Good morning.
Cop notes are posted on the site.
The city commission story will be up soon.
I was thinking more about all the talk on health care. What I see is both sides pointing fingers. At the meeting yesterday with the Congressman's staffers, I asked if there was, or if there was a chance, of any kind of bi-partisan effort to solve the health care crisis.
He looked at me like i was talking a foreign language, and said probably not.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM.
We should demand that our legislators and leaders get it in gear and solve the problem. Right now its just party politics along party lines. Lots of posturing, name calling and rhetoric, but nothing is happening.
Maybe the problem is the politicians.
Its not whether the republicans or democrats are right, they both are the problem.
Look beyond your party affiliation. Look beyond your conservative or liberal leanings.
Its just a big ol tug a war going on between the political parties thats going to go on til the end of days. Why they just can't try and come together like they did after the 9-11 attacks is beyond me. its not 1791 anymore, its a different world. I can't understand how people say they donate to charities, but then they bitch about taxes for health care? Something wrong with that picture and once again, obama is giving the option of keeping your own insurance so it would still be in line with the bill of rights. Another thing, if one of my family members wouldn't of had healthwave for their child, the baby would of died or the parents would of been in deep, deep debt. Then we would be looking for a handout through a fundraiser. Whats the difference?
ReplyDeleteJames you are headed down the same road as Seaton Jr.
ReplyDeleteSeaton has a political ax to grind and it cost him advertisers. I was approached by you awhile back about advertising on your web site. The answer was no then and will continue to be no.
The blog you started for growth of a city and to provide news has become a political soap box the same as what happened to the Traveler.
You have every right to say what you like, but it seems to me you are getting side tracked down the very way that the Traveler went.....
9:17, While he is voicing his opinion on this blog, he hasn't been one sided on his news site that I have seen. The blog is much different than the news site. I can't believe you would hold it against him that he has an opinion,or maybe it is because he doesn't share your opinion. Either way, it is a free country and you have the right not to throw your few dollars his way. The city will grow, there will be some type of healthcare reform,it's all good.
ReplyDeleteYes, the news site is pretty unbiased.
ReplyDeleteIt is just regular news.
The blog is a different animal. It is a place for analyzing the news.
It is interesting that it is a national issue that I get grief over. Just goes to show its more about politics.
I am not on either side. I wont be on either side.
They are both wrong :)
August 19, 2009 9:17 AM said "You have every right to say what you like, but it seems to me you are getting side tracked down the very way that the Traveler went....."
ReplyDeleteSo, for those less intuitive folks like myself, can you expound on what is teh agenda for Mr. Jordan or for Mr. Seaton for that matter.
I am missing it.
James, you keep saying (over and over) that Rebublicans are all for big business getting handouts. I say you are wrong.
ReplyDeleteAt least on a local level, Republicans are NOT for giving businesses handouts, and were not for the bailouts to AIG and the auto companies.
Also, you act as though we should be out in the street protesting, yet what would that help? The government machine is not going to be slowed one iota by a few people getting together and marching.
I, for one, hate the fact that the government is throwing money at our problems instead of finding ways to cut and reform spending.
I am registered Independent, yet I hold many republican ideals, and you are mistaken in your broad painting of republicans as being for big business. Besides, except for the first stimulus by Bush (that went to the people if I'm not mistaken), it was the democrats who handed out those bailout.
Well, we do spend more on corporate welfare than on social welfare, ive said that many times.
ReplyDeleteand this happened under republican leadership.
It is republicans who support major tax breaks for huge companies. it is republicans who dont want to restrain te excesses of the insurance industry, or other industries.
I do think the reputation of being big business friendly - and forgetting poor people - is a fair characterization of the republican party.
Many individuals who are republicans do not do that, but ... the platform of the party does.
Now, just so you wont accuse me of being a democrat.
I think it is a fair representation of the democratic party to say that they support killing babies via abortion, and calling it a choice.
Nuff said eh.
:)
If i can aggravate both sides, i think im getting closer to the truth.
Well, I sure don't see the democrats doing anything about it, even with their majority. All they want to do is institute socialized healthcare.
ReplyDeleteSo your basically a democrat who doesn't believe in abortion then.
ReplyDeleteI went to see Tihart at Wellington, for one of his town hall meetings there were around a 130 people there. Standing room only and the over flow into the hall, He held up a 3 to 3 1/2 inches thick double sided book that was the health care reform bill. There is no way that either side knows everything that is in that bill. there are many pages that refer to other bills, change other bill, or add to other bills so each one of them has to be looked up and understood. My problem is that I am tired of elected leaders voting on things that they have not read or that they don't fully undertand.
ReplyDeleteGetting behind that smartest person they can find and screaming the way he screams because they think he makes them look like they know what they are talking about. repeating someone's talking points is not leading.
I don't like the implecation that because I don't agree with a policy, or an elected person that I am un-american. It is our right and our duty to question or take issue with policy that is not for the greater good.
I don't know if this health care reform is a good deal or a bad deal but I do know that it is made so complicated that our elected leaders don't understand it or have not the time to fully digest it before it is changed and re written.
Both sides of the issue are redirecting, us like we are children and they need to get us to look over here instead of over there.
Exactly. I dont want something pushed that no one understands or that we can't pay for. I really don't understand how any of it is going to happen. We do have a right to question what they are trying to do to our health care system. It's not just enough to be in favor of something because everyone needs health care. It really is a more complicated issue than that.
ReplyDeleteAND I don't like it to be assumed that because I'm not a democrat that I'm automatically against it. That has nothing to do with it. They have not explained this bill very well and keep changing what they are saying. We aren't all playing 'politics'
JJ, did you think that maybe we are really thinking for ourselves? And maybe most of the Republicans are against this bill for good reasons? Please don't lump everyone into one category like they do on TV please.
Personally, I still think it is about fair alternatives even the Public side of Healthcare.
ReplyDeleteBut, I do prefer a private Sector Competitive solution.
One article I read - I'll find it if you make me - was talking about the current debate over capping the amount the older individuals should pay for healthcare. They were debating about twice or five times the amount of a 20 yr. old for those 60 yrs. old.
Now we all have known people that are faced with more healthcare issues through age.
But with the current system and even the proposed system its hard not to think they are targeting peoples core assets and life savings.
Then redistributing it to the less fortunate or for better lack of words Dishonest/lazy. (Sorry but I see the illegals as dishonest as well as people who avoid or abandon their responsibilites (like their children) and the lazy well their LAZY!)
Especailly, when its harder and there are fewer options prior to medicare elgibility.
Oh, the retirment age is rising!
Besides, I just can't bring myself to understand why if rates were fair and affordable. They wouldn't want the additional business/money that would come from all those
who are uninsured but then could participate.
I think it might force Goverment to have to change!
Some people see government as evil and the root of all problems. Less government is not a cure-all. I got grief over saying once that the solution to the drug war was to make drugs legal.
ReplyDeleteI was halfway kidding, but .. think of it in the health care industry. Solving the problem of health care .. do you really think the answer is to make everything legal?
You know, before there were labor laws prohibiting it, factories worked children as young as 6 - 12 hours a day. People who were hurt on the job were cast aside. Its not perfect now, but at least now, workers have some rights.
Do you think workers would have any rights if someone didn't tell factory owners they had to do it?
Government isn't the answer either.
But. I hope people realize, that big business is not your friend either.
The government may want control of your life.
But.
Big business wants all your money, and wants to give you as little as they can get by with in return.
Im just saying that neither is the answer, and both need some controls.
Im all for competition, but, big business should still have to obey the law and act honestly.
I dont see government as the answer, but i sure dont see letting big business do whatever it wants, as the answer either.
So, who is going to protect us from the politicians who can be bought!
ReplyDeleteThat's a good question.
ReplyDeleteIt sure isnt either of the two major political parties. Its not government, and it sure isn't big business.
Maybe the answer is to vote all the incumbents out every time. ?
@ 10:47
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong.
In 2008 alone Bush spent $870 billion on economic recovery. The first bill was the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 ($170 billion, rebate checks and tax cuts) and the second bill was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 ($700 billion - i.e. TARP). This does not factor is the money spent on Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit program which was estimated to cost around $1.2 trillion dollars over ten years - and banned the government from negotiating with pharma on prescription costs.Additionally you will need to consider the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and all the Bush tax cuts for the current deficit to make sense.
@ 2:57
Average Americans can by educating themselves on what is going on in congress, following money trails (campaign contributions) of elected leaders and digging into the nuts and bolts of our political process. Vote accordingly.
Yes, as far as deficits go, theres plenty of blame to go around. Both sides had their hands in our current economic mess.
ReplyDeleteAnd while rome was burning, both repbulicans and democrats were taking credit for economic good times. Was it Reaganomics that got us going, or was it the Clinton adminstration.
There is no winner in that debate.
The debate itself is half the problem.
@ 4:38 PM,
ReplyDeleteYou really wanna compare which "side" spends more money? Did you miss the part where I said I was an independent? I said I might be mistaken on that last part. Didn't have time to look it up. You obviously have nothing better to do, so thanks for the research; but it doesn't change anything I said before that last sentence, does it? BTW, I hear your blog is pretty boring now days. ;)
JJ, Lumping all republicans into one group who loves big business is just wrong. No one I know likes what big business has done to the country. After all, big business dictates policy and in effect runs this country if you think about it. Even the POTUS is a puppet to big business. We saw that when Bush refused to do anything about the illegal immigration problem. We see it now because Obama now runs GM and has his hand in lots more pies. Big business and republicans do not go hand in hand.
Lots of opinion, not much research.......
ReplyDeletesg, i didnt say all, i said in general it is true.
ReplyDeletehow can we ever get past politics?
Non-partisan; like it or not.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fact_check_health_poll
Thanks mad linker
ReplyDeletethats a good story. shows how myths get spread and take hold and people start believing them.
if you tell a lie loud enough and long enough, people will believe it.
The bill does not contain anything that would lead to death panels, but even tiarht's people suggested as much at the satellite meeting the other day.
Someone said it could lead down that road. Maybe. But, legalizing abortion also pointed us in that direction.
The article does make another great point.
Obamas plan is very general. It does leave open room for interpretation, which opponents are using to their advantage.
Maybe he should scrap it and start over, and come back with a more specific plan.
Then fight like heck to make it happen.
@ 8:14
ReplyDeleteI don't care that you are an independent. I care that you stated, without any indication that you might not know what you are talking about that:
Besides, except for the first stimulus by Bush (that went to the people if I'm not mistaken), it was the democrats who handed out those bailout(sic).
You are wrong and I said as much.
And again, I ask, how much has Obama given out VS what Bush did? You can't deny Obama is throwing money at a problem. More money than Bush. Obama has been in office less than 7 months. How much more will he spend? WE DON'T HAVE IT! We are borrowing it from other countries. Explain how that's a good idea.
ReplyDeleteWhat I do know is that if we had the MONEY that was thrown at the Iraq war in the last few years, we would be in a whole heck of alot better shape than we are right now. I suppose you can keep this debate going but we are on a fast train to no where because one spends about as much as the other. Just in different places. We need health care reform, maybe not the program they are pushing but we need reform. They cap the amounts the utilities can charge you, they didn't all fold. Why not cap proceedures, medical care, and drugs to a reasonable amount, they will survive the utilities did.
ReplyDeleteI agree we need some kind of reform, but not the socialized system that this administration is pushing. Read soome reviews of the Canadian system, or the British system, and you will see that it doesn't work. Regulate insurance companies if you want, but socialism is not the answer.
ReplyDeleteI have a close friend that lives in Canada, I asked her in detail if there was a problem with the system they have there. She said all she has been hearing here in the US is in her own words "phooey". She is in her sixties, and is on the Canada's social security. She says she gets great care and so did her husband that passed away about five years ago. I can read all of the reviews around but I think I will have to believe my friends opinion of the system there. The system we have right now in the USA is not working for me at all. Their system is working for her. Go figure!
ReplyDeleteI agree with that SG.
ReplyDeleteIm not so much "in favor" of obama's program. I just want to see the debate happen among lawmakers.
How do we get them to talk specifics and actually work out something?
To the last poster. People that I actually know in other countries that have socialized medicine all say its great.
You can always find isolated cases to prove whatever you want.
Ive not seen any scientific studies or surveys on any medical system, so ... there is no objective informaiton out there.
good comments
How quickly you forget. Did you not read the link ILBR put in your blog just yesterday that said the Canadian system is eating itself from within?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539943,00.html
ReplyDeleteFROM THE ARTICLE:
Dr. Anne Doig, the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, said her country’s health care system is “sick” and “imploding,” the Canadian Press reported.
Read the whole article. It is quite interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wTDK-LwqE
ReplyDeleteHere it is again. I dug it out of an earlier post.
Just because it works for one person in those countries doesn't mean it is working. Obviously mine works just fine here, but others seem to have a problem with it. Let's not trade one problem for another. I hope they make sure they have all the details worked out before they push anything thru.
ReplyDeleteAll is not well in Canada or Britian, no matter how you spin it.
Well, Yeah, when you put it like that. haha
ReplyDeleteLook at it this way: My family has great insurance. It's free to us from an employer. Part of the "perks" the position entails. We do have a co-pay, but we always receive the finest care, either locally, or regionally if need be, and the bills are mostly covered.
If I told that to someone in another country, and they turned around and told everyone on a blog that the healthcare system in the USA is great, Would they be right?
No.
I just posted another article on my blog about Canadians coming to US for health care. And it's more than a few of them that do it. After they get permission from their government of course.
ReplyDeleteSG, you are correct. But why is it that you post about people saying its awful in other countries, and because of that, we are supposed to accept it as truth?
ReplyDeleteWhy is one more believable than the other?
My point exactly. I guess the Casinos have great insurance, congrats!!! We all ought to work there! But that isn't going to happen. Who would gamble?
ReplyDeleteCasino? I don't work at a casino. Who said anything about a casino?
ReplyDelete"SG, you are correct. But why is it that you post about people saying its awful in other countries, and because of that, we are supposed to accept it as truth?
ReplyDeleteWhy is one more believable than the other?"
James, because the "people" I posted saying it was "sick" and "imploding" was the PRESIDENT OF THE CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, not somebody's cousin's uncle's sister's brother. Duh.
Are insurance is fine, minus the deductable. Other wise i would be perfectly happy with it.
ReplyDeleteThe article in the Canadian Press quotes her as saying the system is imploding, but she also says there are lots of good things about it.
ReplyDeleteThey are comparing systems in Europe, NOT the USA to get ideas.
They want to tweak their system and then they think it will be fine.
One thing it says, Candians do not want a system based after the USA system.
They may allow some privitization, but only some.
Maybe that is what is needed,
a combinaiton of the two.
from the article:
ReplyDeleteOuellet has said that “competition should be welcomed, not feared,” meaning private health insurance should have a role in the public health system.
Why do they want to step away from the all government program?
@ 7:13
ReplyDeleteWe could go tit for tat on which side spends more money but that is not only not relevant to this discussion (beyond pointing out you were wrong about the Bush administration bailouts) on health care but unproductive.
We could look at your initial argument where you said that Republicans are not for big business and tie that into the discussion on health care reform though.
Republicans who oppose the public option do so on ideological grounds opposing 'big government'. Most believe reform will be achieved by deregulating policies which will enable competition across state lines there by driving down health care costs. They are also getting very vocal about tort reform.
In a majority of all states the market is monopolized by one or two health insurance providers already. Most of these companies hold a market share of 50% in a single state not to mention across 'market lines'. Do you think smaller companies and non-profits will be able to compete effectively in this environment?
The competition across state lines stems from a state's right to mandate insurance coverage for basic services. For example, some states require that emergency services be covered while others don't. The same could be said about cancer screenings, substance abuse programs, premium caps or excluding those with pre-existing conditions. The more mandates a state requires, the higher the premiums in that state.
The theory is, you can choose a policy in another state with less mandates therefore paying a lower premium - but you also get less coverage. This can potentially pull younger, healthier individuals out of a larger pool of the insured - leaving higher premiums for those more at risk. Not to mention leaving the younger group - under insured.
Or you can think about it like car insurance. You have the ability to purchase car insurance nationwide but there are industry standards that affect your premiums like: living in a rural area, being young or having a less than stellar credit rating.
There is no incentive for competition or to lower medical costs following this method and it's basically a deregulation scheme. In fact, this is typical Republican maneuvering: deregulate per corporate interests and then prevent people from suing.
That is restructuring a business model and not health reform in my opinion.
Crap - I didn't realize how ranty I was getting there.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the long post.
That's okay, nobody reads your posts anyway.
ReplyDeleteAt least what BD says has been researched.
ReplyDelete@ 8:39
ReplyDeleteHostile and I like it.
@ 9:43
=)
Byte, don't get all "Wee Wee'd up". I was just kiddin'!
ReplyDelete@ SG
ReplyDeleteBut... it's August.
You two don't start getting along or things will get boring!
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the bush vs obama spending? I wonder what could of happened if bush wasn't lame duck in 2008. I remember the recession was actually beginning at the end of 2007. Am or am I not recalling that bush didn't do much other then give aig the first bailout?
ReplyDeleteTo add to the previous post, it makes me wonder if the repub party would be doing the same thing as the dems today.
ReplyDeleteI think that is highly likely:)
ReplyDeleteJust my theory, but it seems like a lot of economic conditions are ust natural cycles.
Remember we were in a recession when Clinton got elected the first time. The economy improved. Of course, both sides took credit.
Publicans said it was reaganomics trickling down, but Dems said it was cause clinton came to the rescue and saved us from trickling down.
Whatever.
I think it was a natural cycle, and both sides tried to spin it to their good.
Same thing today, 187th verse same as the first.
:)
I agree JJ.
ReplyDeleteBut to be a pain, I think the recession started just awhile after the Dems took back Congress.
haha :-)
From the article "Obama Snares Palin, Media in Wide Blame-Game Net"
ReplyDelete"When liberal activists, including trade unions, Acorn and MoveOn.org, protested against anything and everything President George W. Bush said or did, it was called grassroots democracy.
When conservative groups encourage supporters to attend town hall meetings and make their sentiments known to their congressmen, it’s un-American, disruptive and the work of right- wing extremists."
read the rest of the article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aNjLN73fQVj8
Thanks to I Love Being Right for the link
Thanks for reading :-)
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if maybe we are missing something in all this bickering about the health care "crisis". We are already being taxed for health care (medicare, medicaid)....The powers that be appear to want to tax us even more for their "improved" version of health care.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there's one area that seems to be being neglected....the pharmaceutical companies. Often when you visit a doctor, you are given "free" samples of the newest wonder drug for whatever ailment you may be suffering (kinda like being a test guinea pig). You can't watch TV without being bombarded by all those drug commercials....many of which say that the side effects are worse than the original ailment! Yet, people continue to buy them and take them. But then, what can we expect in a society that drugs their children in school rather than discipline them? And what of the many "new" phantom illnesses? ADD, ADHD, etc....
Maybe we're looking the wrong direction to fix our health care problems.....
While I agree that seeing drug commercials on TV makes me wonder why they are advertising drugs to the public that can only be perscribed by doctors, I don't think the pharmaceutical companies are all bad. I think that without the drug companies turning a profit, they would not be able to do the research and development that gives us treatments and cures. Think of all the treatments and cures that we've had in the last fifty years. The last 100 years. How many people died from Polio 100 years ago? It takes money to develop new medicines. Take away the money and you lose the research that is driven by profits.
ReplyDeleteI really disagree that add and adhd is a phantom illness and there is nothing new about it, but I do think too many people jump on the bandwagon and assume alot of these children are that way. My daughter was diagnosed with adhd when she was in her second year in first grade. She was not able to read even at first grade level. She couldn't sit still and focus to save her life. I disciplined my child, knocked out the sugar, did everything I could to help in her learning and she still had troubles. That is when I turned to the help of medicine. That and the combination of some behavioral therapy has helped my child become a successful person. So I'm asking you not to please not judge it as a phantom illness...just over diagnosed illness is more like it.
ReplyDeleteYes i disagree about ADD being a phantom illness as well.
ReplyDeleteMaybe ill do a full post on that.
But i did read an article ones suggesting that ADD is not in fact an illness, but just a different way of looking at the world.
There are some positive things about it.
Some people think depression is a fake illness too.
ADD may get diagnosed too easily and too often, but it is very real.
I agree with you James, I feel it is more of a personality and thats something you have to work with. In actuallity the brain is not getting enough stimulation and thus that is why stimulant type of medicine works. The biggest problem is see is that they are over medicated and act like zombies almost. That is not what you want and it takes close work with the doctor and schools. If you do an article, see if you can get some perspective from Dr. Wallace at the cowley mental health too, he's an expert with this diagnosis. He might even write you something.
ReplyDeleteGood idea.
ReplyDeleteMy wife is a nurse, and at one time she was a nurse at a children's clinic. She became the clinic's ADD guru.
Made a lot of parents mad by telling them their kid did not have it. :)
Anyways, one day she brought home a checklist of symptoms. I had nearly all of them.
There are some good things about it. It really might not be an "illness," as much as just a different type of personality.
But the "symptoms" are real.