news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

Blue Cross was right in opposing reforms

Thursday, November 12, 2009
(Updated 3:05 am)

Regarding the News & Record article (Nov. 6)  about state Rep. Pricey Harrison’s concerns about Blue Cross Blue Shield robocalls against health care reform:

My phone rang off the hook with calls last week from AARP promoting Obama Care: Blue Cross deserves a round of applause for telling its customers about the deceptive and expensive “public option.”

It is up to the individual to file an FCC complaint or request an attorney general’s investigation when the do-not-call rule is violated. Of course, we should be glad to read Rep. Harrison is doing something. We don’t see news of her activities very often.

The Obama administration has this country on the fast track to bankruptcy with continued reckless spending. We can not afford the “public option” in Obama Care, much less any additional spending, especially with unemployment now over 10 percent.

A Fox News poll indicates the majority do not want any change in health care. The “public option” as currently written would be the most expensive part of the Obama Care. Thank you, Blue Cross, for at least voicing this opinion. I, for one, am tired of Democrats trying to look after me.

Leave my health care alone and forget “cap and trade,” too.
 

Bill Mauldin
Greensboro

Comments

View Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

rahrah

November 12, 2009 - 4:24 am EST

"The Obama administration has this country on the fast track to bankruptcy with continued reckless spending."

You should be aware that the deficit for FY2009 was projected before January 20 to be $1.2 trillion with no estimates of what actions Barack Obama might take. That number essentially reflects the already expected $482 billion deficit that President Bush had planned plus the $700 billion TARP package that he signed into law. (That adds up to $1182 billion aka $1.182 trillion, for those not keeping track).

You should note that the final deficit for FY2009(which ended in September) was $1.42 trillion, lower than the $1.8 trillion it was projected to be in late July. Now, undoubtedly, the deficit had to go up. Whether you agreed with Obama's stimulus or not, SOME kind of stimulus was required and it would have increased the deficit further...whether by outright spending or reducing revenue by cutting taxes (more than Obama already cut them, anyway).

Then, of course, it could be argued that Obama's strategies worked well enough to prevent the full projected expenditures that would have brought the deficit to $1.8 trillion...which is sort of what I call restrained spending as opposed to reckless....and this despite the fact that unemployment rate is lagging way behind what Obama said it would be and that he's continuously attacked for it. No doubt that more government spending would create at least temporary jobs that would at least temporarily lower the unemployment rate and shore up Obama's political defenses in the economic arena. But is Obama spending that money?

Nope.

Now, I get it...the health care bill is expensive. I'll almost guarantee that it gets modified to actually save significant dollars in a few years (assuming it passes), which is something that definitely won't happen if no reform is passed. But it stands that, so far, actual dollars spent, Barack Obama has not been reckless, and in light of the huge economic crisis, he has actually been rather restrained.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 7:13 am EST

"The Obama administration has this country on the fast track to bankruptcy with continued reckless spending."

JGALT
November 11, 2009 - 4:18 pm EST

"Obama is the President. He owns his unprecedented choices. We see what he's doing and what he stands for. It makes no difference who did what before."

J D R
November 11, 2009 - 4:38 pm EST

"It makes no difference who did what before."

"Let's see if I follow this logic .. had on January 20th we held zero national debt and were operating a balanced budget ... with everything else holding (like GDP etc.) and THEN Obama spent the $2 Trillion or so he has spent so far [much less per rahrah's post] .. mostly "stimulus" which is fairly universally agreed as necessary .. folks would be as rabidly concerned as they now act?

http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/11/10/article/passing_health_ref...

JGALT

November 12, 2009 - 7:36 am EST

Any difference between a fire in the fireplace and a fire that has spread to the rest of the house?

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 9:19 am EST

When did the fire leap, Galt?

$1 Trillion?
$2 Trillion?
$3 Trillion?
$4 Trillion?
$5 Trillion?
$6 Trillion?
$7 Trillion?
$8 Trillion?
$9 Trillion?
$10 Trillion?
$11 Trillion?
$12 Trillion?

xeno10

November 12, 2009 - 5:31 am EST

Mr. Mauldin, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your "facts." Seriously.

neocon

November 12, 2009 - 6:49 am EST

" I, for one, am tired of Democrats trying to look after me"

While I agree with this sentiment, 'looking after' other people is not the end game, it's the power that goes along with government dependency that they seek, Mr. Mauldin. Anyone who thinks Zero, David Axelrod, & Co. are simply trying to provide needed services to people are shining examples of naivety and ignorance. No shortage of that, to be sure.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 7:11 am EST

I find fascinating this fear of fantasy. You & yours really believe we're headed towards genuine Mao'ism ...

Sawdust

November 12, 2009 - 8:37 am EST

C S Lewis said it best: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may be satiaited; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own consciences"

That is, to me a good summary of today's liberal politics: tormenting us for our own good. Government deciding what is good for us. Government having the audacity that they can somehow better make the millions of decisions made every single day between millions of individual patients and millions of doctors. They have brought Social Security to the brink of financial disaster. Ditto for Medicare. We simply cannot continue, as a nation, to spend more than we take in. We cannot do it as individuals, sooner or later it falls in.

I will never make any excuses for the spending of any politician of any party, especially if that spending is in areas where the federal government has overstepped its Constitutional bounds. I do not like Bush's drug program any more than I like the recent bill coming out of the House. I cannot find authority for either of them.

When you give control of your health care to the government, you give away a very important part of your freedom. A working man has no choice about spending part of his money for taking care of the medical needs of the poor (Medicaid), the elderly (Medicare), or veterans (VA). They will pay or suffer the wrath of the federal government. The government takes it before you even see it. The federal government can throw you out of your house and sell it, if it comes to that. They can shoot you, if it comes to that.

Sawdust

November 12, 2009 - 9:07 am EST

should be "..audacity to think that they can...."

And I'm the one who's paranoid?

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 9:43 am EST

The religious right are the quintessential "omnipotent moral busybodies".

.. as for "Government having the audacity [to] make [better] decisions... "
I could not agree with you more. Where we disagree is your 100% lieberal stance.

"They have brought Social Security to the brink of financial disaster. Ditto for Medicare."

Seems to me "liberals" and "non-liberals" have shared complicity. Here’s a quote for ya:

==

It is “especially fitting that so many of us from so many different backgrounds--young and old, the working and the retired, Democrat and Republican--should come together for the signing of this landmark legislation.

“This bill demonstrates for all time our nation's ironclad commitment to social security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have our pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire.

[It continues]

“Today, all of us can look each other square in the eye and say, "We kept our promises." We promised that we would protect the financial integrity of social security. We have. We promised that we would protect beneficiaries against any loss in current benefits. We have. And we promised to attend to the needs of those still working, not only those Americans nearing retirement but young people just entering the labor force. And we've done that, too.

[It continues]

“We're entering an age when average Americans will live longer and live more productive lives. And these amendments adjust to that progress. The changes in this legislation will allow social security to age as gracefully as all of us hope to do ourselves, without becoming an overwhelming burden on generations still to come.

“So, today we see an issue that once divided and frightened so many people now uniting us. Our elderly need no longer fear that the checks they depend on will be stopped or reduced. These amendments protect them. Americans of middle age need no longer worry whether their career-long investment will pay off. These amendments guarantee it. And younger people can feel confident that social security will still be around when they need it to cushion their retirement.

“These amendments reaffirm the commitment of our government to the performance and stability of social security. It was nearly 50 years ago when, under the leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American people reached a great turning point, setting up the social security system. F.D.R. spoke then of an era of startling industrial changes that tended more and more to make life insecure. It was his belief that the system can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts. Today we reaffirm Franklin Roosevelt's commitment that social security must always provide a secure and stable base so that older Americans may live in dignity.”

Your Idol, Ronnie, 1983.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reaganstmts.html#1983
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Sawdust

November 12, 2009 - 3:39 pm EST

I don't think that Social Security is authorized by the Constitution, either. Another example of the feds meddling and overstepping their bounds, with the usual disastrous results. Same thing will happen with health care, mark my words.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 4:51 pm EST

I agree Social Security is not authorized by the Constitution .. it is one of Many examples .. but its been with us for a relatively long time and everyone conservative leader has had amplr time to correct or eliminate the sytem .. but they haven't .. unless you read my quote from Ronnie .. the point being all the cries of FOUL PLAY we are now hearing from Glenn Beck (the latest loudmouth) and other stalwaths like yourself can only be viewed as opportunistic fear-baiting.

Sawdust

November 12, 2009 - 6:43 pm EST

I can't speak for everyone, but I've been raising hell about it for years. Doesn't seem to be doing much good, but the tea parties are a good start.

BTW, just saw an amazing interview on Beck, with a young man named Anthony. Ex-Marine, black, living in Harlem, tapped Beck on the shoulder and proceeded to talk about Mr. Obama for about 45 minutes, of which 5 minutes or so were shown tonight, probably more tomorrow.

The interesting thing, to me, was that it was though I had personally written the script. He said all the things I've been saying all these months. I don't think he missed a single one. Suffice it to say that Anthony is no Obamaroid. It will be interesting to see if he gets the full "Joe the Plumber" treatment, Chicago-style. It's getting to the point that criticizing the Great One takes more courage than fighting Islamists. At least they can't charge him with racism. I salute you, Anthony, for your courage, twice proven.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 7:27 pm EST

"tea parties" seem to be partisan asses - but I've not been so this is just my perception.

The thing about Beck and Hannity et. al. is they give all the time to those that agree with 'em, and dismiss as "that's your opinion" those with whom they don't agree ... and that's the problem with watching only those broadcasts - you get one side only .. and there are always two sides .. sometimes many more sides.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 9:44 am EST

Speaking of Moral Busybodies .. Jesus would be OK with working men spending part of his money taking care of the poor or the elderly ...

... and Neo is on record here-in, maybe you agree, stating his short year or two of soldiering, working in the motor pool 1000 miles from any action, entitles him to a lifetime of free medical care as provided by the VA .. I mean as provided by the federal government .. I mean as provided by working men with no choice but to spend his money for taking care of Neocon.

neocon

November 12, 2009 - 10:01 am EST

And don't forget all those government leeches who use the highway or breathe the clean air algore supplied them with...

It's comical to listen to those who were safe inside their college dorms making cardboard anti-war signs berate those who never dodged the draft.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 10:12 am EST

The highway is suppose to be paid for from my gasoline tax.

The air should be cleaned by the industries that polute them.

As for the rest, didn't you recently post something about delusional denial?

Sawdust

November 12, 2009 - 11:59 am EST

VA medical care is a lot like private insurance. You pay the premium, and you get the benefits. With private insurance, the premium is in the form of money. With the VA, the premium is the willingness to devote a period of time to the defense of the country. As for working in the motor pool, far from the action, that is entirely out of your hands. You go where the Army (or Navy) tells you to go. I signed up for Air Defense Artillery, for which there was no need in Vietnam, and wound up in command of a field artillery company in Bin Het, a few miles from the tri-border (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) area. I was lucky, I came back to Mama in one piece. But a lot of that was just luck, some of my friends weren't so fortunate. So back off neo, if he wore the uniform. Apparently that is more than you were willing to do.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 12:30 pm EST

I was willing to sign up for six years to fly jets .. they want me but didn't like my eyes.

... so are the premiums to VA care adequate for cover the care provided .. except for the extra $100 Billion we the taxpayer add annually to the pot.

.. and if a couple years turning wrenches gets you near-free health care .. then gimme all my social security and medicare 'cause for almost 40 years I have paid into the pot over 10% of my annual salary .. wait those are entitlements ...the same concept you are against .. unless it's a VA health care entitlement. Seems you want it both ways.

Sawdust

November 12, 2009 - 3:42 pm EST

There are other positions in the military that do not require perfect eyesight, as flight school does. They slapped a pair of glasses on me and handed me a rifle. I'll bet they would have done the same for you. How old are you now? Were you of age during Vietnam? You could be a cook or a company clerk, like Radar O'Reilly, who didn't have perfect eyesight.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 4:53 pm EST

I wanted to fly jets. Period. They offered me helicopters, but at the time I felt that evacuating wounded rice crunchers would be "boring". If I had it to do over again, I'd do different.

Sawdust

November 12, 2009 - 6:49 pm EST

They didn't offer you helicopters if your vision wasn't perfect, at least back in my day.That's what I thought I wanted to do, but my eyes weren't good enough, so I settled on field artillery. After my tour, I have to admit that I was glad I couldn't do it. I was good at what I did, which was delivering 8" and 175mm rounds on time and on target. I can't imagine that they would change the policy, but then again you never know.

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 8:31 am EST

They didn't "offer it" .. the Navy rejected me then suggested I go see the Army about Heli's .. so you may be correct. I did not actually talk to the Army recruiter; I had only the Navy in mind.

neocon

November 13, 2009 - 5:55 am EST

Sawdust, you're looking at results again. jdr's INTENT (and this is paramount when discussing liberals) is what he is to be judged by. He WANTED to be a military man, but they wouldn't let poor little jdr fly jets, do he took his ball and went beck to his safe and warm college dorm.

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 8:32 am EST

my god you are a whiner

neocon

November 13, 2009 - 9:34 am EST

If you wanted to go, you could have went.

Pointing this out is not whining.

J D R

November 13, 2009 - 1:50 pm EST

... but you said more than "pointing this out" ..

... besides, you did not want to go either, you were stuck with going ... drafted. Is that correct?

neocon

November 13, 2009 - 1:56 pm EST

my god you are a whiner.

Sawdust

November 12, 2009 - 12:14 pm EST

"Jesus would be OK..." with anyone willingly giving time or money to help another. Probably not OK with me going through your pockets to help xeno, although God Knows he's in bad need of help. I don't see a lot of difference in a crook taking your money at the point of a gun and the government taking it by threat of fine or imprisonment.

And yes, I do remember the advice to "Render unto Caesar, etc", but also believe that Caesar's authority is limited by the Constitution, and that our rendering should be limited to that authority.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 12:29 pm EST

... does the constitution include Medical Care for Vet's?

.. please cite .. and just asking ..

123next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search