news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

It’s not too late to vote for health legislation

Thursday, November 12, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

I have often desired to put my faith into action and work for an expression of unmerited love in action. And now with the passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act I can be a part of an historic accomplishment that will benefit those less fortunate. What I believe is a basic right of every citizen may soon be a reality.

Those who voted for this bill deserve our thanks for resisting greed and standing up for doing the right thing. Those who did not vote for this historic bill may have another chance to support reform.

Just do it!

Edmund Fritz
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.

jones

November 12, 2009 - 6:31 am EST

Funny how health care reform started out with the goal of containing costs, and now it has morphed into a goal of providing “health insurance for all” while throwing cost-containment out the window. “Health insurance for all” is a noble goal, but we can’t afford it. And it is NOT a right, but a privilege. This proposed legislation is completely irresponsible and will destroy us financially (if that hasn't already happened to us). Health care needs to be reformed to contain wasteful spending, but this is not the way to do it.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 7:28 am EST

"Funny how health care reform started out with the goal of containing costs, and now it has morphed into a goal of providing “health insurance for all” while throwing cost-containment out the window.

Totally Agree.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 11:43 am EST

"This proposed legislation is completely irresponsible and will destroy us financially (if that hasn't already happened to us)."

We could have NOT invaded Afghanistan or Iraq .. letting the free market solve Saddam and Special Forces solve bin Ladin, and then we could have afforded “health insurance for all”, but that would have been unpatriot.

We could have NOT allowed GW Bush to eliminate well over a Trillion in Federal Revenue by providing that same well over a Trillion in tax cuts for the rich and famous, and then we could have afforded “health insurance for all”, or better yet paid down the debt, especially important with wars being waged.

We could have NOT allowed WJ Clinton to eliminate the well established lines between Banks and Investment Houses, sparing a financial meltdown, and then we could have afforded “health insurance for all”, but that would have taken funds from the rich and famous.

We could have NOT allowed GB Bush to eliminate the leverage requirements for a half dozen infamous Investment houses, sparing a financial meltdown, and then we could have afforded “health insurance for all”, but that would have taken funds from the rich and famous.

We could have required folks buying mortgages to actually have a job and put their own money into the deal, sparing a financial meltdown, and then we could have afforded “health insurance for all”, but that would have affected the Ownership Society, as well as taken funds from the rich and famous.

The beat goes on.

Beachwalk

November 12, 2009 - 10:20 am EST

Jones
You are absolutely right. The government take over plan of healthcare by the democrats will bankrupt this country. We cannot afford this boondoggle. What needs to be done at this time is to: get rid of the waste and to have insurance companies competing across states lines.
The democrat healthcare plan is a job killer.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 10:22 am EST

Your right, BeachWalk .. glad you and yours took up that initiative .. remind me again of the date?

neocon

November 12, 2009 - 7:07 am EST

"I have often desired to put my faith into action and work for an expression of unmerited love in action"...using other peoples' money of course.

"love in action"...what would America be today without emotional liberalism...a country with a balanced budget?...most likely. A country with cities like Detroit and Chicago where one could walk down the street without fear of being stabbed and robbed?...yep. A country where self-reliance was paramount and it's citizens did not advocate government confiscate the property of others to pay their way in life?...without a doubt.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 7:27 am EST

100% liebural faults ... yep. Just like most divorces - all HER fault ... and like kids spilling milk. "Not MY Fault!"

Beachwalk

November 12, 2009 - 10:21 am EST

I'm glad to see J D R is slowly coming around.

danagain

November 12, 2009 - 8:10 am EST

"The Affordable Health Care for America Act" Gotta give liberals credit in this dept., they come up with some wonderful names for entitlement monstrosities.

Where will the money come from?

Anyone read George Will's column today?

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

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 10:21 am EST

"The fiscal year 2009 budget deficit, triple that of 2008, "

Well yea .. when you add Bush's Tarp to his deficit. Duh.

=

" ... no country has successfully behaved the way the United States is behaving."

Well yea .. when you add Obama to Bush. Duh.

==

" ... the Fed ... has one sovereign duty -- to preserve the currency as a store of value."

That when out when Nixon release Gold and dismantled Bretton Woods.

danagain

November 12, 2009 - 10:30 am EST

You seem to have have the same problem as Yvonne. Any mention of Obama spending is retorted with Bush spending. My mom always taught me that two wrongs don't make a right.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 10:31 am EST

Your reading comprehension is growing weak, Dan. Try again please.

danagain

November 12, 2009 - 10:38 am EST

Try a post for a change without referencing Bush. He is no longer president an no longer approving the spending of govt. money save for a few Secret Service agents.

Yvonne

November 12, 2009 - 11:00 am EST

I know you are not that dense, Dan, so cut the crap. You spent years blaming Clinton for our country's ills when Bush screwed up. Now you want to forget that you did that and want us to forget it also. All I said was that when the fiscal started, Bush was still in the WH (and Obama had not even been elected) spending like a drunken sailor. What part of that statement is not true?

danagain

November 12, 2009 - 11:07 am EST

Pissy mood eh Yvonne? Maybe it's the weather. Here is my point again in simple terms, it is mentioned in another post to you also. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PARTY OF POLITICIANS WHO WASTE OUR MONEY!! Understand?

You two without exception look to Bush spending to excuse Obama/Reid/Pelosi spending and proposed spending. It's kinda like my son socking my daughter in the head and using the excuse that she hit him last week.

Yvonne

November 12, 2009 - 2:51 pm EST

I have issue with people implying they are innocent when I know they are not. If you want to call that being in a pissy mood, that's your perspective and prerogative. Again, I will ask you, what part of my statement was not factual regarding Bush being in the WH, therefore spending billions which was reflected in the 2009 budget deficit? A simple answer will do nicely since you implied I needed simplicity. And while you are at it, please explain how this simple fact is excusing the current administration's spending.

danagain

November 12, 2009 - 5:07 pm EST

This might simplify it:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pic...

Yvonne

November 12, 2009 - 10:06 pm EST

Apparently you prefer to deal with projections and what if's, Dan, rather than what is. I prefer to deal with the reality of the present and past.

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 11:01 am EST

I reserve the right to reference any history back to and including Jesus.

In that last post I referenced Bush, Obama, Nixon and by inference Roosevelt and most of the First World's Leaders circa 1945. If you have a problem with facts, then you are a good as O'Really .. a pretty low standard.

ghost from white oak

November 12, 2009 - 8:23 am EST

My thanks go to one's brave and smart enough NOT to vote for BS being passed off as health care reform.

xeno10

November 12, 2009 - 9:16 am EST

You are absolutely right, Mr. Fritz! And what could be more "anti-self" than to be angry at legislation, however flawed, designed to ensure health care? Do these angry nattering nabobs of negativism believe they or their loved-ones will never get sick? It's indeed very strange thinking and behavior! So, when I read the negative posts re your LTTE, I think: When you take an intellectually shallow bunch of "tea bag" types, add dashes of panic and paranoia, and a dose of ignorance, you end up with a group of people who can't help but lie, lie, lie! And they have nothing of real value to say! Seriously.

Beachwalk

November 12, 2009 - 10:25 am EST

xeno10's post bares repeating.
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada,

danagain

November 12, 2009 - 10:30 am EST

Don't feed the trolls beachwalk.

Yvonne

November 12, 2009 - 11:03 am EST

beachwalk is one of the biggest trolls on this blog, Dan. Take your own advice.

brianheagney

November 12, 2009 - 2:40 pm EST

I think the cost of this is just smokescreen to keep us arguing. It would be ridiculous to say that we as a country cannot afford to help our citizens remain in good health.

What the real issue is is wether or not this is a bailout for the insurance industry. I want affordable health care, but the current bill is NOT about health care. It is about insurance, insurance, insurance. It mandates health insurance, thereby using force to help insurance companies gain a new crop of customers. Listen, if there's so many uninsured people in this country, it's because the free market has not developed a great health insurance system yet. Additionally, do we know yet whether health insurance is a good way of ensuring good quality health care?

With mandated health insurance we're damning our children and their children to further perpetuating the health insurance industry without ensuring proper health care. I'd love it if I were wrong, but I haven't heard anything about this bill being about health care, not even from the Democrats...am I wrong? Can you point me to the text to show where I'm mistaken?

J D R

November 12, 2009 - 3:28 pm EST

I think you're spot on, Brian.

A coule weeks ago I posted my own crude estimate of the monies that will be spent over the next 10 years ... starting at $2.5 Trillion this year and adding a nominal % every year ... as I recall it was $34 Trillion dollars as the size of the "medical industry" over that period .. over that same period the most expensive congressional plan adds 1 trillion ..

So are we saying the medical community .. namely the insurance industry that funds the medical community (after all without insurance we'd all be trading layin' chickens for a kidney transfer) ... cannot come up with a 3% savings?

Cut me a break!

What troubles me more than the Lieberal whining for g-man intervention is the flat lies being told by the Con-men ("loosing all our rights as citizens" crap). If either one .. or anyone else for that matter ... would just be honest, they'd get my support.

Yvonne

November 12, 2009 - 3:34 pm EST

brianheagney,

If the bill that just passed the house is the same one I read, everyone who can afford it will be required to carry insurance but I do not recall everyone having to buy insurance. If you are pleased with your current plan and /or have insurance thru your workplace, you can keep it. If neither situation applies to you, but you can afford to buy insurance, you may carry insurance through the government plan or a private plan. To my understanding, while it will not be free to all, it will be to those who cannot afford to pay, even after adjusting the premium (like Medicaid now). This is where the fine and/or imprisonment clause comes in. If you have falsified any information in order to receive a reduced or free premium, you will have to repay or be imprisoned. (A dear friend has Medicaid for her children. She pays $54/year for the oldest and nothing for the younger one. This is one of the proposals that makes it an option, not socialized medicine, although I can think of worse things than socialized medicine).

Go to http//docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf for reference. The particulars about requirement starts on page 211 or so.

If my understanding is incorrect, feel free to show me where I am wrong.

brianheagney

November 12, 2009 - 4:12 pm EST

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

Page 224 in the above link says that enrolling in the public option is voluntary. Since I also know that income tax is defined as voluntary, am I to believe that eventually there will be repercussions to not enrolling in the voluntary plan?

But I actually don't think the public option will be bad. I'm more worried about forcing people into choosing an insurance plan. Even if there is an affordable option for those who haven't been able to land high-paying jobs, I don't want any government mandating that people do it.

Haven't found anything about affordability yet, but still looking through it (almost 2000 pages?!?).

danagain

November 12, 2009 - 5:12 pm EST

What percentage of income is the fine? Wasn't it around 2%? Won't most people, particularly the young, who don't need insurance simply pay the fine as it will be less? Then if they get sick they can buy insurance because the insurance companies cannot deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. If this is the case then won't the insurance companies will be stuck with the high dollar sick people w/o the $$ from the healthy people paying in? Or will they really throw people in jail?

rwrn

November 12, 2009 - 3:20 pm EST

Funny how the very Congress that cares so much for us makes themselves exempt from the wonderful healthcare plan they say is best for us. Does this also mean they are exempt from going to jail if they refuse to purchase said healthcare? Of course it does. Ain't Congress great? Speaking of Congress, no President can spend a dime without their approval. So maybe the dems approved Bush's spending as a way of making him look bad. During last years presidential campaign we were bombarded with sob stories of people enduring hardships of every kind even while unemployment hovered around 6% or lower. Where are these stories of hardship now that unemployment is 10.2%. I guess they must have left the country. No wait, we hired Barry so all problems are solved.

12next ›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

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

Search