gov. option, it will require cuts in other areas (or more borrowing, heaven forbid!).
Some other areas we could reduce insurance costs is to remove gov. regulation of health insurance which prevents insurance companies from competing across state lines. It's quite silly for the gov. to limit competition in this manner and then accuse a few ins. companies of monopolizing the market. Tort reform is another way to bring down costs.
I already know the answer to the following question, but here it is anyway. Why aren't the Democrats willing to tackle tort reform?
Why indeed are they against tort reform?
Howard Dean Admits the Democrats Oppose Tort Reform out of their Fear of Trial Lawyers.
Trial Lawyers also tend to donate heavily to the democratic party don't they?...so the democrats don't want to upset their funding.
It's politics as usual.
Teresa is exactly right. Tort reform for health care alone would save billions, but the Democrats have no intention of disrupting the flow of money into campaign coffers, and Republicans are too afraid of negative media coverage to do anything.
Post a Comment