Canadian Premier comes to US for heart surgery

Canadian Premier comes to US for heart surgery

Posted by

in Opinion

Wednesday, February 10. 2010

Comments (80)

Written by Bob Barr for ajc.com
------------------------------------------

The Premier for Newfoundland, one of Canada’s eastern provinces, underwent heart surgery last week. Where do you suppose Premier Danny Williams went for his surgery? To a hospital in St. John’s, the capital city of Newfoundland? Nope. Perhaps he traveled to a larger Canadian metropolis, such as Toronto or Montreal? Guess again. Actually, the premier chose to have his cardiac repair performed not anywhere in his own country. Like so many of his fellow Canadians, Premier Williams eschewed his country’s government-insured health care system, and instead came south to the United States to undergo life-saving and time-sensitive surgery.

Please login or register to read the rest of this story.

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 rankin fyle on 02/10/10 at 07:21 AM

Where do 99.9 % of all Canadians go for health care? They go to CANADIAN hospitals where service is excellant and no one is bankrupted
for medical care. Do some Canadians come to the US for specialized health care-those who can AFFORD it sometimes do. So what.

#1.1 isa on 02/10/10 at 07:52 AM

He came to the United States because he did not
have to wait in line like they do in Canada.
He probably would be dead if he had waited till
they pulled his number..........

#2 Anonymous on 02/10/10 at 07:23 AM

Sometimes actions speak louder than words! This sums up the health care debate and why Government run "anything" is far behind what the private sector can do.

#3 Justin Tyme on 02/10/10 at 07:58 AM

Michael Moore must be spinning in his grave!
Oh o.k., he is making the effort to spin...

#3.1 sherry on 02/10/10 at 09:16 AM

michael moore died?

#3.1.1 M.S. on 02/10/10 at 07:48 PM

His common sense died a long time ago.

#3.1.1.1 Anonymous on 02/12/10 at 11:54 AM

Your just a youngen!

#4 Anonymous on 02/10/10 at 08:45 AM

no one says you have to use your national healthcare ins.....if you dont want it dont use it....but at least it will be available for those who need it.......we give people over 65 part A medicare...they dont have to use it, but most do........the republicans just dont like the idea that everybody can have the same thing.......they had rather have 5 dollars while the poor have 1 dollar, than for everybody to get 10 dollars

#5 Solo on 02/10/10 at 08:51 AM

Yes, medical care is readily available in the U.S., if, you've got the bucks to pay for it. I have a good friend in Canada who would have been bankrupt, not to mention dead, if not for the Canadian healthcare system. I wonder how many people in the U.S. have died because they didn't have the money or insurance to cover the kind of care that Premier Williams was able to pay for.

#5.1 doodoo on 02/10/10 at 11:22 AM

I wonder how many people in CANADA have died waiting to receive the same treatments that Premier Williams - who is CANADIAN- has decided to receive from a hospital in America? Why are you so F ING dumb?

#5.1.1 solo on 02/11/10 at 09:28 AM

I see why your name is doodoo.

#6 Anonymous on 02/10/10 at 08:57 AM

This is no different than when some cancer stricken celebrity goes to another country for treatment not approved by the FDA. If you have the money, why not go where you want.

For us common folk who can't afford to travel, Canadians have a lower mortality rate for cardiovascular disease than the US, so the government isn't doing too bad of a job up there.

#6.1 doodoo on 02/10/10 at 11:11 AM

The FDA IS GOVERNMENT and they block treatment options, your point of government care being good is ruined by your own statement.

#6.2 Sheila Tolley on 02/14/10 at 01:55 PM

They are mostly frozen so germs do not multiply as fast.

#7 Anonymous on 02/10/10 at 09:26 AM

Anyone who is against governtment-run/sponsored healthcare on the principle of "less government intervention in our lives is better" should have the integrity to forever swear off any social secuity benefits they might be entitled to. All of the nay-sayers on healthcare who do, oe one day will, line up to collect Social Security/Medicare/Medicade benefits are nothing but hypocrites.

#7.1 doodoo on 02/10/10 at 11:16 AM

I will gladly opt out of these government programs if you allow me to keep my money that would otherwise be thrown down the money pit hole throughout my lifetime. Please ask your congressman to really stick it to me by exempting me from these payroll deductions and government programs!

#7.1.1 Anonymous on 02/11/10 at 09:20 AM

The same arguments apply to both social security and to health care reform. Either you believe the govenment should help people or you don't. The govenrment is going to tax you, and they are going to keep taxing you more and more as time goes by (until the gov't is eventually toppled). We might as well get something for our money.

#7.2 GM on 02/10/10 at 03:59 PM

I'll give up that when you open a savings account, make $600 monthly deposits until you're 62, then close the account and give everything away.

Guess what? I've paid into that fund since I was 16 years old. That's 46 years. That means that I've paid for those programs. I've earned the right to use what I paid my own money for.

In other words, I'm getting something back for something I was forced to pay in to for a lifetime.

Do you have any more nonsense to add to your last comment?

#7.3 Anonymous on 02/10/10 at 08:15 PM

I will gladly opt out of social security if they give me my money back. Better yet, if they quit taking money out of check and keep what they have already stolen! That's right, stolen. I am 28 years old and I guarantee that I will NEVER see a dime of social security when I reach the adequate age to receive benefits (which they keep raising). I like the idea of less goverment. I will gladly pay taxes for public services and infrastructure; however, I DO NOT want to work my butt off to support my family and have the goverment take part of MY money to support someone else. Especially when there are LOTS of people leaching off that system that could work to help themselves. I understand people hit hard times. I'm ok with helping those people with my money(at my discretion. What I don't like are the people that receive welfare, food stamps, etc. and drive a brand new LEXUS!!!! I have known (PAST TENSE) some of these people and they absolutely disgust me.

#8 Anonymous on 02/10/10 at 10:50 AM

it is all a different mindset.....where i grew up in the 1950s in a town of 13,000 there was 8 doctors (one was surgeon and one was eent)....now, that town has 11,000 people but has over 25 doctors......but i bet that now it takes longer to see a doctor....does that mean that people are sicker now than in the 50s .....i believe it is because doctors are treating things that arent really illness but are just things people are demanding.....look at the yellow pages of atlanta and look at all the doctors just doing cosmetic surgery.....thing about how many dentists there are now compared to when you were a kid.....are there really more cavities today than there were in the 50s.....are more teeth being pulled today?......National comprehensive healthcare will stop all this doctoring that is unneeded, but not limit what is really needed.....but it you still want something that is not required, you can get it with your own money

#9 Anonymous on 02/10/10 at 10:53 AM

It is NOT fact that the Canadian official came to the U.S. just because he is dissatisfied with government run healthcare in his country...it is ASSumed.
If that is the case, we should have many more govt. officials from all over Europe and Canada visiting our hospitals regularly. Cant wait for Fox News to start pointing them out....anytime now. Interesting how this single occurrence has somehow "proven" that government run healthcare is bad. I guess that is how the republican machine operates. Drawing enormous conclusions. Wow.

We may have excellent cardiologists in America..but it is too bad that millions of employed Americans themselves cannot access these wonderful services due lack of insurance or underinsurance.
Bunch of morons.

#9.1 Mark on 02/10/10 at 05:20 PM

I believe to begin to fix this healthcare problem, we have to not look at the uninsured, but look at the uninsurable. (Previous conditions, etc.). Let's find a way to help the uninsurable so that a major illness doesn't bankrupt the family for generations to come. But that is only the uninsurable. We can't look to give everyone insurance that is uninsured. There are too many that are uninsured or ununderinsured that choose to be, for the rest of society to have to pay for them. If you are uninsured and you are not choosing to be, we should look at why. Is it because you're unemployed? Let's get you some job training, perhaps student loans for an education and let you obtain some marketable job skills. You can then get a decent job and then you will have insurance. People don't mind helping someone improve their life, however, people don't want to support those who won't help their own cause.

#10 Enoc Siuol on 02/10/10 at 11:18 AM

I have traveled this country to no end and I can assure you with absolute certainty you can always tell how well an area is doing by observing the people you see at Wal-Mart. In an area that has less income and times are hard, the folks at Wal-Mart are weathered and on average in poor health. The interesting thing is obesity is even more common because there is less demand on physical activity. Good dental hygiene is also remarkably less evident. This does not even consider the level of mental health. The people you see in an area that is vitalized and income is average or above the folks just look a heck of a lot better and are astonishing more fit. There is an additional spark in their eyes and they appear to have more drive. I know for sure the women look a heck of a lot better. Heath care would not seem to be an issue in this neck of the woods. Now just think what affordable mental and physical health care could do for a people in an area that has all but given up hope for a better way of life. Folks, this is a no brainer and I don’t care how anybody chooses to add their little spin on this subject. It’s just the right thing to do and everybody with any trace of compassion knows this, although, many for some misguided ideological reason choose to deny it.

#10.1 Leroy Brown on 02/10/10 at 04:12 PM

People make their own choices. Just take a look at the people that do nothing all day now. Many draw government checks and make no effort to improve. They are perfectly willing to do nothing but mooch off the tax payer. Health care will be no different. Just something else free that other people will have to pay for. And those that are getting it for free will still complain that it isn't enough.

It may sound harsh but the best way to get people to improve themselves is to let them do without. Eventually they will get up and go to work or be hungry. I'd bet at least 90% - 95% are capable of working but refuse to because people like you are willing to carry them. Plus, why work for something when it is going to be given to you for free.

#10.1.1 Enoc Siuol on 02/11/10 at 07:10 AM

I agree people do make their own choices and I also believe most people would make the right choice which benefits them most, if only they knew what those choices were. That‘s what we called empowerment. It’s fundamental psychology that people need the most basic requirements of life before they can choose to reach beyond their grasp. Good mental and physical health are just a few of those necessities.
It is interesting how you perceive “people like me” to be. You seem to have a very poor view of people in general. You must not like yourself, because people do not see things how they really are, they see things how they are.
I’ll take that bet and even if some how I was to lose, it would be well worth that 10 to15% which would give that helping hand.

#10.1.1.1 Leroy Brown on 02/11/10 at 06:54 PM

Give me break, please. You said, "I also believe most people would make the right choice which benefits them most, if only they knew what those choices were."

You can't be serious with that comment. And, I suppose you are the right person to tell them what choices they will have. Liberals telling other people how to live.

You have actually just discovered the solution to the unemployment crisis in this country. The government can appoint a person to follow people around Wal-Mart and tell them what is best for them. For example, when they want to purchase soft drinks, someone will be there to tell them water is better. When they travel to a fast food place and order a hamburger, a government representative will be there to tell them a salad is better.

These people that are told what their choice is will soon tell someone what choices they can take: And where they can take them. With that said, perhaps you should look up the definition of “empowerment”.

Now you want to be a psychologist too? You are out of you field of expertise. You say, I must not like myself. What is this; an I’m OK you’re not OK thing?

Louis, you are a perfect example of liberals being OK as long as they can tell others how to live, how to spend their money, and, because they don’t know what is good for them, you and government do.

#10.1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 02/12/10 at 10:29 AM

Is this the best you got? You’re a perfect example of someone pissed off at the world because you’re scared someone might get something for nothing. You act as if only those who could benefit from affordable health care are the skid row class but you’re wrong, dead wrong. Thirty percent of health care cost is sucked up by the insurance companies and the fees and cost are inflated because of the extreme profiteering in the way the industry is presently operated. There is absolutely no reason the cost should be so outrageous. Where do you get off in saying I’m trying to tell people how to live their lives. Insurance companies are telling people they can’t have health care because it’s cutting into they profit margin. All I am saying is there is no good reason it should cost as much and those who need it the most should be able to afford it.
And yes, it is my “personal opinion” that everybody should have insurance. To not have insurance is to act irresponsible. We’re paying more now for people using emergency room service because they can’t afford a primary care physician due to insurance being to darn high. And Yes, I already knew what empowerment means, the question is, do you?

#10.1.1.1.1.1 Leroy Brown on 02/12/10 at 03:48 PM

You're good at rambling and talk but what do you base it on. You've produced no facts to back up your claim. You're just like all the other liberals out there screaming. All talk and no back-up. There is no sense talking to you. You have already decided that nonsense makes total sense. Any bad plan is OK. You need to understand that the biggest single threats to the United States of America are people like you.

You want me to listen? Try a point based on something real and not just your attempt to impress the audience with dribble and false talk.

#10.1.1.1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 02/15/10 at 05:23 AM

You got to be kidding. You must be new to this blog. Anybody who’s read any of my postings knows I’m the first to sacrifice popularity for saying what needs to be said. I think the 30 percent the insurance companies take right of the top and the obvious inflated cost for services is factual enough when considering this issue to be more of an ethical nature. I agree with you about the present plan not being to the taxpayer’s advantage, but that is not how it started out to be. The public option is a must, if we are going to hold off the insurance companies. I think it’s interesting, but misguided, in what you see as a threat to our country. You seem to have this sacred but naive nationalist ideological image of how things once were and how they should continue to be in this country. You have no idea that most, if not all, of our individual rights came into place when someone, somewhere, was able to gain an economical advantage in order for any of it to have happen in the first place. As sad as this may be, it’s the core behind most all of our American history. The real threat to this country are those who gets suck into this ideological propaganda while the politicians who are shoveling this garbage to the masses are stealing this country blind.

#10.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Leroy Brown on 02/15/10 at 02:14 PM

Yes I am new. I'm not from your area but I got involved because of the issue. As for whom you are well all I can say is that you write a lot. Seems like every comment or reply is done by you. What is your last name? With everyone having the same first name it's hard to tell just which anonymous a person is chatting with.

The health care issue: What a fiasco! We already have a health care plan and it's called Medicare. All congress needs to do is expand Medicare. And all the expansion needed is to be expanded to cover catastrophic cost to prevent families from going down in the event of major health problems. Common trips to the primary care doctor wouldn't be covered. Routine care wouldn't be covered. The government could determine how much this catastrophic form of Medicare would cost and let those companies that don’t provide health care pay a part (no tax benefit) toward the cost and the insured (tax deductible)pay the other half. Not being allowed a tax benefit would discourage companies from dropping their health care plans now and those others might be encouraged to seek health care plans to obtain a tax credit. At least everyone would be covered and young families wouldn’t be spending a fortune on health care but would be protected in the event of major health concerns. For a little more cost, prescription medicine could be added to the plan.

#11 isa on 02/10/10 at 11:27 AM

Anyone wanting the health care program
that the democrats are suggesting, should move
to Canada and wait in the doctor office all day till
your name is called. Or wait till you number is
called to take out your appendix out. Or just wait till
it burst!

#11.1 Anonymous on 02/10/10 at 12:09 PM

At least the Dem's are suggesting something. The only suggestion the Republicans can come up with is "if the Democrats came up with it we must vote against it."

#11.1.1 GM on 02/10/10 at 04:00 PM

Liberals are fine as long as they are telling someone else how to live their lives. But the second the favor is returned, they pitch a hissy fit.

#11.1.2 TTerry on 02/10/10 at 05:04 PM

If you think the Dems. have the only ideas ,you are ignorant of news. There is one idea from those hateful Rep., that you should be able to shop for health ins outside the boundry of your state, which is illegal now. That would help you on your bitching about rich people.

#11.1.3 Mark on 02/10/10 at 05:38 PM

Actually, the Republicans have made many suggestions to the healthcare debate, but the state-run media doesn't give you both sides of the story. For example, did you know that in the US there are over 1300 different insurance plans? In Georgia you only have access to about 4 or 5 of them. The Republicans proposed letting all insurance companies compete in all states. This would increase competition and lower cost of insurance premiums. Secondly, the Republicans have put forth plans for "tort" reform, that is frivolous lawsuit reform. They proposed a loser pays system to make people think before they sue someone. This would lower doctor's malpractice insurance costs therefore, lowering overall healthcare costs. Third, the Republicans have proposed insurance portability. If you leave your job and you like your insurance, you can take it with you and never have to be on COBRA, which is very expensive. Those 3 things would drastically reduce healthcare costs in this country and wouldn't cost a thing. Perhaps we should try these before we spend over 1 Trillion dollars for the Democratic proposed healthcare reform bill.

#11.1.3.1 Anonymous on 02/10/10 at 06:43 PM

Yeah, they had 8 pages of ideas and no numbers to back up anything they proposed. Your average 5th grader could have done that.

#11.1.3.1.1 GM on 02/10/10 at 08:18 PM

And you base that on what?

#11.1.3.2 Anonymous on 02/11/10 at 11:05 AM

Well..if you would watch the Obama/GOP press conference you would see Obama call out those "ideas" to their faces.
I always love it when someone confronts another person on their lies. They cant lie anymore. Its on tape. LOVE IT!!!
I suggest everyone take a look a the video. very very enlightening.
It is very easy to lie about someone when they are not there to defend themselves.

#12 Anonymous on 02/10/10 at 11:56 AM

Who is Danny Williams? Oh thats right it was mentioned in the post...The Premier for Newfoundland. What does that mean? It means he has money. Thats like saying a wealthy business man around here preferred to go to the Mayo Clinic instead of Spalding Regional because he could afford it.

Guess what, the rest of America/Canada can't do that. So if little ol' me, living in Lamar County, needed open heart surgery, would I choose Canadian health-care, or choose to drown myself and my family in medical bills for the rest of my life?

Yeah, the remaining 99% of people would have no choice but to choose whats best for their wallets.

#13 Anonymous on 02/10/10 at 05:21 PM

Bob Barr has been a hypocritical jack-ass throughout his political career. What a shock this newspaper will choose his political spin instead of a story about how badly healthcare reform is needed. I think that when Bob Barr needs heart surgery he should be made to wait until his republican colleages actually stop playing power games and start to work for the money they are robbing taxpayers of. What else is this but welfare they are well paid to do a job they just wont do.

#13.1 Anonymous on 02/10/10 at 09:51 PM

This is a different Bob Barr.

#13.1.1 Anonymous on 02/11/10 at 01:32 PM

Yes, there are two Bob Barrs. Major Flip-Flop.

#14 M.S. on 02/10/10 at 07:57 PM

Blame Canada.

#15 Rankin Fyle on 02/11/10 at 06:16 AM

How many thousands of US citizens are going abroad for treatment? How many thousands move to Mexico
and become part of the Mexican national health plan? Tens of thousands. Why? Becuse they an't afford helth care in the good ole USA.

#15.1 Mad Maxx on 02/11/10 at 07:36 AM

Any data or facts to back up that claim???
10's of thousands of Americans moving to Mexico? Just for Healthcare???
Mexico REALLY???
Bet you can't name just one!
No, not even one person who gave up his American
heritage and citizenship for Mexico.
Sorry, those fact are simply made up.
Gimme a big old hairy break and prove me wrong!

#15.2 M.S. on 02/11/10 at 08:42 AM

Never heard of somebody moving to Mexico because of their health care. I'm sure there are some idiots that have but I can bet you that more people come to the US for health procedures than people that leave for countries with socialized health care.

#15.2.1 Anonymous on 02/11/10 at 09:25 AM

Maybe not Mexico, but there are many that go to Europe, Australia, and even India to get medicines and procedures that they can't get here in the US.

#15.2.1.1 M.S. on 02/11/10 at 02:19 PM

And the same can be said about people that come here from those same areas because they don't have what the US has to offer.

#15.3 Sheila Tolley on 02/14/10 at 02:09 PM

They are going to Mexico because the illegal Mexicans are all here tying up our system.

#16 Anonymous on 02/11/10 at 08:42 AM

I thought republicans were for states rights..i thought they wanted their state to be the ruler of what goes on in their state....now republicans want us to be able to buy across state lines......States make certain standards that a regular ins policy must cover, some ins co dont want to provide that level of coverage and dont proticipate in that state.....it you let people buy across state lines, all ins co would flock to one state(the one with the least amount of standard coverage) and then force people to buy from that state.......therefore you will lose state rights to decide......I think we need to have a national healthcare complete package and if someone doesnt want it, dont buy it.....but i predict most of those complaining against it would end up buying it....

#16.1 Justin Tyme on 02/11/10 at 09:29 AM

You can't have it both ways, #16.
State competiton will drive down costs.
You can't have a national healhcare system
that doesn't require you to buy it ...
AND also NOT be able to deny you coverage.
If that were the case, no one would buy healthcare until they were sick.
Which one do YOU pick to gice up? Penalties OR denial of coverage.
You have to pick one.
The democrats know this and that is why
they can't get America to swallow this poisionous bill. They have painted themselves into a corner and ar playing the blame game. Penalties for not having insurance is a real roadblock, and will mainly hurt the poor. The very ones congress says it want to help.
That's WHY the republicans say no,
among other reasons.
America has awaken and Ain't buying it!
This flavor of healthcare is insane.
START OVER!!!

#16.1.1 Anonymous on 02/11/10 at 04:29 PM

Public Option would solve a lot of the problems mentioned.

#17 GM on 02/11/10 at 07:00 PM

How? Please elaborate. Please be specific and include your sources so they can be checked.

#17.1 Anonymous on 02/12/10 at 05:49 AM

What would be the point GM? You can't see the forest for the trees. Someone should lock you in a round room and tell you there is a tax cut in the corner.

#17.1.1 Anonymous on 02/12/10 at 07:36 AM

The point is, is that you can't justify your comment. Why will a public option solve the problem? Anyone can spout out solutions and numbers. Why can't they respond with an answer when they are ask about it? You say I can't see the forest for the trees. You reply was nothing more than the same old liberal slant of blaming when you have no answer.

#17.1.1.1 Anonymous on 02/12/10 at 08:48 AM

The point is that there are lots of working poor and single parent families and a middle class families who just can't afford healthcare. Insurance companies exist for a profit, not because they care about us. Our government has a responsibility to protect our citizens and pass legislation that is benifical (that includes republicans). That is why we pay taxes. That is why you are required to pay your fair share. Your taxes are not figured any differently than the next guy's, so stop thinking you are supporting half the country. You simply are not. Hospitals are going bankrupt along with lots of families. People get booted from their insurance when they need it most. The uninsured go to the emergency room where the cost is many times higher than the cost of seeing a GP. That cost gets passed along to insurance companies who just raise their rates a little more. There is little or no preventive care for the uninsured. Some who are too proud to ask for care that they can't pay for just suffer and die needlessly. The system is broke. When something is broke you fix it. If it makes you happy you should just pretend that all your tax dollars go to pay for bombs to kill terrorists, and try not to let it bother you that someone's suffering might be relieved. America is capable of doing what the rest of the world is doing for their people. Get out of the way.

#17.1.1.1.1 GM on 02/12/10 at 11:10 AM

Precisely; you base your comments on assumptions!

To start off with – the health care plan developed by democrats was crap. It would have cost more than it was worth and actually driven this country closer to, if not into, bankruptcy. Real issues were not even considered in the plan like restrictions on purchase and tort reform. Do you realize tort reform would be the single biggest aid to drive down health care cost? But most of your democratic lawmakers are lawyers and you might be getting into their pockets.

If government gets involved in the health care business, do you really think that insurance companies are going to stop being a “for profit” industry?

Second – you have no idea what a republican or conservative is. You appear to base it on taxes. Therefore, how much did you pay in? Let me tell you I paid my fair share and then some. A huge percentage of Americans pay no tax at all. That’s zero if you can’t comprehend it. A huge percentage of Americans get a refund even after they pay nothing. Do you think that money grows on trees? No! It comes from those people that do pay taxes, not those that pay taxes and get everything back and then some. Therefore, genius, I don’t think I’m supporting half the country. However, less than half the country is supporting the other half. But I’m not going to attempt to explain something you probably would never understand.

Third – you say that it’s government’s responsibility to protect the citizens and pass beneficial legislation. However, you stopped there. I think you are referring to these words:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

- establish Justice: every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment

- insure domestic Tranquility: ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states.

- common defense: Means that the nation (people) would come together as one to fend off any attack.

- promote the general Welfare: to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide.

- - - Too many people assume that “promote the general welfare’ means that the government is supposed to give them what they cannot get for themselves. That is one of the biggest reason we are in the mess we are in now. The constitution does not promise you health care, food stamps, a welfare check, a home, land, a car, a TV, or anything. It promises everyone the same thing; and that is only what the government “COULD PROVIDE”!

Our government has stepped beyond the bounds of the constitution. They already provide more than what they are capable of providing. Another of the biggest reasons we have a deficient. And a debt!

- and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity: The people were concerned that they were creating a nation of paradise and liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. They wanted to be sure that the future generations of Americans would enjoy the same.

You said, “When something is broke you fix it.” That is precisely where the problem originated.

It was never broke, but people tried to fix it anyway and broke it. The more they try to fix it, the broker it gets. Now it is almost broke beyond repair. People call it bankruptcy. Others call it irresponsible leadership! Therefore, you can get out of my way.

#17.1.1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 02/12/10 at 01:55 PM

No GM. I based my comments on facts. Just what is the purpose of congress if not to introduce, debate and pass legistration for the good of the people. We can expect that as time passes the situations we face will always be changing. The urgent need for healthcare reform impacts our economy and the most personal aspects of our individual lives. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits reform or a public option. It is for the general welfare of the people. Of course they didn't interpet welfare in The Constitution as you describe welfare in your post, they meant the general welfare of the people. I do think the bill that passed in the senate should be a do over. But it should be done. I'm as capable as you are of reading and understanding english, so you don't have to explain The Constitution to me. You know there is not a single nation where you could live in this "paradise and liberty" you speak of, and not pay taxes. You're always on this blog crying about your taxes. It is the price you pay to live in the greatest country on earth, not perfect but still the greatest. There are millions of Americans who are good people, work hard, love their families and try to do the right thing but they are up against odds they just can't beat. They might loose a job or have an accident or a divorce they didn't even want, so you loose your grip on your finances. For a lot of our citizens, the system is broken. They are not just a bunch of sorry lazy bums out to take your tax dollars. They are people and the system needs to be fixed.

#17.1.1.1.1.1.1 GM on 02/12/10 at 05:33 PM

I'm typing slowly so that you can understand.

I'm not against health care reform. There is just a right way and a wrong way to approach it. That seems to be what you can’t comprehend. Why don’t you get off your It’s All Me trip you are on and try to grasp common sense.

The way the democrats had it was a mess and they were trying to ram it down our throats. However, and apparently, that was fine with you.

Well it wasn't fine with me and no legislation should be passed until they get it right. And that wasn't right. However, it was obviously fine with you and I’ll even bet you don’t even know what the bill said.

You liberals need to understand that anything at any cost that provides nothing just won't do. You folks don't care about it being right or not, you folks will accept anything at any cost.

All of America doesn’t see it that way. In my opinion, you liberals are dangerous and know nothing of history or politics. You folks see it as; if it feels good do it.

PS I don't get on here and complain about paying taxes. Although you do not understand, I AM TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!

#17.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 02/12/10 at 06:40 PM

I'm sure I can read as fast as you can type. I'm also sure that healthcare reform will come from the democrats because they are the only ones trying. I don't like what they ended up with either and I never said I want anything they can get through, just so it's something. I want something that improves the lives of the citizens of this country. No one can have a discussion with you. You keep assuming every one who disagrees with you is stupid and uninformed or incapable of understanding facts and that's BS. I see it all different from you and that's good because you strike me as cold hearted and narrow minded. I don't think I've ever met you. I'm stating my opinon of your opinons. Your opinons suck.

#17.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GM on 02/12/10 at 07:34 PM

Geez - Perhaps I think the same thing of your opinions. I have an idea. Rather than put down a person because….., offer something with sustenance. Apply logic rather than compassion and feelings. It’s OK if you feel like you want to save the world. Feelings are not going to get the job done. Critical thinking and logic will go further than feelings.

As far as health care. Your own beloved congress sold your health care reform down the river. They abused their position and took a stance as progressives and tried to used power and corruption to force a socialist form of health care down the throats of America. A reform that did fine for people between certain ages, but deteriorated in care as Americans aged. Some people called them death panels, and that is exactly what they were. The reform preferred to let the elderly die a slow death with declining care as they aged. That is only one of many problems the bill had in it. But why am I telling you this. You already know it. Don’t you? Or are you in denial? You say I am “cold hearted and narrow minded” but I say not hardly; Do you think I should just fold and agree with you just because it’s something you want? I don’t think so. There were so many problems with the past health care reform bill that it makes me question what type of American are you. Perhaps I’ll use your own words. “cold hearted and narrow minded”.

#17.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 02/12/10 at 10:01 PM

GM
I know you think the same of my opinons. It's OK, I'm tough. Don't patronize me as though I'm too emotional to be able to think critically and understand a situation. Congress has a job to do and a responsibility to the people who put them in power. Both sides need to discuss the issues and participate in healthcare reform and all other matters that are addressed by Congress. The republicans have pushed the fear and hate thing till it is impossible for any progress to be made. They not only want you to fear terrorist attacks, now they want you to be afraid of socialist stealing your country, your freedom and your money. The republicans act as if they actually did the job they are paid to do, it would somehow be equal to becoming blood brothers with satan. I want to see them do their damn job already. I want to see their stone cold arrogant faces with a human look on them for a change. I want to see that they care about one thing besides getting their power back. You are old enough, I gather from your posts, to remember when things were very different. I mean pre Bush/Cheney era. The terrorists can not tear us apart from the inside, but the republicans are doing just that. And you're falling for it. I'm not.

#17.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GM on 02/13/10 at 09:14 AM

Anonymous,
So you say that I think the same of your opinions. I don't even know who I'm speaking with because there are so many of you with the same name. I have an idea of who you might be but more than likely I'm wrong. Therefore, I'm addressing the comments of someone that can't stand behind what they say with an idenity. But that's ok and that's your choice.

“The republicans have pushed the fear and hate thing till it is impossible for any progress to be made.”

Well that’s your opinion that you are entitled to. It’s just not everyone’s opinion including my own.

“They not only want you to fear terrorist attacks, now they want you to be afraid of socialist stealing your country, your freedom and your money.”

How do they want me to fear terrorist attack? It’s already obvious to me that the Obama Administration is lowering its guard against attack. However, what you may not know is that the Obama Administration is backtracking and adopting Bush principals in protecting the country.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704022804575042112185849380.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

As for the socialist stealing the country; well we have many social programs already but to move to complete socialism: won’t happen without a revolution in the streets, and I’m prepared to fight to preserve what our forefathers made.

The republicans haven’t done anything except their job. I gather you will accept any bill (right or wrong) that the democrats want to push down America’s throat. With your rants it’s obvious to me that you know nothing of the conservative side of government, or you view them as just a thorn. You paint a picture to me as a typical arrogant progressive democrat that believes has the answer over and above what anyone else believes, and will force it on everyone regardless of what the majority of Americans say. In my opinion, you have such a backward view of government processes that it’s a game of wins and losses by democrats that appeases you the most. The problems are not from republicans, but of both parties inability to work together. The democrats are currently taking a power and being corrupt with it, wielding it around as if it were a monarchy with Reid and Pelosi acting together as a single head of state or to make King Obama happy with his loyal subjects. In my opinion you want a bill passed based on compassion. In my opinion you prefer that the US Constitution be totally disregarded to pass the bill. In my opinion you believe the conservative side of congress is making every effort to block health care reform. I for one am happy we have a system of government that has an ability to defend against irresponsibility of leadership even though we are teetering on the edge of it now.

You want to convince me the current bill is good? Then tell me why but, drop the compassion and base it on logic and principal. I will already agree that it’s the right thing to do but, the big question is how it gets done. I think the American majority has spoken their views. To start over! And that I can agree on.

PS As you can see, I've given you many opinions to disagree on. I'm not trying to disrespect you or your opinions, but I am trying to communicate to you how they disagree with my own. If you wish to see them as something derogatory toward you, well, that will have to be your opinion. And, if that's the way you view them, I do apoligize.

#17.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 GM on 02/13/10 at 12:15 PM

It dawned on me that we have argued, but haven’t said why we agree or disagree.

In a nut shell - I believe the public option will be the end to health care as we know it. The government will have successfully entered into a competing business venture with the private sector. The private sector will be unable to compete. Business that provides health care will opt out and pay the fine because it will cost them less in the long run. Eventually all primary health care will be the responsibility of the government. Private insurers will reorganize and come back as a secondary insurance plans to the public option turned government insurance, and they will be offered through businesses. However, because business pays the fine, they no longer have any responsibility to the employee because it all shifted to the government. Therefore, the people pay an excessive tax for government health care, business have no obligation to the employee, secondary insurers collect premiums but now pay out less. Why – because government red tape will decrease health care and cause long wait periods for approval. Secondary insurers benefit from that red tape. In the end, everyone wins except the people.

#17.1.1.1.1.1.2 GM on 02/12/10 at 05:41 PM

- Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [

#17.1.1.1.1.2 Sheila Tolley on 02/14/10 at 02:24 PM

Hi GM. People got all kind of answers, don't they. Here's mine. The average life expectancy in the United States is 77.7 years old. I looked at the Barnesville obits three seconds ago. Here are the ages: 91,82,87,77,80,66,83,82,83. It looks like they are doing fine to me. 7 out of 9 are living longer than average. We may need to start killing some if we get any healthier.

#17.1.2 Justin Tyme on 02/12/10 at 08:07 AM

Typical democratic playbook: Page 4
1. Attack the questioner - (locked in round room)
2. Divert attention from the subject matter -(what would be the point)
3. If anyone disagrees, it is because they don't understand -(forest / trees, etc.)
4. If you can't defend your argument, go back to step 1.
5. Blame Bush

Hey 17.1
You forgot the Blame Bush part.

#17.1.2.1 Anonymous on 02/12/10 at 08:57 AM

OK Justin Tyme
Bush is a brain-dead POS

#18 Anonymous on 02/11/10 at 11:05 PM

I know a man from Canada who says their healthcare is 'free', but they pay very high taxes to pay for this 'free' healthcare.
He also says you have to be put on a waiting list. ANd he know lots of people there come to US for health care.

#18.1 Anonymous on 02/12/10 at 07:47 AM

As opposed to here, where people pay very high insurance premiums and co-pays, and still get denied by their insurance companies. My sister's rheumatoid arthritis treatments just went from $35 co-pay to $350 co-pay. This is done on an outpatient basis every 2 weeks. She has always told me how good her insurance is. She lives on $1600 a month and has been unable to work for the past 7 years. Try pulling yourself up by the boot straps with rheumatoid arthritis. I am so damn sick of the mindset that everyone who needs healthcare is just too sorry to take care of themselves. These are real people falling through the cracks. By the way, Her and her husband are both life long republicans. Maybe they should e-mail Saxby Chamblis. LOL

#19 For Crying Liberals on 02/12/10 at 07:42 AM

Budgets do not get approved by the White House. They are passed only by CONGRESS and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for those budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.

#20 TTerry on 02/12/10 at 08:38 AM

If the dem. think this will benefit all the people, why would they put a section that names the I.R.S as the inforcer to make you buy this B.S. Everyone will have to prove they have the correct coverage, under penality of fines and leans on your property, It also has a line in it that says jail time is posssible if you don' comply. You will have to give the Gov. all personal imformation that deals with your bank account,s savings, stocks, bonds, all investments so if you decide not to comply they can reach in and take what you owe.If you dont believe that, take time and read it before you jump in with both feet.I would like to see the I.R.S.as a thinng of the past. I guess the people that are in favor of this are ignorant of all the facts. Before you wish this on me,study the whole thing,I think you will change your mind.You think this is going to be free, but it is going to cost you a lot.Your god like savior is allready talking tax raise on everyone now. By the way if it started today,you will pay for three years before you could ever file a claim.I don't wish to pay for something I can't have from the beginning. This is not a layaway.You should wonder why congress dems. and rep.wont put themselves under what they want to give the commonfolk.You believers think about that.

#21 Justin Tyme on 02/12/10 at 09:23 AM

BO has convinced himself that people just don't understand the healthcare bill.
And If he can explain it a thousand more times, people will get it, and buy into it.

Well, WE GET IT. So quit re-explaining it.
And the problems is not, we don't understand.
The prolem is WE DO UNDERSTAND IT. and it is severly flawed. Healthcare simply needs a reboot.

NOW at this late stage of the game he wants to engage republicans to discuss healthcare.
Why? because he was unable to rally his own troops to pass this 2700 page, pile of manure.
Mr. President,
The time to engage repubs was 1 year ago.
True discussion and debate includes taking ideas and sponsorship from both sides.
Not ramming your ideas down the throats of
those who were not in the "idea forming stage"
to start with - and then claim they are the roadblocks when they don't swallow.
NEWSFLASH!!! The American can see right thru that.

#22 Anonymous on 02/12/10 at 11:22 AM

“Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it.
Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts.
After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy.
No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills.
What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power.
The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago.
But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare.
In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left.
But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long-term sustainability.”
If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher-income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts.
And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger than the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills.
The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing proposals for modest cost savings — savings that are substantially smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals.
And if Democrats don’t get their act together and push the almost-completed reform across the goal line, this breathtaking act of staggering hypocrisy will

From Diggs.com

#22.1 Another Democrat on 02/12/10 at 03:52 PM

Let me offer an idea for a new line of work for you.

Fertilizer Spreader
Specializing in Bull S%*t.

#23 dgms on 02/12/10 at 06:30 PM

ummmm...where did all the people who believe that it is the government's responsibility to take care of them come from?? The government did not have any part in conceiving you (unless of course you were conceived to get more welfare $$$).
"gimme people" make me sick!
I am lower middle class - have no health insurance - and the reason I have no health insurance is because I have CHOSEN to work at a place where group health is not available and cannot afford health insurance. However, I accept responsibilty for the fact that it is my choices that have led me to this point. For the government to demand that I have health insurance or be fined or imprisoned is ludicrous. There are other viable options that lawmakers do not seem to want to explore.

#24 wdm on 02/15/10 at 08:36 AM

The biggest diversion tactic being played by Obama and the liberal democrats is that it is all the Republicans fault that this particular healthcare takeoever bill didn't pass. The democrats had a supermajority in the Senate and Congress and own the White House. They didn't need a single Republican vote to pass healthcare (until Kennedy passed.) So will the liberals blaming Republicans quit playing partisan politics and recognize that it was democrats not Republicans that stopped this horrible bill from being passed.

#24.1 Anonymous on 02/15/10 at 11:34 AM

Well said!
Some folks can stand right beside the truth an not see it.
The people that use the "blocked" term refuse to see this, OR they DO know it and refuse to comment on it.
Much Easier to blame the "other" party to defer attention from the facts.
Fact:
Democrats could have passed this bill all by themselves.
They did not need one republican, no, not even one.
But they also knew they would be ran outta town if they did.
So what do they do? Blame republicans of course.

#25 Anonymous on 02/18/10 at 02:50 PM

Some blame Republicans, others blame Democrats. Has it occured to anyone that they both may be responsible? Two heads of the same disfunctional coin. Wake up people.

#26 Robert Heiney on 02/24/10 at 08:55 PM

Many on this blog wish to have ‘free’ government provided health care. Using your logic, I wish to propose some additional enhancements to the health care bill to make it even more beneficial to the downtrodden masses.

First, let’s add in ‘free’ food. Now before you say I’m being ridiculous; what’s more important than having good nourishing food? Certainly not medical coverage. Many citizens are just getting by on happy meals. These are very unhealthy. Since we already have a ‘free’ food program in food stamps, I propose we simply expand it to include everyone. And why not? It is based on the very same logic applied to the government take-over of the private health system.

And this is really special - think of how the government could regulate what we eat to help us stay extra healthy and not over-burden the government health system. Because the federal government knows better than you, what you should eat to stay healthy. Put them in charge and watch that weight come off, and watch your blood pressure drop, and watch them force you to quit that pesky cigarette and alcohol habit!

Second, let’s make sure everyone has their own home. The government should provide one to everyone who wants one. After all, we all need a roof over our heads. And then as a bonus, the feds could make absolutely sure we don’t use too much energy. Each home (except those occupied by the government royalty) could have a special government controlled thermostat. They know exactly what summer and winter settings should be used to reduce global warming and to keep you healthy. Wow - watch the C02 just disappear!

Third, every American needs a sound, reliable car to get back and forth to work. Without one, why... you’d just have to sit home and be unproductive and not kick into the system with your income taxes. Each car would have special anti-terrorist software and hardware that allows the government to ‘turn-off’ the car if it’s being used dangerously or using too much energy. Plus, your government motors vehicle will always keep you at safe speeds. This will reduce unnecessary trips to the government hospital. Remember, the federal government is YOUR friend and just wants to keep you safe and healthy. So, let’s make sure every American has their own government supplied vehicle.

These essential services will complement our new government health care system and make us the envy of the world.

GO!

Only registered users may comment on stories. Please login or register to post comments. Your browser must support cookies.

The author does not allow comments to this entry