IntenseDebate - JansKid

14 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - 7/29 Some Say Health... · 0 replies · +1 points

Barney Frank is candid and - for a change - quite "frank" with an interviewer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98

The title of this interview should be... "how to go about getting government in complete control of health care, because right now we don't have enough votes."

Freaky.

14 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - 7/29 Health Care Vot... · 0 replies · +1 points

Many say "as California goes, so goes the nation".

Today Arnold Schwarzenegger proved conclusively that the ONLY possible way to get spending cuts of ANY significance out of a liberal government is to have a Republican in charge and a line item veto.

(And even that is AFTER critical mass has been reached!)

14 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - 7/28 The Senate Appe... · 1 reply · +1 points

AARP, the AMA, the drug companies.

They all have to walk a fine line.

They've been "told" that if they actively oppose the changes, they won't get a seat at the table.

Kind of puts them in a tough position, but we wouldn't want to bring politics into the debate, now would we?

14 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - 7/24 Even Harry Reid... · 0 replies · +1 points

That is an excellent link!

14 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - 7/24 Even Harry Reid... · 0 replies · +1 points

Outstanding news!

14 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - 7/24 Even Harry Reid... · 0 replies · +1 points

LOL... I know where you're coming from.

How about the "reuse old medical supplies" czar.

Or the czar "in charge of transportation to Canada because the waits are shorter".

14 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - 7/24 Even Harry Reid... · 1 reply · +1 points

I am disappointed at the decision.

This is one of the smartest, well behaved groups of intelligent, well educated, & highly experienced people I have ever chatted with.

14 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - 7/24 Even Harry Reid... · 0 replies · +1 points

But true and honest health care reform is NOT the O-Team's primary objective... certainly not Nancy Pelosi's. No matter what they have named dozens of those czars, most of them fall under the "Increase the size of the Democratic party" czar. Rush LImbaugh pointed out on Greta's show last night that a miniscule 29 billion in the stimulous package (as compared to its total size) could have covered MILLIONS of uninsured people.

The President stated that he gets letters every day from people in crisis.

And yet he does nothing for them, UNLESS the entire system changes. If that happens, a new system introduces all kinds of new costs, unexpected bugs, inefficiencies and loopholes that need to be found and corrected over the foreseeable future. This is an unavoidable reality that even people capable of giving great teleprompter speeches cannot make go away.

It's partisan politics at its worst. Truly.

14 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - 7/24 Even Harry Reid... · 3 replies · +2 points

What makes me (and probably most Americans) angry is that they are clearly NOT focused on cleaning up the health care system.

Anyone who has been in project management probably knows two golden rules:

1. You don't completely replace a large, monstrous, existing system unless you have no other choice.
2. The secret to tackling large projects is to break it into smaller, more manageable pieces (which can be delegated).

And yet, there they sit, trying to come up with a way to control EVERYTHING and not have it cost money.

They've given themselves a Rubik's cube to sit and turn back and forth that can never be solved.

If I was President and appointing czars, I would appoint the following (just from what I've observed by participating in the existing system):

1. A "Reduce/eliminate Fraud" czar.
2. A "Minimize frivolous lawsuits czar".
3. A "Share the cost of drug R&D with other nations" czar.
4. A "Create 24 hour clinics so people can go there instead of an emergency room" czar.

(Continued in reply)

14 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - 7/22 No House Vote O... · 0 replies · +2 points

You asked me to define an "unreasonable profit".

Technically, the free market is supposed to define that.

We have a long history proving that capitalism WORKS. Once someone drifts above an average of 6-7% profit, a competitor will offer the same product or service cheaper and force the offending company to reduce their prices or go out of busines.

Government is already intervening in the capitalist system on health care because they have maxiums that they will pay (which differ by state).

So I'm not looking forward to more government meddling, because it rarely works as intended, and the consequences of it affect many.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with JansKid

My blogs/sites

People I'm following

JansKid