March 19, 2010 10:54:00 AM
The health care reform debate has gripped the public''s attention. Some people like the reform, others dislike it because it either does too much or not enough. In my opinion, this reform is way too broad and sweeping to really do what people expect or want it to do. Instead of a massive bill, I have a simple, three step plan to correct health care in the United States.
If we want a healthier population, subsidize fruits and vegetables. If healthy food was the cheaper option, people would put down the Ho-Hos and Twinkies. Check out a box of Twinkies sometime. Four of the first five items are subsidized products.
Would America be better off by bringing in a new system that changes everything, or would America be better off by living better and driving down the costs without a major overhaul? Congressman Childers, I am asking you to vote "NO" on the current bill.
Justin Sutton, Columbus
JC commented at 3/19/2010 4:08:00 PM:
Rep. Childers has already vowed to vote no. That's why he will not be re-elected in November. The Teabaggers certainly won't vote for anybody in the hated "Democrat [sic] Party," and Democrats won't vote for somebody who won't govern as a Democrat.
Don't let the door hit ya on the way out, Travis.
Justin commented at 3/19/2010 4:14:00 PM:
Teabaggers--real mature JC.
JC commented at 3/20/2010 8:03:00 AM:
That's what they started out calling themselves. They should take personal responsibility for that decision.
Justin commented at 3/20/2010 9:08:00 PM:
@JC regardless of the origins of the nickname--first I heard of it was CNN analysts using it in a disparaging light--the problems facing the U.S. are not going to be solved with a "us vs. them" attitude. The truth is that health care reform is needed, and the bill that is about to pass is not the way to do it. I am glad the Rep. Childers can see that. It is so bad for someone not to vote in the way that might save them politically if what they are doing is the right thing?
Raider commented at 3/21/2010 8:49:00 AM:
JC, you are exactly right. Travis has been a real disappointment to most of the people who voted him in. He either forgot or was too stupid to realize that the republicans did not vote for him in the last election and they are not going to vote for him in the next election. From the moment he got elected he turned his back on the people who elected him. I don't care what he does, he's not going to get the vote of the right wing. His vote against the health care bill will not get him a single right wing vote but it will cost him many democratic votes. Travis just as well pack up and go home. He has no chance of re-election now. I will be happy to campaign for any democratic opponent of his.
Justin commented at 3/21/2010 11:16:00 AM:
Why are you so blind to the party of a candidate. Raider, you are really pledging a blind allegiance to any Democrat that will run against Childers?
Have you seen all that this bill will do that we do not need? Taxpayer funded abortions in states that do not "opt-out" of it. Taxing some premium insurance plans, but not all of them, which does not seem fair. Why should any American be forced to purchase health insurance or pay a fine?
There are a few good provisions in the bill, but they are not good enough to add all of the above to it. This bill is way too big and does way too much. What will the government require you to buy next?
We need to reform health care, and BOTH parties who have had control at different times have failed. Now Congress is going to pass a junk bill instead of having the courage to develop a bill that is good for all and does not have all of the junk in it.
Raider commented at 3/21/2010 3:12:00 PM:
It's not blind faith to a party. During Travis Childers last campaign he promised to support health reform, the employee free choice act and a number of other programs that progressives feel are important to the american worker. Travis has walked away from those promises. When he needed us to vote for him we were there. We we needed him to vote for us, he wasn't there. Therefore, it would be stupid for me to go out and support him again.
You are wrong that both parties have failed at differnt times to reform health care. Republicans have never tried to reform health care and therefore, they cannot and could not fail. You actually have to try something to fail at it. They have been very sucessful at lying about the bill and misleading the public.
Justin commented at 3/21/2010 3:37:00 PM:
Pretty sure Nixon was a Republican, and I am pretty sure he wanted to change health care to make it affordable to all Americans. It was the Democratic Congress that never sent a bill to his desk, so, no, you are wrong there.
I think both sides have been pretty good at misrepresenting this current bill. Some Republicans act as if it is the most evil bill ever, while some Democrats act as if it is the greatest bill ever. However, there are some facts that cannot be denied about this bill, and it is those unpleasant facts that I mentioned above that have made people upset about this bill.
Do you believe the people of MS-1 support this bill? If so, then Childers should consider it. If not (which I think is more likely), he is properly representing his constituents.
JC commented at 3/21/2010 4:12:00 PM:
Justin, you are wrong about taxpayer-funded abortions. What else are you wrong about?
Justin commented at 3/21/2010 4:21:00 PM:
Until about 45 minutes ago, tax payer funded abortions were still part of this bill if a state would not opt out. In fact, it is still in the bill, but Obama has said he will sign an executive order that says federal money cannot be used for abortions. Check the time stamp. Nice effort though. Keep trying.
morecowbell commented at 3/21/2010 7:00:00 PM:
Justin you have some good points, but on the tax incentive, probably 30%+ don't pay income tax, if that's what you had in mind.
On the health insurance competition, that was the purpose of having the public option in the health care bill. But I don't think it's in there.
But it is my understanding that Obama and the Democrats are going to craft a bill to eliminate the no competition that the insurance companies have a monopoly on now.
Justin commented at 3/21/2010 9:22:00 PM:
Hate to tell you, but making the government the major player in health care is not competition. It is better not to have that in place. But, in about 15 minutes, non of this will matter. Hope our Congressmen got this one right.
Irony? My words to prove I am human--in sorrows
resident commented at 3/22/2010 6:17:00 AM:
I've been listening to all the talk about this health care deal, and there is something about it I find amusing.
No one is really talking about the level of care given; only the cost. It doesn't matter how much you pay for it if you are receiving sub-par treatment. And it does happen.
Nursing homes are one area where you can see sub-par care being given. They are regulated by the state, and you can bet your grandmothers last dollar the home will not go one step farther than the state requires them to do. Lousy food, understaffed, cold, and a corporate mentality that is more worried about money than care.
Yeah yeah, I know the sign on the door says "Serving Seniors in Christian Love", but what it really means is Christian love of the dollar.
Go look at the bedsores. Go look at the skin tears. Smell the air. Ask the residents about the stuff they have had stolen from them. Ask them if the place ever runs out of supplies and they have to do without... I dare you.
But lets just focus on the cost.
morecowbell commented at 3/22/2010 8:07:00 AM:
Justin, over 50 years ago, our government passed a law that exempts health insurers from anti-trust regulations. To everturn this law, in order to create competition, will have to be done by our government.
You could say that the goverment giveth and the government will have to take it away.
justin commented at 3/22/2010 9:55:00 AM:
Agreed...the quality of care is as important as the cost of care is just as important as the quality of care
It would be nice if they took it away wouldn't it
JC commented at 3/23/2010 6:54:00 AM:
Justin, there has been a law against allowing federal tax money to pay for abortions for a while. Nothing in the health care bill affected that. Nobody has been, or will be, getting federally-funded abortions. That would have been the case regardless of whether Obama signed an executive order or not. It's already the law.
So... nice try yourself, bub.
bear commented at 3/24/2010 8:09:00 PM:
Hey JC, have you locked yourself in your closet and prayed before the alter of Barry and Nan-Nan? You'll be the first to whine that you have to wait in a line behind the "humanity" you want to give away your paycheck to. Idiot.
1. Our View: A strong case for a liberal arts education DISPATCH EDITORIALS
2. Our View: No shortage of cultural offerings DISPATCH EDITORIALS
4. Froma Harrop: 'Death with Dignity' law is least slippery slope NATIONAL COLUMNS
5. Dana Milbank: President pariah NATIONAL COLUMNS