I’m sorry, but that attitude is the problem. If you’re okay with that, then why are you complaining about Congress in the first place? You get what you deserve, which is a bunch of incompetent buffoons propping their children up at floor votes because they can’t actually articulate a reasoned argument against the legislation, which they themselves don’t understand beyond the TV catch-phrases “Gov’t takeover”, “taxes”, and “death panels”.
That is FAIL.
]]>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28015.html
I guess they pull it off when they think they can get something past us.
Honestly, I’m okay if they lazy around most of the time and only work a day or two a month (year?). 
A tax on the person who goes to work everyday, a tax on the person who takes the risk in building a business, a tax on all consumers because the cost will be passed along to the consumer! Goverment cannot madate savings! There is no incentive except their reelection ]]>
http://driehaus.house.gov/images/stories/Freshman_Healthcare_Letter.pdf
Driehaus has been doing 100 times the work that Chabot ever did in Congress, such as actually writing meaningful legislation. Most of Chabot’s work centered around 1) trying to make abortion illegal at the federal level, 2) Attempting to keep local control over things that he thought local gov’t back home did in a socially conservative manner, and 3) Attempted to put things under federal control that he felt local government back home did too “liberally”, such as land-use disputes and banning online poker.
]]>Every time a conservative refers to the congressional bills as “ObamaCare”, it makes me hurl. Word to the wise: stop using this label, this is not the 1990’s. Congress is actually doing all the heavy lifting. While I disagree with some of their direction, I think it sets a much better precedent than the “old way” of having the executive branch slide their own draft legislation through the congressional back-door, mainly to get through procedure.
Second mistake? “With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels”
Really? What country is this author living in? Australia? I am sorry, maybe that is the problem right now. If I was as deluded as the author to believe that we were in “peacetime” I might be even more outraged by the spending that is going on. In spite of this statemetn that the author makes regarding “peacetime spending”, they make absolutely no reference critical to the vastly more expensive (about 70 times more expensive!), yet according to the author’s assumptions, frivolous spending being dumped into two conflicts that we are apparently not even participating in!.
I’m sorry, the rest of the article is just opinionated blather. Reagan from the 1960’s called, he wants his baseless paranoia back. Secret takeover of the health care industry? Hardly. Medicare itself hasn’t even caused that to occur, and the exact same story was sung back then. What credibility do you have today?
The author even goes in to use WellPoint’s research findings to back up their claims about health-care premium inflation. Yeah, that’s right, WellPoint is non-biased. Keep lying to yourself. There’s a whole marketplace in the US for paying people to present information supportive of your own interests: Advertising.
I wasn’t completely fair in my assessment of the author’s writing. The author does have a point about Medicare and its funding system. However, the benefits passed under the previous administration which are currently under the chopping block have grown even more quickly in cost than the base benefits plan. If the proposal is “kill medicare” because it is “badly funded”, then why argue to preserve this even more costly and non-beneficial additional program?
Personally, I think that the current Medicare is a good, productive program that deserves to be funded. It is one of the best reasons why our grandparents live much longer today than their grandparents did 60-70 years ago. It is working really well in this regard. In fact, Medicare has become a victim of its own success. As it helps keep people alive longer (much better than the previous private system) they stay in the system, and the program keeps growing. Older folks in this country are staying alive at rates that exceed income levels. I say we fix the system, now that we have experimental data to show what effects can be expected over decades of its existence. Use this data to figure out a funding model that is better for the program. This seems to be more rational and logical than “throw out the Medicare program” because you can take issue with how it is funded. That’s killing it purely on a technicality, which I don’t think is how any of us want to run everything in America.
]]>