GOP's Steele Announces 'Healthcare Bill of Rights' for Seniors

Reader Comments
Back to article

LESS GOVERNMENT = BETTER OUTCOMES... FOR CORPORATIONS!

David of CA 6:02PM August 24, 2009

When will both parties come to their senses. What is being called "rationing" as if that is bad is what I call "making it affordable" If we are spending more on Medicare than we are taking in in taxes we should immediately start a "rationing/making it affordable" program. It is just going to get worse if we have a similar plan for everyone. When do we start getting realistic? We have to reduce coverage until it costs no more than we can afford. I am a senior and I would love to have everything paid for but it makes no sense whatsoever to deficit spend taxpayer's money for my sake. Now the Republicans are saying that they don't want to "ration/make it affordable" our coverage and they don't want to increase taxes. Talking about coverage without any consideration of the increased cost is just plain crazy.

Al Nelson of CA 5:58PM August 24, 2009

There have been three major raids on the social security trust fund seniors have contributed to every week over the years. Each robbery stole a significant percentage from the fund because it was "overfunded" and all three times it has been a Democratic Congress. And it was never paid back.
So before we give slogans as answers to questions, it may be good to check.
The problem with the healthcare debate IS the Democrats and Republicans. Both are trying to score points on the other as if this were a team sport rather than the deadly serious business it is.

Tom Mariner of NY 5:57PM August 24, 2009

If Republicans had their way, we wouldn't have anything of benefit for the average person. The wealthy would be an American version of the old European Aristocrats (pun intended) - doing whatever they wanted, to anyone they pleased (barring, of course, someone of greater wealth). The "Seniors' Health Care Bill of Rights" is just an incompetent attempt to impede any real progress on health care reform - I presume the Republicans are targeting the senile with their PR campaign.
What we really need is a US version of Britain's National Health Service. Eliminating corporate influence in health care will result in better care for far less expense.
We would need a bit more than $900 billion per year to fully fund a US version of the British National Health Service (universal health care).
How can we pay for the US National Health Service? In 2007, the combined Federal, State, and local government expenditure on health care was $1035.7 billion. So, we can fully nationalize health care with the US National Health Service, and cut government health care spending by about $100 billion per year at the same time. No additional tax source is needed. Everybody but the health care 'industry' wins.
The bottom line is that we are already paying for universal health care, we just aren't receiving it because of the subversive activities of vested interests: specifically, the health care 'industry' - which is actively subverting the government to perpetuate its parasitic existence.
/Data from: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group; U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis; the U.S. Bureau of the Census; and the UK NHS

AC of CA 5:51PM August 24, 2009

Millions of older americans count on Medicare and while it is far from perfect, it does provide a crucial safety net.
Consequently, I enjoyed the lunacy of Stone, who suggests "we just ensure seniors are able to afford their healthcare without a government run program." What are you suggesting? Perhaps the free enterprise system can create a "seniors work for healthcare" program. Or perhaps magically our seniors will retroactively have had the opportunity to save an extra million prior to retirement.

ED of MA 5:50PM August 24, 2009

The foundation of free market is that we can expect busineeses to act selfishly and with there own self intrest in mind. That's the basis for our economic system. And it's great that we can guarantee that most of it will work because we can guarantee that buisinesses will be selfish.
But it doesn't work all the time for all products. Health insurance is the very product where the market forces don't work.
So, LESS GOVERNMENT does not equal BETTER OUTCOMES. Indeed, when it comes to the postal service, public option auto insurance, fire departments, police services, library services, roadways, and a whole host of public services.
In truth, sometimes the free market is better, sometimes the government is better, and sometimes it is a combination of both that is better.

John Maurice Fitzgerald of CA 5:48PM August 24, 2009

Didn't the Repugnicans propose a "bill of rights" before?
I think the last administration laid that one to rest.
They have totally stagnant thinking - and they are totally shameless.

Joe R of WA 5:44PM August 24, 2009

1) Republicans scare people saying that you will be turned down by the government when you need some type of treatment.
The irony is, even IF that were true, you could just go pay CASH and get treatment, right? Yes.
At this point the Republican hypocrisy becomes clear: They rail against it EVEN THOUGH, paying CASH is precisely the rememdy republican propose for the 50 million uninsured today "Just pay cash"
Proving once again, Republicans are the part of "I've got mine; tough for the rest of you".

Joe Englux of DC 5:38PM August 24, 2009

When Republicans look like Democrats - then what really is at issue? Now Republicans, under Steele's leadership, are trying to protect government run insurance like Medicaid? Hello.... How about we just ensure the seniors are able to afford their healthcare without a government run program that by its very nature is unsustainable as a socialist-style program. It is already under-funded. Any monies that were deposited into the system were spent 10-fold over the past 7 months. Come-on Republicans! Wake the hell up!!!! LESS GOVERNMENT = BETTER OUTCOMES. Don't promise to keep government programs funded. Promise that the elderly will be cared for and not euthanized. Promise that you will fight to the last penny against any mandated program or government intervention between a senior and their doctor. But don't promise that Medicare doesn't go away! Don't limit your options.

Stone of MD 5:21PM August 24, 2009

If Republicans had their way, there would be no medicare and seniors would be totally SOL. There are plenty of negative things to say about the democratic party, buy they have been the party to look out for our seniors over the years.

Rachael Reynolds of VA 5:19PM August 24, 2009