Letter to Obama from 4th Grade Teacher

[Big Daddy]

Lets see the facts then. Thin air is not acceptable.

 

[modern_pioneer]

Good luck to stopping "the rape," as you put it. Remember a little Working Joe's paradise called Cuba? How did that work out for the regular guy? Did you ever hear the rhetoric spouted by their leaders? Go read it sometime - it published.
It was nearly verbatim to what I've just read - and heard prior to last years election. Sometimes you gotta be careful what you ask for.

Franklin Roosevelt commented that for all the money spent during the Depression by the government on programs, all it did was make more debt. Our belief that they will give us excellent care at no cost without pain and their lathering over their ability to do it is the only thing that is new or has changed.

If you read the founding documents of this nation, you wont see anything in it about welfare programs, government organized benefits, etc. They talk about he governments restrictions on taxing the citizen, in fact, going on to say that the government has jurisdiction over itself and not the lives of the citizen.

They talk about the individuals rights to make something for himself, or not - it mentions nothing about guaranteeing outcomes or leveling the playing field.

It should be kept in mind that the government as we know it does not create wealth, it takes that wealth which you have and does as it sees fit with it. That anyone would welcome that as some sort of radical, beneficial change has eluded me since day one. I especially find it notable in a forum of people intent on self-sufficiency.

I don't know what the one true answer is on the current "crisis of the day," health care. I have my suspicions, mind you, but it's not what you're currently being force fed.

But folks, it is not the governments job to take care of you. It is their job to make it possible to take care of yourself. What you do with that is your problem. That's why people risked their lives at sea, in bathtubs if need be, to get here from Cuba.

I will say you haven't traveled and know nothing about the health care system in either Europe, or Canada?

Your so narrow minded, I can see you have never been to a third world country.

What about the folks here at home? Save your NWO speech when the NWO takes control. Right now, we need this health care plan.

But folks, it is not the governments job to take care of you.

Freedom isn't free, and if you believe that statement that you posted, your free because of people like me, not the government. Walk with me and wipe the tissue and blood from your face. While you sat all comfy me and other folks are paying the the price of this freedom we Americans believe in.

Have a look down my sights on my weapon, he is the enemy and he will die. You pull the trigger, and watch a soul die at your hand. See, now you have purchased freedom.....

Cuba...... Are you serous?

 

[modern_pioneer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr_DjveylPU

 

[davaroo]

Davaroo

I can understand your logic on the health savings plan. If you started saving say 15% of your net income at 18 and it grew at 8-13% it would be quite a nest egg by the time you were 50. f you maintained a healthy lifestyle and carried a high deductible health policy for catastrophic illness it might just work. Of course this is all dependent upon earning a respectable salary. What about the 50% of the population that is under the median of 44k? What about the people that lost 50% of their investments in this last fiasco? It's a great concept but it's geared towards above median people like most conservative concepts. What about someone in my position? I make above median, but I am 51. By the time I'm 51 I could save enough to cover a couple of minor operations. There's no way I could get any other coverage. So if I developed say prostate cancer I would die. It is one of the most easily cured cancers if caught in time. Yet I would die.

The system works for those with a lot of money. Other than that it's broke. As a famous philosopher once said. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Live long and prosper.

We're assuming under your brand of health care reform, that:

- Those that have, must willingly arry those who have little or nothing.

What we lost sight of after the 1950's is that we cannot live bankrupt. That is why at 51, there is little in the system for you to draw on. You've paid taxes for 35 years but have not enough to go around should it be needed. That's not your fault, its a bankrupt system.

The bottom line is this: to pay for those who have little, or not enough, the haves will be forced to pony up. It is the great reformists motto.

The payors beneficently become lessened and the payees gain with no effort. "Make that mean old big guy give what he has so I can have something" - kinda like that. And justice for all, etc.

At some point, however, the end of the money comes... it flat runs out. Someone must make what is there grow, for everyone, somehow. If not, the endless line of users will deplete the reserves. Obama can't change that, adding another layer of regulation and payouts won't.

Ever heard of a barn raising? Many hands, building a barn for a neighbor. Then one of those hands has everyone come over and pitch in on HIS place to raise another - and so on until everyone has a decent barn?

I WANT adequate health care for everyone, make no mistake. But we are dreaming if we think we will achieve that by continually taxing and paying out, all under the guise of some kindly government overlords. Oh, we'll get it soon enough, but it will not solve our problems, long term. We will tout it as a victory - or at least better than nothing. In other words minimized in it's effectiveness.

Genuine reform will only come when we genuinely reform and cure our deficit and everyone, from the top down, pitches in.

 

[davaroo]

Good luck to stopping "the rape," as you put it. Remember a little Working Joe's paradise called Cuba? How did that work out for the regular guy? Did you ever hear the rhetoric spouted by their leaders? Go read it sometime - it published.
It was nearly verbatim to what I've just read - and heard prior to last years election. Sometimes you gotta be careful what you ask for.

Franklin Roosevelt commented that for all the money spent during the Depression by the government on programs, all it did was make more debt. Our belief that they will give us excellent care at no cost without pain and their lathering over their ability to do it is the only thing that is new or has changed.

If you read the founding documents of this nation, you wont see anything in it about welfare programs, government organized benefits, etc. They talk about he governments restrictions on taxing the citizen, in fact, going on to say that the government has jurisdiction over itself and not the lives of the citizen.

They talk about the individuals rights to make something for himself, or not - it mentions nothing about guaranteeing outcomes or leveling the playing field.

It should be kept in mind that the government as we know it does not create wealth, it takes that wealth which you have and does as it sees fit with it. That anyone would welcome that as some sort of radical, beneficial change has eluded me since day one. I especially find it notable in a forum of people intent on self-sufficiency.

I don't know what the one true answer is on the current "crisis of the day," health care. I have my suspicions, mind you, but it's not what you're currently being force fed.

But folks, it is not the governments job to take care of you. It is their job to make it possible to take care of yourself. What you do with that is your problem. That's why people risked their lives at sea, in bathtubs if need be, to get here from Cuba.

I will say you haven't traveled and know nothing about the health care system in either Europe, or Canada?

Your so narrow minded, I can see you have never been to a third world country.

What about the folks here at home? Save your NWO speech when the NWO takes control. Right now, we need this health care plan.

But folks, it is not the governments job to take care of you.

Freedom isn't free, and if you believe that statement that you posted, your free because of people like me, not the government. Walk with me and wipe the tissue and blood from your face. While you sat all comfy me and other folks are paying the the price of this freedom we Americans believe in.

Have a look down my sights on my weapon, he is the enemy and he will die. You pull the trigger, and watch a soul die at your hand. See, now you have purchased freedom.....

Cuba...... Are you serous?

Dead serious. Halt the colorful commentary for a moment and go read the speeches of Fidel Castro as he was rising to his coup. Look them up, as I did, expand your view. The similarities are there.
Not every change, every revolution, must be bloody one. Not every man who claims kindly oversight gives it. And NEVER assume that all change is good.

Actually, I've been to all of the places you have mentioned. No system, no matter where you find it, is endlessly beneficent. There is always an equation that has to be balanced. You mentioned Canada in your comments, and their much vaunted health care system.
It is being reported that there is a rapidly growing, billion dollar industry in Canada today intended to supplement the government health care plan.
In essence, it is private medical options which exist because people are willing to pay private funds for care the government plan fails to provide. Now, I'm confused: What happened to their oh-so superior plan?

Here's how the world works: you work your tail off to make something of yourself. Then you pray you live long enough to see it be worth while. No one can guarantee that in between they will make it rosy and you will never suffer.

Again, I'm baffled by the desire of self sufficient people to have a government control their outcomes.

 

[sylvie]

Nothing I grew in my backyard, or raised on my land could have afforded the heart surgery my daughter had. What is your take on that?

What do I say? The same thing I always say. I say that the day you turned 18, you should have had one of two things happen:

1. Your medical withdrawals taken by the government from your earnings should be placed into a managed health care fund - not sent to government, mis-managed Medicare doles.
2. You should have placed an equal amount of money, each period you earned money, into the same account, made available to you as a self-employed worker.

Day after day, year after year, that money grows there at the normal 8-13%, which most any good managed investment earns.
You wont have access to it as some common passbook account... it is a growth fund, payable to you for medical costs only.
Knowing that, you will do your best to stay healthy, so as to get that money pile as large as you can.

Then when the need comes, the money will be there. As it stands today, you are banking on a promise from either an insurance company or the government.
The first is trying to pay as little as possible of their profit earnings on your money.
The other is trying to keep from paying out of a Medicare fund that currently cannot pay the many, many billions of dollars it has promised to pay for services already rendered.

The way to fix this problem is to stop doing the same things we have been doing.

- Health insurance companies profiteering with your money should be turned into non-profit fund management entities. That way they can insure, and not be tempted by greed.
- Our government? Well, they have sponsored health care for decades, now. How's that working out? Now you want them to get more of your money?

The thing social reformists always get {{ fuzzy }} on is this:

The 'wealth pie' doesn't have to be just one size, moved here and there and doled out under their control. The pie can grow, if we work it, and we can all get ever larger shares than we have now. This is what is called an upward economic spiral, as opposed to the seemingly more popular downward going one.

So privatize our health care money and get government out of it! Use it to invest it in American energy alternatives, eco-businesses, manufacturing, global agri-biz, etc., so it grows, based on hard goods - not on debt. In turn, our businesses will prosper, we will have jobs, we will get richer and we can keep paying in to our managed investment funds.

Then when the money is needed, it will be there and it will be YOUR money. It won't be money you have to try and get back from the Feds - if they still have it down the line.

This is the last thing I'm going to say.

I am a saver. I was taught by my parents to set aside money since the day I began work. AT Least 10% per paycheck. I had her at the age of 26. My nest egg was gone within the first 3 years of her life when I had absolutely no coverage at all for her.

Do you realize how expensive it is to have a chronically sick child without adequate insurance? Do you know how much it costs to say go to the doctor over and over again...how much it costs out of pocket to deal with 14 bouts of pneumonia...how much it costs out of pocket to get chest x rays, echo cardiograms and sonograms and such? Not to mention the medication, the breathing treatments etc etc. Also not to mention NOT getting paid when I had to miss so much work b/c she was too sick to go to school. Oh, I also forgot, there were a couple of cat scans done on her too.

The point is I am not the only person in America that had to suffer through this. My suffering is over (my daughter's isn't because of the lung damage caused by having to wait so long for her heart surgery) but there are 10s of 1000's of Americans out there who did the right thing but got screwed anyway.

Having money set aside isn't the only answer. I am the proof.

BBH, I completely understand your frustrations and admire the enormous effort that you have made to cope within the current system.
As you know we had insurance and savings when DH became ill, then the loss of employment and cancellation of insurance by the employer and insurance company.
This subject is too passionate for me to respond to the newer member with "all the answers". I go head to head on other political sites where I have more impact. Like you, I'm not participating further on this thread.

 

[patandchickens]

Actually, I've been to all of the places you have mentioned. No system, no matter where you find it, is endlessly beneficent. There is always an equation that has to be balanced. You mentioned Canada in your comments, and their much vaunted health care system. It is being reported that there is a rapidly growing, billion dollar industry in Canada today intended to supplement the government health care plan. In essence, it is private medical options which exist because people are willing to pay private funds for care the government plan fails to provide. Now, I'm confused: What happened to their oh-so superior plan?

David, listen to what you yourself are saying. Right *at the beginning of the above passage* you said "there is always an equation that has to be balanced".

THAT is why there are some people in Canada -- not a majority, mind you -- who would like to be able to buy their way to quicker/fancier healthcare because they have the personal funds to do so.

Not because the system, as is, doesn't work, but simply because there is always a TRADEOFF, in any version including yours David, and there are always going to be some people who would be better served by a system that traded things off more in their own favor than in other peoples'.

While it is currently popular among certain political leanings in the US to say "see, look, gov't healthcare does not work, look at Canada", that is such a big fat misstatement it's not even funny.

Healthcare in Canada works at least as well as it does in the US (it just works *differently*, so there are some individual people who are better off under the Canadian system and some individual people who are better off under the US system); and Canada is far from the poster child of how gov't run healthcare CAN run. Look to a number of countries in Europe to see how it can be done BETTER.

Personally I would rather see the tradeoff inherent in any system be favoring universal accessibility to basic healthcare for EVERYONE rather than leaving the poor or unlucky s-o-l in order to favor the rich and middle class.

Here's how the world works: you work your tail off to make something of yourself. Then you pray you live long enough to see it be worth while. No one can guarantee that in between they will make it rosy and you will never suffer.

Here's another way the world works, for decent human beings: You work your tail off to make something of yourself (and David, what you make of yourself depends a LOT on the luck of what cards you were initially dealt...) and then you HELP YOUR FELLOW MAN.

Given peoples' generally weebly and unreliable impulses for spontaneous charity, I see no problem whatsoever with having the government involved to institutionalize what frankly people have a moral responsibility to be doing ANYhow.

Again, I'm baffled by the desire of self sufficient people to have a government control their outcomes.

I'm baffled by the desire to define the line of 'self sufficiency' wherever personal benefit (or one's line of rhetoric) is best served, and ignore the fact that NOBODY IS SELF SUFFICIENT, we all have to help each other out in various ways. Therefore it is only a matter of *extent* that one can sensibly argue about.

What roads do you drive on, David, and who paid to pave them? Etc etc. And consider how you, personally, have benefitted from police, the fire department, the military... all government functions there to help and protect people...


Pat

 

[davaroo]

What roads do you drive on, David, and who paid to pave them? Etc etc. And consider how you, personally, have benefitted from police, the fire department, the military... all government functions there to help and protect people...


Pat

I dont like to quote entirely out of context, but I have here. Please forgive me.
That is a serious leap of faith for me, Pat. Sorry
The purpose of government is to further government. That it offers services here and there is a side shoot.

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. --Winston Churchill

 

[patandchickens]

And so, David, whose roads DO you drive on, and whose police, military etc services HAVE been protecting you?

If you're against there being a government at all, fair enough (although, as I say, a glance around the world and through history reveals a pretty grim view of what happens when there is no government). But then that is not about healthcare or welfare, it's about the whole enchilada.

If you are not against there being a government, then it comes down to What can and should a government legitimately do. And how much money should you have to have for it to do it for you.

To me, preventing (as much as possible) people from starving or from suffering/dying from easily treatable conditions is definitely part of what people should be doing for other people and thus what a government should be helping to do.


Pat

 

[me&thegals]

Simple: it is governments highest purpose to make it possible for the citizen to prosper, stay out of debt and advance his/her own life.

I would say that quality, affordable healthcare would be a huge contributor to a prospering citizenry.