Post a New Topic
Passionate boos, cheers mark Eshoo meeting
Original post made
on Sep 3, 2009
A vocal crowd of nearly 1,000 people turned out Wednesday night for a Town Hall meeting with Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Palo Alto) on the national health care system. Boos and applause, in what seemed to be nearly equal measures, greeted the congresswoman at Gunn High School in Palo Alto.
Read the full story here Web Link
posted Thursday, September 3, 2009, 7:36 AM
Like this comment
Posted by In Sum
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Sep 3, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Do you truly believe your relatives would be able to afford private care had they not been paying into Medicare previously? Only you or they know, and I do believe you may well be right, but my guess is that the majority of folks would not - either due to private insurance high costs, mis-appropriation of the money by the individuals, etc., and some combination of all of those factors.
I never said you needed my sympathy, but if you wish to win over or educate any of us on why you believe what you do, you may want to take the edge off your comments. I stated that I think you have some valid points, but that doesn't seem to matter to you, and I'm not seeing your points clearly as you are making them.
In regards to privacy and your personal situation you presented, your argument is waning. You are already anonymous, and you have an opportunity to lay out a hard fact that given symptoms x,y,z, drug AA is required for results to be seen AND generic drug aa will not give the same results, but Medicare won't pay for AA. Your refusal to provide x,y,z,AA, and aa is unfortunate. Sorry, but given my private health care insurance, as much as I like my Dr., I don't think they're going to give me the time to quiz them on all sorts of symptoms and why a corporate drug would be necessary in a rare instance. I'm sorry for your relatives situations, but you didn't need me to say that, I guess.
As for attacking, I'll freely admit there was some ridicule towards you in my initial post. I guess you don't see backhanded comments such as "cold-hearted" and "shame on you" (not so backhanded, really) as attacks, but however - that's for you to think about. Regarding my comments, it was clear that given the information provided, that was a conclusion I could and did come to. I'll lay it out for you -
1. Brand name drug was unavailable through Medicare.
2. Generic drug was available to you.
3. You're willing to pay more taxes - this does not make you necessarily wealthy, but apparently you have some "extra" income you could part with.
Those are the points you gave me, and you did not (and still refuse to provide a hard example) state that the brand name was required. So, most generics work as well as brand name in most instances - that's my understanding, at least. Medicare needs to conserve money - that means generic is great! Medicare, therefore, stated they could provide generic, but not brand name - seems like a logical conclusion to those not so informed. You were unsatisfied however, so using your extra income you're willing to part with, why not buy the drug or sign up for private insurance? Seems a logical question, no?
And yes, the fine print is scary!
As for your citations, I see McKnight states the $635B number and claims them as "cuts". There's not much else there, however, and I'm discouraged that they don't provide the address itself, so I guess I'll have to find that myself. Confidence is not good for the cite, however, given that they claim $110B reduction is included in a $14.4B reduction over the next 10 years.
The Kaiser citation states the $622B number as savings over the 10 years, which does not necessarily mean "cuts". I'm all for savings.
Try this citation:
Anyway, please continue to provide citations as I am curious to know the numbers you are going on as I like to see the whole picture and try not to get attached to any one way of thinking or perspective. I do think you can provide some useful information and insight to the conversation, but I don't see that happening with a continued tone of hostility.
Political haziness, indeed. Peace.
Like this comment
Posted by bitter and angry
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Sep 6, 2009 at 7:49 am
Narnia, until a couple years ago, private insurance was ILLEGAL in Canada. Private insurances are just now struggling to make a come back in Australia, in order to allow people their God given right to choose their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. If we drive out the ability to have private insurance in this country, which HR 3200 CLEARLY states on page 16 ( please read it), then there is a requirement to be on national health insurance. There is no point in arguing it. The only other option is to be so rich that you can either pay someone $100,000s to get private surgery/treatment, or be so politically powerful you can "jump the line".
No. I am too liberal and too adult to put all that power over me into the hands of a few. I prefer hundreds of millions of us voting on our health care through choosing amongst our 1300 plans across the nation.
BTW, another great example of what happens when you put the power of decision on tax dollars in the hands of the very few...we were counting on the grant money promised us, in writing ( but does that matter?) a few months ago for paying some of the university our kid is attending, and here we are, just about to start school,and just got a letter Friday that said "oh, sorry, we can't grant the $10,000 after all, figure it out". Mind you, this is after paying our taxes faithfully for all of our working lives, much, much more than most people, and feeling fine about it knowing we COULD pay it and it was, supposedly, going to help those in need..But at this point we need the help...and were thinking "ok, this is why we paid into our tax system, to help out those who fell on hard times and need the help for school".
HAAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAHHHAHAHAHA. ONE person was responsible for this decision, and we are powerless.
We would have been better off keeping all that tax money for ourselves, managing it ourselves, and we would still have enough left, even after the catastrophe we are going through, to care for our kid. This is the same thing with social security, medicare, and now this "public option" crap people want to so blindly believe in. And you want to trust the government to "be there" for you when you need a hip surgery on "universal health care"? "Oh, sorry, you can wait a couple years, since you are retired, and our budget it tight. Who cares if you can't walk anymore without a lot of pain? Figure it out" Or "oh, sorry, you don't make as much money as an engineer, who also needs a hip surgery, and we need her back on the job before you, so you have to wait in a long line behind the more useful people".
Give me a break. Wake up. Stop trying to give away power over yourself to a few bureaucrats. Take care of yourself and your family, help those in need you wish to help through the best organizations or personal hand up you can, and stop trying to steal money from other people to use for yourself. It is still theft, even if it is "voted" in.
Democracy, 6 lions and 4 sheep voting on the dinner menu.