Aug 20 2009
I Am My Brother’s/Sister’s Keeper!
President Obama came out today in another lame attempt to guilt Americans into giving up their premier health care system to bungling DC bureaucrats (remember, we would be trading FedEx/UPS for the USPS). His efforts involved invoking a Judeo-Christian belief we serve best when we serve each other. Fine, I am my brother’s/sister’s keeper.
But I am not some lazy, elite liberal who offloads his responsibilities to some inept bureaucrats who will be deciding who is worthy and who is not. In America only the lazy shirkers use the government to perform their civil or spiritual or personal responsibilities. This under arching nature of Americans to do for themselves and their neighbors is why America is the best in the world at what we do across the board.
We don’t send out the hired help to do our jobs. It is insulting to propose Americans ‘watch out’ for our neighbors by lazily tasking bureaucrats to play Scrooge and lower all our health care to the bare minimum. Only a liberal would claim it is better for the government to be responsible instead of ourselves.
This ridiculous attempt to shame us into throwing away our medical edge and premier health care system is just another in an endless line of examples which illustrate how sick the liberals in DC see this country and their role in it.
We will take care of our seniors and their needs, we will not offload them onto a faceless, penny-pinching, unaccountable bureaucracy and then claim we have done our duty. Â DC liberal elites may find that satisfying, the rest of America is shuddering in horror at the concept.
Kathie,
Your assumption that everyone can simply pick and choose their health insurance plan from the several private insurers only works for health people with the economic means to pay the premiums. The pre-existing conditions private insurers won’t insure are almost universal and the list of such conditions grows every year. If I have cancer, I can’t get any of the private insurers to cover me regardless of how many companies operate in my state. So it only works so long as I don’t have a catastrophic health event – which you claim is the sole purpose for obtaining insurance in the first place.
The one exception to this rule is employer provided health care. But then I have no choice – I am forced to accept the health care insurance provided by my employer. And if I lose my job, contemplate an alternative job/career or decide to be self-employed, I’m screwed if I have a pre-existing condition that insurance companies won’t cover. Additionally, we cannot continue to rely on the employer-based system because the rising costs of health care are killing our businesses (who compete against foreign companies that don’t have the burden of paying for employee health care) and is leading to more and more employers reducing or dropping their employee health care plans.
Your assumption that a government plan would take away all other insurance options “just like Medicare and Medicaid” is wrong. As AJ pointed out, seniors who qualify for Medicare have a wide range of options in the private market, including gap insurance to supplement their Medicare plan or going completely with a private insurer. Research the debate taking place at the time Congress passed Medicare – conservatives made the same argument that it would kill the private industry and they have been proven wrong over the last 40 years. Medicaid is a voluntary program for low income people who can’t afford privaye insurance, so I don’t understand how you think Medicaid takes away options.
I agree that the cost of a public option plan is a legitimate question. I don’t buy the claim that we can cover more people without any cost increase. At a minimum, there will be a short-term cost increase. I also agree that Obama and the Democrats have not been forthright about the cost issue, which is one of the reasons they started losing public support. But the current system will bankrupt our country. We currently spend 17% of our GDP for health care, by far the highest % in the world despite the fact that all other countries insure 100% of their citizens and we only insure approximately 80%, and will continue to rise. Medicare costs are projected to cause huge deficeits as the baby-boomers reach eligibility.
You can’t band-aid a problem of this magnitude, it requires fundamental changes to our health care system to address the cost issue. There are several ways that we could go about approaching it, and while I have my preferences I’m open to other ideas. What I can’t stand are people who ignore the real issues we need to be debating and simply make stuff up. Liberals are talking about pie-in-the-sky claims that we can insure everyone for everything without ANY cost to the public and conservatives are talking about death panels and government take-overs. Nobody seems to be addressing the real issues, trade-offs and options we need to be discussing.
Crosspatch,
What is Obamacare? I’m being serious. There are currently 5 different bills being crafted by Congress that take different approaches. Obama has not taken a firm position on any of these bills, so please tell me which one Obama is backing. Obama’s position on the public option changes daily, so how can you possibly say he has an actual proposal?
What “House bill” are you talking about? Have you read the bill? If so, where in the “House bill” does it say what you claim it says. My guess is you are getting these claims from some conservative commentator or blogger without actually verifying if it is true.
AJ, I really like how you put it. It is an outrage the sleight of hand and now pandering to the people of this nation who may share Judaic-Christian values. In fact, many other religions can be included in charity and alms giving. We are “our brother’s keeper” according to our Old/New Testament Bible, not the governments book of regulations.
Kathie,
I understand your point about paying into Medicare without getting the benefits. I’ve been paying into it for 25 years and do not expect it to be around when I’m eligible. The same thing is probably true for Social Security.
This Medicare issue is one of the ironies of the current health care debate. Conservatives have long held the position that Medicare is an unfunded program that needs to be dropped or significantly cut back due to the costs and long-term impacts on our deficiet. Suddenly, conservatives are now claiming that seniors should be very nervous about the health care proposals because some contemplate cuts in the Medicare program. So now conservatives are apparently in favor of unfunded government health insurance plans without any willingness to consider cost-saving cuts – unless of course its a program that may help get Obama re-elected.
I wasn’t going to comment on the morality issue, but I must say that it is quite ironic to see so many conservatives complaining about an elected official citing morality and Christian values to support their position. This has been a corner-stone of the GOP strategy for close to 40 years. So please, give it a rest – you folks invented this whole approach.
Conman, you misunderstand the conservative argument on Medicare. What they say is that it is underfunded because the ratio of workers paying into it, to those who it is promised to, is dwindling. Therefore it is going broke. The number of workers paying into it is still diminishing and the promised are growing. So how does it work if we take $600 billion from the program, when it will not cover future promises as it is, and give it to those not yet retired. You see there is a big problem.
Yep, The Won thinks he can ‘shame’ us. Why not?
It worked with the anti-American racist Rev Wright. The Won ‘shamed’ us that we just didn’t understand racism. He gave an entire ‘healing, uniting’ speech that the underlying message was that we should be ashamed. Yep. He as a young educated man from the best universities, explaining our shame. Of course, he failed to explain what that had to do with HIS actions. Shame.
He did the same at Notre Dame on abortion. He tried to ‘shame’ them that they were so closed minded when he was not. Yep. He only voted to kill several times. But hey, he is Uniter Shamer.
And conman thinks we should not comment on morality. That’s rich.
conman, The Won showing up and doing the shamegame is the most ironic that anyone can imagine. He surrounds Himself with crooks and then calls in his troops of Union and Acorn thugs to threaten mostly older people. Oh yeah, I want him to ‘shame’ me. Not likely. The only thing he can do at this point is put those criminal thugs at the voter booths. Oh, you say he already has? Yep. I feel shame that I forgot those Blk Panthers he turned loose.
I keep reading a comment over at lucienne that says “The Democratic Party is a criminal enterprise.” I would like to add MSM to that sentence.
The Greatest Generation is going to come through for this country…again. And I will add the older end of the Baby Boomers that are going to pitch in as well.
This country has taken on socialism, communism, totalitarianism and defeated it.
I dare this senate to defy the will of the People, an informed and WELL READ People.
Kathie,
The specific reason conservatives think Medicare is underfunded is not relevant to my point. My point is that it is hypocritical for the GOP and conservatives to scare seniors about potential cuts to Medicare in some of the health care reforms because they don’t support Medicare period. The GOP and conservatives opposed Medicare when it was passed, don’t believe that the government should be subsidizing or providing health care for anyone, and advocate dropping or significantly cutting it back because of the funding issues you mentioned. The GOP and conservatives don’t want to protect Medicare or prevent cuts, they are simply using this issue as a scare tactic to turn seniors against health care reform – and they have done a pretty effective job with that strategy.
I agree there is a funding problem with Medicare. But it is not due solely to the ratio issue you mentioned, although I agree that is part of the problem. It is primarily due to the astronomical rising costs of health care in this country. Health care costs rise 9% annually and climbing. Without fundamental reform to change that cost structure, Medicare will go broke. So Medicare will have to be cut or eliminated if we maintain our existing health care system – something seniors either don’t understand or don’t care about because they figure it is okay so long as it covers them during their lifetime.
Owl,
You need to take your medication. For future reference, when you start seeing criminals, thugs and bogeymen all around you that usually means that you are getting low on your dosage.
Man the administration has spun out of control. This would now be a triple flip-flop. Pelosi calls us all astroturf Nazis, and Obama calls us selfish and immoral.
The problem the Democrats got themselves into is called HR 3200. In their rush to get a bill passed by the House they came to some agreement to pass HR 3200 out of Waxman’s committee. If I was them, I would have bottled up all the bills especially HR 3200 in committee. Because Obama is out there talking like there is no bill, or like Health Care is still a work in progress.
But you can go to the government web site and download HR 3200 as passed by Waxman. It downloads into PDF form and you can read it for yourself. I would have never let that bill out of committee before August to get killed by everyone who has time (6 weeks) to read it and comment on it. Then have Obama hit the campaign trail as if HR 3200 doesn’t exist. Obama looks like a clueless liar. Either Obama defends HR 3200 or they delay its committee markup.
It is funny that Obama says so and so is not in health care reform but misinformation when it is in HR 3200 if only Obama would read the bill. Baghdad Bob Gibbs hasn’t even read the bill. Obama has been reduced to shaming us into supporting HR 3200. SAD.
Conman….you are correct that conservatives didn’t support the program in the first place, because it was apparent from the beginning, like all feel good programs, that it was not sustainable, neither is social security. Conservatives general think that the market is a better way of delivering quality service at the best rate. So now as a nation we have 2 programs that the elderly are counting on and they are going broke, that is a problem for the left and right. Just because conservatives didn’t want a program doesn’t mean that they can’t comment on it, and be worried that the most vulnerable in our society are going to struggle, especially if there are deep cuts or it goes broke.
Unless you are a mind reader, I’m not sure that you can know what conservatives are thinking. I could just as easily say Obama and his party hate the elderly that is why they want to cut their benefits.
Medicine is expensive, no doubt. It is also true we have the most inventive, progressive medicine in the world and many in the world use it. Invention and progressiveness is expensive. We need to work some on how we deliver this great medicine to people who can’t afford it.
I care if Medicare goes broke. There is a problem though, I can’t by my own insurance because NO COMPANY WILL SELL IT TO ME. Do you see a problem? When there are no options, you are loth to give up anything.
heh – Conman, you gotta love the way that Nancy Pelosi today shot down the idea of any compromise at all when she said “There’s no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option.â€
Kent Conrad has already said that there’s no way anything passes the Senate WITH a public option.
DEADLOCK! It’s HillaryCare all over again!
There’s no point arguing about policy points, except maybe in preparation for the next Congress to take this up. This thing is dead, It’s joined the choir eternal. It’s an ex-plan.
From this point forward, every minute of time and ounce of energy Obama puts into this will serve only to drive his own poll numbers downward, since it is all collapsing in miserable failure no matter what he does. A smart and experienced politician would cut his losses now.
Obama is neither, which is why he’ll be another one term failure just like Jimmy Carter.
I don’t mind there being a public option for people who truly can’t afford care. And if someone wants to remain on it after they get a job, fine, but the premium should be higher than private premiums in that case. The goal should be to get people off the dole and back into the regular economy.
Nobody should be FORCED onto the public option the way the currently proposed legislation does. And you should always have the option to get back onto private insurance once you can afford to do so.
WWS,
I hate to say it, but I think you may be right about the fate of health care reform. Once again, the Democrats are their own worst enemy. Many liberals will blame the right for its failure, but I think the Democrats were the ones that caused it. Obama and the Democrats over-sold it as more for less, rather than be more open and up front about the trade offs we need to consider – something that I think Obama could have done pretty effectively. Obama never should have allowed Congress to run with it, creating multiple bills with different approaches so that critics could cherry-pick and attack the worst part of each bill and there would be no “plan” to defend. He overlearned from Clinton’s mistakes. The Blue Dogs completely undermined the public option and pitted the Democrats against one another. Republicans seized the opportunity, scared the hell out of everyone with these crazy claims (something the GOP is really good at) and let the public run with it.
While there is still a slight possibility the Democrats could get their act together and pass a bill (look how much changed in the last month), I’m concerned that they will pass some watered-down compromise that will be costly but not significant enough to make the necessary changes to the cost structure. If we can’t pass significant reform, I’d just prefer to drop it and move forward under the current system and allow it to deteriorate enough until people realize it is not sustainable. Maybe we do need to push for cuts in Medicare so that seniors cannot just fight any change because they got their government safety net ands to hell with the younger generations. I want my parents to be taken care of and my wife and I as well when we reach that age, but I’m more concerned about my childrens future.
Your claim that Obama will be a one-term president, however, is way too premature. Did you forget Clinton – who lost the health care battle early in his term and yet went on to get re-elected. None of the single term presidents lost re-election in the first year of their presidency, it was all because of what happened in their last year. Look at Johnson, Carter and Bush Sr. – all lost because of problems in their last year, not their first. It is not a question of whether a president stunbles early on in their term, that happens to almost every president, the real question is how they respond to eatrly failures. I guess we shall see.
Kathie,
For the record, I’m not saying that conservatives hate seniors and want them to die. I’m not one of those partisan people who think my party is pure and good and the other party is evil. Which is why I get so frustrated with people like AJ who make these bogus claims that Democrats or any government employee for that matter will be cold-hearted, ruthless bean-counters that will allow all the old and sick people to die because they are too expensive to keep alive. I see the same wild claims from those on the left. This black-and-white, us against them mentality of so many people in this country will be our down-fall more than any of the policy issues we face as a nation.
I get the fact that it is a philosophical difference that is an honest difference of opinion. You legitimately think the conservative approach is better for the country as a whole. I call myself a moderate, but for argument sake I’ll play the liberal since I’m left of everyone on this site – I legitimately think the liberal approach is better for the country as a whole. If we could have a rational discussion about the policy issues, we could actually solve some of our problems.
Our inability to have rational discussions is what frustrates and concerns me more than anything. We don’t talk about the substantive issues anymore – we simply make up lies and crazy claims and hope it sticks. The left hoped that Bush would fail and the right now hopes that Obama fails at any cost, somehow concluding that the condition of our political party and philosophy is more important than the condition of the country.
I don’t mean to rant, but I’m really frustrated by the health care debate. In part because I think it is a critical issue for our country’s future and it looks unlikely to go anywhere. But I would accept the fact that the country is not ready for reform or the majority disagrees with me more if I believed that we had an honest debate. I don’t think we have. It has been dominated by scare tactics and bogus claims of death panels, doctors using end-of-life counseling to convince seniors to allow themselves to die so we can save a buck, a socialist take-over of the country, etc. The media helped it along because the media loves a good controversy, and here we are. Unlikely to pass ANYTHING even though everyone agrees that the current system is unsustainable. Oh well, I guess I’ll just need to make sure I stay healthy and keep making enough money to cover me and my family, and hope we come to our sense some day.
“I hate to say it, but I think you may be right about the fate of health care reform. Once again, the Democrats are their own worst enemy. Many liberals will blame the right for its failure, but I think the Democrats were the ones that caused it.”
Of course the Democrats “caused” it. They have a majority in both houses. There is nothing the Republicans can do to stop it. The Democrats don’t want to pass this because the majority of their constituents don’t want it. They need to pay lip service to the far left wing of the party and pretend they really want to pass it but they aren’t really going to because it would get them thrown out of office if they do. The important thing to note is that the Democrats have now lost 70% of the Independent vote.
“Obama and the Democrats over-sold it as more for less, rather than be more open and up front about the trade offs we need to consider – something that I think Obama could have done pretty effectively.”
It doesn’t matter what anyone “sold it” as. Once people started reading what was actually in the bill, it was doomed. And the more people read the House bill, the less popular it will become, White House marketing notwithstanding.
“The Blue Dogs completely undermined the public option and pitted the Democrats against one another. Republicans seized the opportunity, scared the hell out of everyone with these crazy claims (something the GOP is really good at) and let the public run with it.”
Huh? Are you actually paying attention to what has been going on? The Democrats hold a lot of seats in Congress but the number that they won by 5 points or less is very large. There are a large number of seats taken in both 2006 and 2008 by very slim margins. The Democrats don’t have “deep” support. They can’t afford to piss off the electorate or they will be kicked out. Their margins of victory is so thin that they can’t anger their base OR the Independents. And the Republicans are becoming energized for a huge turnout in 2010. So they are going to do a “soft shoe” to try to please everyone without actually doing anything at all.
“While there is still a slight possibility the Democrats could get their act together and pass a bill (look how much changed in the last month),”
House bill hasn’t changed all that much. It is the Senate bill that keeps changing.
“I’m concerned that they will pass some watered-down compromise that will be costly but not significant enough to make the necessary changes to the cost structure.”
If they want to change the cost structure they could take over malpractice insurance instead of health insurance. That would save everyone money. That isn’t the point. The point is to get everyone in the country dependent on the government for health care. Then they can say “we need to raise your taxes if you don’t want to die from lack of doctors”.
“Did you forget Clinton – who lost the health care battle early in his term and yet went on to get re-elected. ”
He was very shrewd and allowed Hillary to own that. People called it Hillary Care and SHE is the one that took the heat for it, and the embarrassment.
“Look at Johnson, Carter and Bush Sr. – all lost because of problems in their last year, not their first. ”
Johnson lost because of Viet Nam. Attempting to micromanage a war from Washington was his undoing. Carter just plain pissed the people off. He lost long before the hostage problem. He was already unpopular. His “malaise” speech was his undoing. Bush Sr’s problem was manufactured by the media. They created an artificial “recession” but also gave him a hard time over the response to hurricane Andrew when under the law at the time there was nothing he could do. Under the law, he was not allowed to do ANYTHING until the governor asked. It took 3 days for the governor to ask for help. They weren’t even allowed, by law, to even PREPARE to get things ready.
Obama is going to be another Carter. Funding offshore drilling for Brazil by a company who George Soros has a large investment position with is just his latest act of corruption.
When you have a state like California where Boxer is polling only 4 points above an undeclared Republican challenger, that should tell you something.
Had an interesting conversation with a friend tonight. Their town got a lot of stimulus money and they are repaving a lot of streets. Trouble is that none of that money will benefit their town. The contractor and all of the employees are from a city 200 miles away.
All of that “stimulus” money will go to shop keepers on the other side of the state. And a county or city is not allowed to specify local employment for contracts funded with federal dollars.
So … that stimulus money didn’t really help that town a bit.
This all started when my sister notified the Social Security Administration that her mother-in-law that has been living with her since 1985, moved with them into their new house about 1 mile away. Nothing changed but the previous address. On January 3, 2008, my sister filed an Appeal of the Social Security Administration ruling that left her mother-in-law with only $29.00 per month for expenses including food and medicine. She contacted Senator Dianne Feinstein for assistance with this matter.
For the reasons stated below, a public run health plan scares me.
SSA Appeals Counsel case opened in Virginia on January 3, 2008.
February 8, 2008
Letter from Dianne Feinstein
Thank you for contacting my office regarding your concerns with the Social Security Administration. I appreciate your bringing this matter to my attention and giving my staff an opportunity to see if we can be of assistance.
I have asked Nicholas Thornton in my San Francisco office to assist you. Mr. Thornton has contacted the Social Security Administration on your behalf. You will hear back from our office again when a response is received from the agency, which usually takes from six to eight weeks. Inquiries that require investigation may take longer.
Again, thank you for contacting me. My staff will do all they can to help.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
March 14, 2008
Letter from Dianne Feinstein
Nicholas Thornton of my San Francisco office contacted the Social Security Administration on your behalf. The agency assured me that they will do what they can to expedite your case and keep me informed of any progress. I will be in touch with you as soon as I hear back from the Social Security Administration.
May 30, 2008
Letter from Dianne Feinstein
Just a quick note to update you on the progress my office is making on your case with the Social Security Administration and provide you with the enclosed interim response from the agency.
Nicholas Thornton of my San Francisco office contacted the Social Security Administration on your behalf. The agency assured me that they will do what they can to expedite your case and keep me informed of any progress. I will be in touch with you as soon as I hear back from the Social Security Administration.
May 9, 2008
Letter from the Social Security Acting Assistant Deputy Commissioner
The Appeals Council has not begin its evaluation the case but will do so as soon as possible. If the status of her case does not change sooner, we will respond to you again within 60 to 90 days.
September 5, 2008
Letter from Dianne Feinstein
Just a quick note to update you on the progress my office is making on your case with the Social Security Administration and provide you with the enclosed interim response from the agency.
Nicholas Thornton of my San Francisco office contacted the SSA on your behalf. The agency has assured me that they will do what they can to expedite your case and keep me informed of any progress. The Appeals Council has not begun its evaluation of your case but will do so as soon as possible. If the status of your case does not change sooner, the SSA will respond to my office within 60 to 90 days. I will be in touch with you as soon as I hear back from them.
January 31, 2009
Letter to Dianne Feinstein at 1 year anniversary!!
Dear Senator Feinstein,
I am following up on the attached correspondence of September 5, 2008 from your office regarding the Social Security Administration Appeals Council review of my mother-in-law’s SSI benefits. The letter stated that “if the status of your case does not change sooner, the SSA will respond to my office within 60 to 90 days”. It has been almost 150 days and over 1 year since the case was submitted to the Appeals Council. I understand that the SSA is a busy organization, but the amount of time it takes for a case to get reviewed by their Appeals Council seems excessive especially in light of the age of the SSI recipient involved. My mother-in-law, God Forbid, could pass away by the time the issue gets reviewed.
While my mother-in-law may be more fortunate than others because we will not let her starve to death while waiting for a determination, what happens to those elderly SSI recipients who do not have anyone to help them. Does the United States of America let those less fortunate simply starve to death while the Social Security Administration takes over a year to review the matter at their Appeals Council?
I am very saddened when I think about the many elderly SSI recipients in dire need of assistance who are awaiting a determination from the Appeals Council. Where is the oversight on this issue? Is there anyone in our government tasked with at least checking on these senior citizens to make sure they are being provided for in a humane and decent manner? If there isn’t, one should be set up immediately to determine if any of these senior citizens is suffering or even dying while waiting for the SSA Appeals Council to make a determination. It is even more imperative that such a task force or committee is setup due to the fact that there is no court remedy allowed until after the Appeals Council makes their decision. Anyone suffering from this issue has no legal rights to go to court for assistance and is left at the mercy of the Appeals Council to survive. This is not right and is not the United States I have grown up to admire for helping those less fortunate and providing its’ citizens with the right to have their grievances heard..
Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide in this matter.
February 20, 2009
Letter from Dianne Feinstein
Just a quick note to update you on the progress my office is making on your case with the Social Security Administration and provide you with the enclosed interim response from the agency.
Nicholas Thornton of my San Francisco office contacted the Social Security Administration on your behalf. The agency assured me that they will do what they can to expedite your case and keep me informed of any progress. I will be in touch with you as soon as I hear back from the Social Security Administration.
February 4, 2009
Letter from SSA Assistant Deputy Commissioner to Senator Dianne Feinstein
The Appeals Council still has not considered the case. If the status of her case does not change sooner, we will respond to you again in 60 to 90 days.
May 8, 2009
Letter from Dianne Feinstein
This note is to inform you that Nicholas Thornton of my San Francisco office has remained in contacted the Social Security Administration on your behalf. Your case is currently pending with the Appeals Council. The agency has assured me that they will keep me informed of any progress. I will be in touch with you as soon as I hear back from the Social Security Administration.
July 17, 2009
Letter from Dianne Feinstein
Just a quick note to update you on the progress my office is making on your case with the Social Security Administration and provide you with the enclosed interim response from the agency.
Nicholas Thornton of my San Francisco office contacted the Social Security Administration on your behalf. The agency assured me that they will do what they can to expedite your case and keep me informed of any progress. I will be in touch with you as soon as I hear back from the Social Security.
July 1, 2009
Letter from Assistant Deputy Commissioner to Senator Dianne Feinstein.
The Appeals Council still has not begun its evaluation of this case. The Council is receiving an unprecedented number of appeals and as a result, is experiencing delays in the processing of cases. We regret this delay and assure you that the Council will consider this case as soon as possible. If the status of her case does not change sooner, we will respond to you again within 60 to 90 days.
She was 85 when she filed this appeal and now is 87. At this rate, she will be dead before the SSA Appeals Council hears her case. If the Federal Government treats those with disabilities and the elderly in this fashion when running SSA, can anyone really see them running a health insurance plan.
They have promised to escalate this matter since early 2008. Why wouldn’t a “Public Option” be run any different??
SBD