Angry Citizen!, Bluejacket (10/23/2009 8:36:55 AM)

According to an on-line article from CNN, language in this bill will benefit some congressional constituancies more than others. Costs and services associated with medical care will be less in Harry Reid's congressional district and more in places not represented by him. Why hasn't faux news said anything about this, or the TW for that matter? Wish we could look at this bill, but we must do as the Washington Aristocracy demands.

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (10/23/2009 8:56:27 AM)

Thinking that having a public option alone will magically bring down costs is narrow-minded unless your goal is to run private carriers out of the health insurance market. A government insurance carrier would be able to set its own fee schedule, but providers would not be required to adhere to these prices when dealing with private carriers. If costs are not addressed and continue to rise, but one insurance carrier has the advantage of setting fees, then what do you suppose will happen to the others that do not have such a capability?

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (10/23/2009 8:58:10 AM)

"pass it based on it's own merit, not by using a War Bill that is intended to fund our troops and is must pass legislation"


Agreed WtA

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (10/23/2009 9:47:17 AM)

"Heaven forbid we ask questions or even want a day or two to read legislation."

Exactly. I agree that reform is needed, but let's make sure that we don't make matters worse in our haste to get something passed.

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (10/23/2009 1:31:16 PM)

Whoseleft,


CompSource doesn’t cost the tax payers money, but the same can’t be said for a “public option”. Further, CompSource doesn’t give its coverage away for free. If you don’t pay your OWN premiums, YOU don’t get coverage.

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (10/23/2009 1:34:08 PM)

"Soldiers refusing orders? HA!" -- NO soldier is required to follow an unlawful order and to do so will lead to that soldier being charged under the previsions of the UCMJ. That's why the "I was only following orders" defense doesn't work.

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (10/23/2009 1:53:52 PM)

Whoseleft,


I mis-read your statement. My apologies.

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (10/23/2009 2:23:39 PM)

Worried, my point is, if the soldier is stupid enough to engage in such activities, they will answer for their own actions. If it is an unlawful order, you don't have to follow it.

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (10/23/2009 3:07:56 PM)

Worried,

As as veteran, I don't condone activities that bring shame to the uniform that I so proudly wore. If a soldier violates the UCMJ, then that soldier should be punished under the UCMJ. Just FYI, maybe you should look at who was doing what at Gitmo. I think you are pointing the finger at the wrong people (soldiers).

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (10/25/2009 1:04:10 PM)

Dem,


Doesn't FS have you on ignore? That might explain why he isn't responding to you.

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (10/25/2009 1:30:14 PM)

Dem,


Sworn off name-calling? I will strive to do the same. I have on a few occasions been guilty of this myself. I therefore apologize to you for calling you a moron on the abortion thread.

Tulsa World Staff Writer Randy Krehbiel, Tulsa (10/23/2009 10:57:03 AM)

Interestingly enough, Oklahoma has had "government-run" insurance for many years. It's called CompSource -- the state-owned Workers Comp insurer of last resort. From what I understand, the employers who use it like it pretty well. Private insurers don't like it because it has some competitive advantages. The Legislature is looking at closing it down.

It is self-sustaining and does not receive state funds.

oldrustytulsa, Tulsa (10/23/2009 6:55:19 AM)

I call this teem Obama, all being poverty pimps, shoving health care down the Real Americans throats, and this does seem to be the death of the Democratic party as we know it.Next election will be a free for all.

zzx375, BA (10/27/2009 4:02:02 PM)

1 trillion dollars for a plan that the congress and the president won't be using. What a great gig!

Tony G, Tulsa (10/24/2009 6:00:56 AM)

Its simple really. Health Care for profit is morally WRONG.
I don't mind the doctor making a good living, I don't mind the hospital, charging reasonable fees.
I DO OBJECT to insurance agents, and CEO's making
millions while restricting access to health care.
Europe does it, Canada does it, yet we can't.
I find that hard to believe.

Mar, Tulsa (10/23/2009 10:28:17 AM)

"...although both are paid for through a combination of cuts in future Medicare spending and higher taxes. ..."

Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how this will turn out. If one of these plans go into effect, and with the baby boomers hitting retirement age/getting older and with the baby boomer generation being the biggest generation, there are going to be more people qualified to receive Medicare. Then the idiots in Washington make cuts in Medicare, it is going to really hurt the baby boomers.

On top of that, Generation X and younger people will be hit with higher taxes, so they won't be happy about that.

The upside is that may be one way to thoroughly clean house in Washington, D.C.

Mar, Tulsa (10/23/2009 10:50:29 AM)

Worried about the system states: "...A program whereby they can pay smaller premiums and receive healthcare benefits,..."

That's all warm and fuzzy, but healthcare is expensive, so if some people get to pay smaller premiums, that means somebody else is going to be stuck paying the rest of that person's premium.

A lot of us are already stuck with subsidizing Medicaid recipients, food stamp recipients, welfare recipients, wick recipients and so on. Just what we need, subsidize people's health care too.

2curious, Tulsa, OK 74104 (10/23/2009 5:45:04 AM)

I'm putting the over / under number for comments to this story at 150.

Few Clothes, America (10/24/2009 4:36:38 PM)

Everyone. We need to keep this etched in 2010 and, especially 2012. We cannot give this moron a second term! The United States and your grandchildren's future will be shot to hell if he gets 4 more years to continue to destroy this nation.

emotional_sting, tulsa - (10/24/2009 7:06:49 AM)

1 thousand billion dollars. interesting.
all i remember was obama's promises that life
would be so much better and for cheap.
unfortunately the man misjudged a bit.

a trillion dollars ain't cheap, millions of
unemployed don't appear to have better and
the bankers are given a big paycheck.
go figure.

what's next? "my kenyan relatives are very
happy with two goats, a mud hut and a measure
of gunpowder."

Democrat, Tulsa County (10/24/2009 6:07:04 AM)

TK1: Mirrors!!! Really? NO! It will be done with tax revenue. Republicans borrow and spend in order to create unfunded medicare prescription benefits and to pay for wars of choice. Democrats have embraced the idea of Paygo (pay as we go) and raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for programs that benefit people. By paying attention to that $100 billion, President Obama will bring the huge budget deficits that he inherited from the spendthrift ways and economic chaos of George W. Bush under control. Hide and watch as the temporary measures being taken to restore the economy will work and the deficits begin to fall by the end of Obama's first term.

Just tell me who was the last Republican President to balance a budget? (Hint-- He was a five-star general and WWII hero of D-Day). Also, have any of the Republicans elected since Jimmy Carter managed to have a deficit that was less than Carter's final deficit of less than $80 billion? As I remember from the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan was very critical of Carter for having an "$80 billion deficit." Reagan NEVER had a deficit that was as low as $100 billion. ROFLMAO at you, bubba.

Democrat, Tulsa County (10/24/2009 6:13:13 AM)

Tony G: Amen, brother. No opponent to health care reform has yet to answer those questions for me. Just how do patients benefit from paying a healthy portion of their health care dollars to insurance companies and what is the patient benefit in allowing health insurance company "death panelists" (thank you Sarah Palin) to decide life and death issues concerning health or surgical procedures, while placing company profits first in their priorities?

We have a good compromise available. We should allow those who wish to throw away money to health insurance companies to continue to do so. We should also allow those of us who wish to become part of the existing Medicare system (already with 45 million people) to buy into that system.

Democrat, Tulsa County (10/24/2009 7:00:24 AM)

Medicare for All (who choose) is the best public option. The system is already in place and large (45 million currently enrolled). The government can negotiate for lower fees and drug charges AND there is a MUCH LOWER OVERHEAD cost in Medicare than in private insurance plans.

Let those who wish to be ripped-off by private insurance companies continue to pay outrageous premiums and give life or death decision-making power to the insurance company "death panelists." I would prefer to pay less for health care and to not have medical/surgical procedures delayed or denied in the interests of corporate profits.

Democrat, Tulsa County (10/24/2009 7:06:21 AM)

Moses: Thank you for the cerebral contribution to the discussion. Why don't you post YOUR picture and allow the rest of us to comment on your "good looks?"

Democrat, Tulsa County (10/24/2009 7:18:54 AM)

emotional sting:

Did you read the entire article? A major point that you are ignoring is that Obama and the Democrats in Congress must deal with the Bush/Republican Medicare prescription hole in addition to bringing many of the 46 million uninsured into coverage.

They are dealing with those problems AND figuring out a way to prevent health care improvements from INCREASING the deficits.

I would have a hard time understanding why Moses, emotional sting, centrist, from the heart, and TK1 would want to post comments on this article if I thought that they understood the article.