IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

"The buck stops __with the voters who re-elect them into office__________"

Imagine what the American Trucking Association would say if the interstate highway system was a jumble of unconnected, poorly paved roads, every mile of which was nonetheless tolled at exorbitant rates. Think what the American Telemarketing Association would do if half the calls their employees dialed every day were abruptly disconnected because of faulty, unreliable telephonic infrastructure. And how quickly would the Direct Marketing Association, which relies on the U.S Postal Service, mobilize on Capitol Hill if millions of their mail pieces each day never arrived at their intended addresses?
...

In October 2007, the Milken Institute published "An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease," a report analyzing the long-term economic costs of leaving unchecked just seven maladies: cancer, heart disease, hypertension, mental disorders, diabetes, pulmonary conditions and stroke. Comparing a scenario of "reasonable improvements in treatment and behavior" with a "business as usual" baseline, the report estimated that cumulative savings in health care expenditures over two decades, from 2003 to 2023, could total $1.6 trillion. That's $80 billion saved per year - no small sum.

But those savings are dwarfed by the costs to the American economy caused by an unhealthy work force. "Chronically ill workers take sick days, reducing the supply of labor - and, in the process, the GDP," the report's executive summary explains. "When they do show up to avoid losing wages, they perform far below par - a circumstance known as 'presenteeism,' in contrast to absenteeism."

Milken's estimated cumulative loss to America's GDP of doing nothing during the same period? Almost $7 trillion.

We wouldn't tolerate $7 trillion sort of inefficiency and loss if resulted from a tax increase or proposed business regulation. Wouldn't Grover Norquist and his gang be screaming tirelessly, perhaps with cause? Yet as a nation we sit back passively and allow our capitalist economy to be hobbled by solvable problems with the most important infrastructural input of all: the labors of the American workforce. ...

But the tougher, more political question I want to ask is this: Why hasn't the president framed his calls for health care reform--either in subtle or more direct, forceful ways--in terms of American economic performance and productivity? Wouldn't that put a lot of his conservative critics back on their heels? Wouldn't it rally more corporate interests and trade associations to his side?

The liberal leftist mind thinks the government must own all of us, just as they do the roads.

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants could receive health care coverage from their employers under the bills winding their way through Congress, despite President Obama's explicit pledge that illegal immigrants would not benefit.

The House bill mandates, and the Senate bill strongly encourages, businesses to extend health care coverage to all employees. But the bills do not have exemptions to screen out illegal immigrants, who usually obtain jobs by using false identities and are indistinguishable from legal workers.

So, it appears that those living and working here illegally will be covered, after all.

mysteryman wrote:

So, it appears that those living and working here illegally will be covered, after all.

There was never any doubt in my mind, mm.

Also, look for abortion funding paid by taxpayers.

Also, there is no doubt that single payer universal health care run by the government is the ultimate goal, this little period of fighting over a bill is merely a step toward that, as viewed by Obama and all of his leftist supporters.

Anyone that values personal liberty at all should oppose this whole thing to the hilt.

One cannot fall for all the nuances of this bill. You have to look at where Obama stands in his foundational belief, and if he is not a Marxist, I believe he certainly has alot of affections for it and he also has alot of hangups and foot dragging against capitalism, private property rights, and free enterprise, otherwise known as personal liberty and freedom.

One cannot fall for all the nuances of this bill. You have to look at where Obama stands in his foundational belief, and if he is not a Marxist, I believe he certainly has alot of affections for it and he also has alot of hangups and foot dragging against capitalism, private property rights, and free enterprise, otherwise known as personal liberty and freedom.

Quote:

One cannot fall for all the nuances of this bill. You have to look at where Obama stands in his foundational belief, and if he is not a Marxist, I believe he certainly has alot of affections for it and he also has alot of hangups and foot dragging against capitalism, private property rights, and free enterprise, otherwise known as personal liberty and freedom.

Blah, blah... do you have to throw this into every post?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

One cannot fall for all the nuances of this bill. You have to look at where Obama stands in his foundational belief, and if he is not a Marxist, I believe he certainly has alot of affections for it and he also has alot of hangups and foot dragging against capitalism, private property rights, and free enterprise, otherwise known as personal liberty and freedom.

Blah, blah... do you have to throw this into every post?

Cycloptichorn

Just about, because alot of people are yet too blind to see the obvious, thus I keep repeating it. Obama is a radical.

Folks, we are in trouble with this guy in charge. Got that, cyclops?

Now if you are a radical, such as if you might think a worm should have as much rights as humans, then support the man, go for it.

Weird times we are a livin in!!!