Pusher,

I don't know what you "push", but you are smoking something funny. Congress should take a close look at this proposed Bill, maybe even read it themselves and not have their staff read it and report back summary findings interpreted with political bias. There is good in both proposed Bills, so lets work work out a solution that doesn't take away expected health services for all ready HMO covered American citizens, and doesn't tax hard working Americans into the poor house.

HEALTH CARE for all. Americans deserve better than this half-a bill designed to please those who will NEVER be pleased!

I'm not sure about Medicare for all, although it obviously works in other countries. But I would settle for a robust public option. Without a serious competitor, the insurance, hospital, and drug companies will continue to gouge us. I don't want to take away anyones right to buy private insurance. But I also want the option of choosing an insurance company who's stated purpose is the health of its customers rather than profits for shareholders. The two are mutually exclusive.

And what I find absurd is that the democrats have basically given away the farm to try to appease the republicans...and there is still zero republican support. Apparently the dems have forgotten that when you horse trade...you're supposed to get something in exchange. The republicans used budget reconciliation rules to pass tax cuts for the rich in 2001, 2003, and 2005. Too bad the supposedly liberal media doesn't parade that fact out whenever republicans denounce the idea of using those same rules for this.

This bill may be a starting point but it has been severely tampered with and it looks like will do more to favor the health insurance industry than it will actually benefit American citizens. I am all for compromise but the compromises agreed to must be effective and bring meaningful reform. We really need a public option if we are going to have any chance for reform. Until we shift our health care system away from a "for-profit" model we are going to see very limited results.

td3k...

I also think that a public option is the only way to reign in costs. Regional department store chains simply do not have the clout to compete effectively with Walmart.

That said...I would prefer not to completely eliminate the for profit model either. A public option, which is just that, an option...would provide sufficient competition to force insurance companies to keep costs reasonable. And if the business proponents are correct and that the private sector can beat the government by providing better care cheaper...then they will attract both consumers and businesses. And if they can't or won't...then they deserve to go out of business.

Justice Fleeting: hard working Americans are not being taxed into the poor house (anymore than we already are, that is). Only very wealthy Americans, who aren't paying their fair share of taxes to begin with. Just ending the insane tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country will help a lot!

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Baucus's plan is a love letter to the insurance companies. It makes it manditory to buy insurance while having no way to guarantee adequate coverage at minimum price.

It turns the American people into a cash machine for the insurers.

Absolutely correct!

The GOP could have at least pretended they liked this wet sloppy kiss to the insurance companies. They are so intent on destroying Obama and so confident that Dems will bend over like they always do that they didn't even feign interest.

If we can't even get GOP support by prostituting the American people to the insurers we should just do what we should have done in the first place and pass a bill with a strong public option.

I am tired of beening bent over by Dem cowards, GOP pimps, corporate johns.

Right on bro.

I thought I had good insurance. My sister went bankrupt due to medical costs and she has the same insurance. That is scary. Both her and her husband had 10 major operations in 5 years and her husband is still out of work and is now on disability due to complications of triple bypass. This is why we need government option. Big health insurance companies keep getting bigger as they gobble up the competition. They offer less coverage for higher premiums, and are in the business of making profits not providing health care.

Obviously Congress and the President for that matter are going about this in the wrong way if just as many people say the proposals go too far as say they don't go far enough. I know compromise seeks to find a middle ground but it's an expensive middle ground to find if it doesn't work! I agree with the growing sentiment, mostly by Republicans surprisingly, that finally takes a logical approach to passing the large number of proposals that everyone can agree upon such as protection for people with pre-existing conditions and ensuring you aren't denied coverage from your insurance company because you develop a condition that is expensive to treat. Better = Better and those proposals, along with some other things everyone agrees upon, are improvements. The other things being argued about aren't certain to make things better but rather are partisan ideologies, mostly on the Democratic side because other than tort reform the Republicans haven't offered any suggestions.

Yep, as soon as we find a way to pay the unfunded liability of the current program. Would you invest your life savings in a bankrupt institution like Medicare?

Alykatma, I'm so sorry to hear about your sister and brother-in-law's situation. I was listening to a radio interview on National Public Radio and the statistics which most of us miss are that while maybe 15-20% of Americans have no health insurance coverage, something like 40% of us are what is referred to as "under-insured."

We don't know it, until we need to use the coverage, that it is woefully insufficient. When added together, true health insurance reform, probably best done through a public plan, would either expand or improve coverage for 60% of all Americans. That's why a poll I heard about on NPR indicated that over 70% of doctors (even AMA members) are for the public plan, because those are their patients they see waiting too long to visit them, etc. That's also why 60-70% of voters favor the public option, as far as I recall. But still about 30-40% of us don't know that our insurance isn't in any way worth what we aqre paying for it. we have a false sense of security.

Our conservative friends here might even agree that increasing our health security as individuals and as a nation is a worthy goal, and that such security goals are historically most efficiently implemented federally, as a government duty to citizens rather than because it is momentarily possibly in the interests of any given CEO of a for-profit company. Think of depending on the Rockefeller family to rebuild our highways in the 1950s.

Hoping the best for your family!

If not now, when? We finally have a public debate on this issue - let's get it done. It's been 16 years since the '93 attempt.

It is important because thousands of people are losing their healthcare coverage everyday. It is important because so much of GDP is going to healthcare, we will all be bankrupt soon. It is important to do now because next year is an election year and half of congress will be trying to get re-elected and not really caring about any real issues. This doesn't have to be perfect. If part of the plan doesn't work, lawmakers can always change it later. Reform needs to be done now.

It is important to each family with a sick child TODAY to get basic health care at an affordable cost.

What is behind getting this done now?

Are you serious?

Peoples lives.

Peoples homes.

Ending peoples suffering.

The simple fact that some can not get treated fairly in the current system.

The fact that it is the moral thing to do.

Donna... "Fast"?

Democrats have been trying to get a universal health care system for upwards of 60 years. It was considered in the late 40's when England created their National Helath Service.

They tried again in the 60's, but were forced to scale it back to just Medicare and Medicaid. And the right predicted then that it would result in death panels, etc...and we now see how false that their arguements ended up being.

They tried again in the 90's, and were again torpedoed by the corporate interests that have been reaping billions since.

One has to wonder if reform had passed in the 60's, or even the 90's...and the claims of the fearmongers were proven as false as the claims made about Medicare in the 60's...how much better off would we be today?

How much more competitive would we be in the world marketplace if the prices of our goods didn't have to support such absurd increases in medical expenses?

How much more healthy would we be if our health care system cared as much about health as it does about profits?

Every year we wait, some 18,000 people die needlessly because they don't have adequate health care coverage. If you or someone you loved were one of those, would you want more waiting?

Every year we wait adds billions to our personal and public deficit because of excessive medical costs. If you are a conservative who cares about the debt or a business owner, do you want to continue the way things are?

In 2008, about a million people filed for bancruptcy, with over 60% of those directly linked to medical bills. What's worse, nearly 80% of those HAD MEDICAL INSURANCE!!! If you were one of those, would you prefer more waiting?

If you or your child were facing a serious illness, and your insurance company cancelled your policy because you ommitted taking a diet pill...would you want to wait?

Personally...I think 60 years of wating is more than enough. It's well past time to fix this.

what is funny is the democrats created HMO's ya know the thing they complain about NOW.

Making insurance available across state lines would be an answer. There are states that handle insurance perfectly. There are programs for lower income, real low income gets medicaid, there are buy ins for small businesses to group them with other small businesses, there are options and no one gets denied or kicked off.. copy Rochester NY.

Also how many of these people "can't afford" insurance but have cable and cell phones? $150 a month for each??? I see it here... "I can't afford insurance" yet they can spend $300 a month on phone and TV... get it a rest.

Tort reform is a start, allowing state to state purchases, CREATING NEW JOBS.. people are worried about everyone losing their health insurance? THey are losing their health insurance because they are losing their jobs. FIX THAT FIRST.. otherwise we will have more losing their jobs.. but hey who cares... we will just tax the heck out of those still stupid enough to work..
Free money for health insurance, buying a house, cars, oil companies, GM, banks.. we don't know where the money comes from just as long as I get my peice.

You liberals don't get it, it isn't free. and it isn't my job to take care of all of you.

Clinics are a good start too... require new doctors to do 2 yrs are clinics. That makes care affordable and available. Socialize medicine is a recipe for disaster, just pray YOU and your loved ones don't get sick.

Very well stated!!

Rochester many of us have insurance and have had it for most of our lives the problem is is that the rates have gone up 4 times faster than your pay rate. With the caps and the co-pays and the pre-existing conditions it is spiraling out of control. I don't know where you are getting your facts but people are losing their jobs because health care costs are out of control i.e, the automotive industry.

I think you are stereotyping here and that makes me sick you plop everyone into one big pot and through acqusations around that have little if any truth in them and no compassion for your fellow man. God forgive you.

If health care for all citizens is evil and communist...what the heck do you call the current situation that allows only rich people, or people lucky enough to work for big corporations (though not Walmart!), or people who have never been really sick/injured or had very sick children, to have adequate health care? I call it aristocracy! Let them eat cake! Your premium has doubled and you can't afford it? tough sh**. This is NOT what America is supposed to be like--it's like France before the revolution.

I just read that most of the provisions of this bill would not take effect until 2013 (after the next Presidental election). If it is so important to pass it immediately, why not make it effective next year?

This isn't happening fast enuf are you kidding! Do you understand that we are the only industrialized nation that doesn't have health care for ALL? Do you not understand that health care costs is the drag on our country's resources????????????? What's the rush you ask? O please, a better question is why has it taken so long!

So why not implement it in 2010?

Donna #3 & Jim from Tempe AZ #3.13,

Politicians fear big ticket items being passed in election years __— too much chance of being booted out. That's the biggest reason that they are trying to ram it through now.

Right you are, or should I say left, watering down this bill so the party of no can still vote no is a dumb idea!

I agree with a mandate and fines for those who do not buy coverage, but only if there is a public option for them to chose from.

How much more in taxes are you willing to pay?

Helping millions of people, and reducing suffering has a cost. Its ok that it has a cost.

Don't we want to look back on our lives and say we helped people?

Dave,

"How much more in taxes are you willing to pay"?

How much more in insurance premiums are you willing to pay? If you are

lucky to get insurance that is, and not get dumped because of pre-existing conditions.

Georgeppp, Don't even wast your breath on debating with ideologues. Every single debate involves abortion, illegals and low income as reference points. The bottom line is that democratics need to get some balls and do what this country needs.

Do people think that McCain/Palin would have a stronger grasp on these issues and put together solid policy that would stop this country from selling their soul for a buck?

It's about as bad as taxing health care premiums.

I never understood that one either.

Insurance works by spreading risk across a large groups of people. The bigger the group of people the more the risk is spread and costs go down.

Any plan would need to maximize the number of people to lower the average costs. That is true of insurance plans today as well.

I agree, insurance should be mandatory, so everyone can be brought in, and the risk shared. If the insurance is unaffordable for someone, have credits. It is a little different than auto insurance, which is mandatory as well, but you can choose not to own a car ... you cannot choose to not have health. There should be no way to opt out.

I could live with mandatory insurance if there was a way to minimize premiums but there isn't in the Baucus plan!

The Baucus plan therefore is just another way for corporations to rape the American people.

Maybe that falls under "Life"...

Can't be too happy if your kids need medical care and you can't afford it even though you have a job!

Why are you still calling it free?

It would only be free for those on medicaid. People would purchase coverage in either bill. From a co-op with or without government help depending on your situation. Or from the new exchange, which would include a public option, with or without government depending on your situation.

How is it better to pass a bill that costs 856 billion over 10 years but does not offer a public option, than to pass a bill that cost 900 billion over 10 years and does include a public option. Are we really going to fight over 5 billion a year when the insurance companies make 400 billion per year in profits? How ridiculous.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness........I must have missed the free health care part.

It's right next to the "quality education", "transportation system", and "national parks system"...

Maybe that falls under "Life"...

Funny abortions are legal in the states so I wouldn't say LIFE with a straight face and want to win that argument.. Health care is not denied to anyone. So until "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" actually means life, keep that arguement to yourself.

Stopthe maddness- Gimmee a break. The $900 billion figure with the public option is an obvious lie! If you buy it I have a famous bridge in NY to sell you.

Lie...Consider yourself censured.....you also must be a racist.........a Nazi........and a right wing kook......well I must be too. Because I know anything government runs it runs into the ground. Regulate the insurance companies if they are the problem they regulate many industries FDA etc I agree if some scum at an insurance company drops someone because they get sick something needs to be done but it does not need to cost a trillion dollars to do it. especially with the deficit we have now thanks to the stimulus plan that was full of pork and we all know it. They estimate 75% has not been spent and Bernanke said the recession is over where is the bill to not spend the other 75% if the recession isover we don't need to. As far as life goes life is not health care its making sure no one takes your life protection such as the military and local police. Don't even get started on life with the millions of Americans that are denied that right every year in this country. That's right abortion. You bought it up.

"Because I know anything government runs it runs into the ground."

Absolutely. Let's privatize the police force. And the military. And a bunch of other things. The FDIC? Forget about it. The private banks will take care of you. Get rid of SS and Medicare.

I want the fear of God to be put into the insurance companies. Everyone has to change with the times, why not them?

Didn't Bush push to privatize Social Security. Imagine what would have happened last year this time if it was!!

Why are some people willing to let people who are actually already alive and breathing suffer to protect those that aren't even a twinkle in their daddies eye yet?

No one is pro-abortion, not even those that have had one. People are however pro-choice. There is a difference.

Abortions have been performed for centuries even before doctors did it. Women just used herbs to induce them. I have no doubt that this works because I have rescheduled my own period to make it come earlier, to avoid dealing with it while on vacation for my friends wedding, using parsley. Parsley tea while strong is not strong enough to cause a miscarriage but their are other herbs that are.

I hope that argument works when you meet your maker. "I was against abortion just pro choice". Wake up pro choice is pro abortion otherwise pro choicers would not be against informing under age girls parents about what there daughters were about to do. Heaven forbid they get to talk to someone who cares and might talk them out of it.

Pro choice cannot be pro abortion because if you encourage a person to choose wisely and they choose to carry the baby to term and adopt, they have not aborted. So to say giving people a choice is the same as guaranteeing that they all "choose" to abort shows a lack of ability to understand the English language. Perhaos the rabid anti-abortionists are speaking Spanglish or something?

If you don't believe in choice, there's a lot of other countries around the world that would certainly welcome another anti-choice thinker. Ya might fit right in and help 'em out :)

And if you don't believe in choice, you shouldn't vote. that's choosing. If others shouldn't, with regard to their own bodies, then those who oppose that choice should not exercise their own choices. that would be blashemy in the eyes of the Lord who gave Adam and Eve the right to choose by having the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. (Therefore the God of Israel and Christians and Muslims must be a God who is pro choice, even though such choice led to the Original Sin.)

Just a thought. Not intended to be confrontational, but some of these comments do kind of foam at the mouth...

Dave

Not everyone believes in "meet your maker". We have freedom of religion in this country. The freedom to choose any religion you want and the freedom to choose no religion at all. This country was founded by people who were trying to escape religious prosecution. This is always trying to be re written but it is still the truth. Many people have been killed in the name of religion. Is that what God or Jesus would have wanted?Why are SOME religious people so full of anger and hate and intolerance of anyone who is not religious? If you wish to make your political decisions based on religion then that is your right as an American, but if I wish to make my political decisions based on facts and research then that is my right as an American. Abortion is a religious or personal issue not a political one.

Greedy doctors? How do you define greedy? Are you going to play God and draw a line as to what is a reasonable amount for a doctor to earn? Should better doctors make more than lousy doctors? If so, who's going to define "better" and "lousy?" And once defined, who's going to ID the doctors that fit either category?

Unless our glorious government can find answers to these questions and others, there simply won't be a workable health bill. Governments in Britain, Germany, Canada and Australia tried, and did a very effective job of driving the best doctors out of their systems (or more recently, they can't recruit enough qualified doctors in the first place). As a result, now, all of those systems have some form of rationing. From those who stay relatively healthy, you'll hear nothing but accollades about those systems. But heaven forbid they need a major procedure if they're past the age of 65. But perhaps that fits your definition of "health coverage, that's dependable?"

Be careful what you wish for.

Re: rationing ... are you aware of rationing here in America? Ever been denied a procedure or a treatment plan, by an insurance company? Ever heard of lifetime caps on health payouts? What's that supposed to mean ... if you reach that cap, you are not worthy of living any more? How is that different from a "death panel"?

Ever wonder why the citizens of UK, Canada, Australia or European countries are not clamoring for a US-style health-care system? Are they all stupid?

The citizens of those countries would love to enjoy the quality of health care we have here, and their systems are evolving accordingly, out of necessity. In Australia, it's evolved to where an entire private system exists in parallel with the public (e.g. private vs public hospitals and health care facilities/providers, not just public vs private insurance). Problem is, now, no one wants to be taken to a public hospital. The sad joke is that's where you go to die. The best service is at the private hospitals - you don't lie on a guerney for 16 hours waiting to be seen. The doctors and nurses that graduated at the top of their class go to work in the private network (where they can earn more). The ones at the bottom of their classes work in the public network. Those who can afford it go to the private facilities, those who can't are stuck with public facilities.

So, how is our government going to do any better guaranteeing quality healthcare for all (not just the "haves")?

Rob, I would disagree with you. The quality of health care *available* in the US is simply superb ... the problem is the access, and the way it is delivered. It does me no good to know of wonderful MRI machines available at the Mayo clinic if I do not have insurance, or I have reached the cap, or for whatever reason, the insurance company won't pay for it even if my doctor recommends it.

Folks from all over the world would love to get the medical technology the US has. But it comes at a steep price that few can afford. Meanwhile for the rest of us plebians, we can get fairly decent care in UK/Canada/Europe etc (if we are a citizen), or we can get uncertain levels of care in the US depending on the whims and bottom lines of an insurance company.

I hear anecdotal evcidence of folks coming across the northern border to get care. I also hear of folks crossing the border to go to the north for prescription medication.

I agree the quality of "available" health care is currently superb. However, the point is, you can't possibly guarantee access for all to a superb level of health care. Those able to afford it, will find it outside of the public system, and those who are good enough to provide the best service will go to work for those who can afford it, and spurn the public option. Unless, of course, you're advocating the creation of a Police State where people will be forced to become doctors and nurses and forced to work the public system.

You can't make a right out of anything for which there's a limited supply. You can make free speech a right. You can't make superb health care a right.

Not sure who they are bending over for the Republican'ts the Insurance companies, both I guess!

This U.S isn't a Democracy it' a Plutocracy. A Law to help average citizens get affordable Health Care will never pass . The only thing that will occur is that people will be forced to purchase Fake Insurance that won't do them any good , but will increase the profits of the Insurance companies Doctors ETC... The rich get richer and the poor get poorer

Because all of you republicans whine when he DOES do something. He made it clear that HE wants health care reform--real reform that he has spelled out, many times, only to be ridiculed. Because of THAT it ( health care reform) won't be what you want or get and it won't be what the country needs but, by all means, keep dissing the man.

Right, even his health care reform, is not reform.

Tell me one thing he has mentioned about health care reform, that made ANY sense?

The only thing Obama cares about is upholding his celebrity image.

I have never seen a president have breakfast, lunch or dinner with so many important people, then have it broadcast on national tv, in my life.

Oh, and by the way bobbie, im not a republican, but thanks for the assumption.

sorry Macaddict.

Macaddict:

President Obama didn't make himself a celebrity. Plus, you DO know the reform we are discussing has been put forward by Senator Baucus, not the president. Did you see his speech before Congress?

appology accepted.

That was probably a Republican idea!

Except that your "choice" to not have healthcare makes it more expensive for everyone else. When you go to the emergency room, we all pay.

Just apply the same logic as auto insurance and it's not so hard to swallow.

Peter

You still miss the point, not everyone carries auto, they by it, get their tags and drop. That is why most that are concerned have to by additional coverage for the uninsured and I guarantee it will be the same poor slobs that do not have or can't afford health insurance and we have to pay for them also. Not to mention they all drive around in exspensive cars have babies and do not work. We need to make them all work for damn living.

Mis Quote

Page 7 has something close. I think this is what he was trying to say.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson_7.html

I hope Jefferson rises from the dead and haunts all of you who try to twist his words. Don't presume to know what he would have said in this situation. We'll never know.

He never said it, you tell me where the quote comes from, one reference not on a site that isn't anti government, anti Obama, anti health care, just 1!

Point made!

So those without insurance and the poor must be lazy? I have a full time job and no coverage.

That's what these morons don't get, the people with out jobs have health care, it's hard working American's who need help because the insurance companies are making killer profits

Yet you can afford a computer and the internet! I'll bet you have a cell phone too. It's amazing how many people can afford these things but not health insurance. Before you claim you are using a computer at work it is no wonder that they won't buy you health insurance because instead of working you are posting to forums.

You understand it incorrectly.

"People who can't afford their premiums would be exempted from the fine."

You do understand that this new bill is from only one committee, right. You can not judge the entire administration by the actions of one committee.

Thank you for setting me straight on one count....now another question....how is it decided that you are "too" poor to get the exemption? How is the criteria set? And by whom? I think this is not a complete bill it has way too many holes in it.

What does everyone think about capping what Dr.s hospitals etc can charge? Anyone that makes over $100.00 an hour needs to be seriously capped. A hospital stay of less than 24 hours averages $8,000. Does this seem reasonable? Especially when the stay is just for observation?

Penny--your #17.3--sure--let's cap what doctors can earn. Think anyone will STAY a doctor? In my town, the AVERAGE age of all physicians is 58! Let's also cap what a hospital can charge. Of course, when you go in with chest pains, you'll be OK with only having a nurse take your blood pressure, right? You won't need an EEG (which had to be BOUGHT and maintained, and the results READ by a qualified person, who had to PAY for his training) or a CAT scan, and you'll be ok without the bed that has air inflaters, a call button, remote for the TV, fancey table for your food service. And hey--you can BRING your own silverware and dishes.

And while you are there, there can only be ONE nurse on duty, and no orderlies, so when you ring that school bell tied with string to your bed, he/she MIGHT be downstairs wheeling a new patient up. And that OXYGEN apparatus hooked to your wall--nah, you don't need that, OR the blood pressure/heart beat monitor on your finger that is connected to the nurse's station.

See, being in a hospital is ENORMOUSLY expensive, BECAUSE our hospitals have so many expenses. Are hospitals over charging for some things? You bet--I resent paying three bucks for a box of 'tissues' (made from recycled sand paper!) and $5 bucks for a tylenol. That is a hospital's way of getting a little extra out of the paying customers in order to overset the non-paying ones. And a good chunk of your hospital biils goes to help pay their malpractise insurance because the medical profession is one of the ONLY ones where an HONEST MISTAKE is punnished with DESTROYING the person who committed it.

Way more than you want to know if you look at historical data. Even a conservative estimate states that premiums have gone up 3 times faster than wages. In the mid 90's, which happens to be the last time we tried this, we as a country were paying out 13.5 of GDP now we are at 17%. With that info I would say we should be at about 20% in ten years.

Actually--S MATH--you are only being told what POLITICIANS want you to think it will cost.

I can just about GUARANTEE that the amount will be much higher. It always is.

Because the kicker here is that to REFORM health care, you have to START with Tort reform, and then you need to regulate the Health INSURANCE industries. But no politician will DO that, because they get too many $$$$'s in contributions from LAwyers (and a huge percentage of pols ARE lawyers!) and the Insurance industry.

Funny how many on the religious right forget that.

you say funny how the religious forget that.. what you mistaken is Jesus didn't order the government to FORCE you to do anything. We do out of the goodness of our hearts and so you know republicans by and large give more to charity then democrats.. look it up it is everywhere. Middle class give the most porportionately and charities work better than any government plan anywhere just look at NY's governor given $200 "for school supplies" with no strings to those that are on foodstamps and assistance and then look at the programs that actually SUPPLIED supplies to kids with full back packs.. the government program allowed "parents" to buy big screen TVs, the charity gave the students much needed backpacks with supplies, which program worked better?? The government one that was "Free money" or the charity that actually had checks and balances, was run privately and relied on donations??? The charity that didn't FORCE people to give.

Jesus did not say forcefully take from all to give to some. He said do it on your own. There IS a difference.

Jesus said that nations would be judged on how well they do this...

Rochester--AMEN. (said somewhat facetiously.) Jesus called for people to be CHARITABLE. He did NOT advocate stealing from them to pay for the poor. For all those who so heavily push that notion--how much VOLUNTEER time to you put in every month, NOT in your church? Volunteering costs you nothing but time, so being semi-poor yourself does NOT cut it as an excuse. The poorest person out there can offer to BABY sit once in a while for free for a neighbor, or to help an elderly neighbor clean her house, rake her leaves.

But it seems the 'religious left' just want the MONEY, not the CHARITY.

Sea2see - thanks. The supposedly religious would rather see fellow Americans rot before they do something for the common good.

Not mine to judge. I hope they realize their selfishness and inability to follow Jesus' teachings will not get them the free pass into eternal life they are expecting. Even if they think they are successfully fooling other people, according to their religion, God will know their selfishness and lies and deceptions, and will NOT be pleased.

So much for the "religious" Right.

Dee, Your comments back are just as Non-Caring as the ones you are responding to. The bottom line is just because I do not think the bill is an acceptable piece of legislature to be thrown on Americans, does not mean i will not donate to saint judes or help my neighbor in times of tragedy or need. It is a personal conviction. What would you say to a bill that would tax all of us with nice homes that we struggle for our whole lives, just to make sure some family that has less, have a better home, even if they basically are to lazy to work for it? Not all inclusive mind you. Or say the same about food, clothes etc.

Rick, the current system is rigged to allow corporate America to gouge people in an area where they have no choice between goods and services. In the old days, my father could take a flat of strawberries we grew to the hospital to pay for services. Today you'd see bill collectors and have your credit score ruined.

This is not about being warm and fuzzy. It's about Americans facing FACTS. The Baccus bill is a joke because it accomplishes nothing. He is owned by the insurance companies. But I believe we can take HR3400 and revise the heck out of it and come up with a viable plan.

It is obnoxious to assume that others who are less fortunate are poor because they are lazy. There are millions who do hourly work for very little, and companies keep them on short hours to avoid helping with healthcare. Many of them have two or three jobs, and don't complain about the work. But they are saddened that no matter how hard they work, they are forced into bankruptcy when a child gets sick. They don't expect handouts. They just pray for a system that makes sure they can pay their own way and have some security.

Our taxes are very low in this country, and we get what we pay for - nothing. Our nation is ranked #50 in the world for healthcare. It is pathetic. The only industrialized nation that cares too little for its people to support a proper helathcare system. Embarassing that you worry more about taxes than the well-being of Americans. Who is calling who "Non-Caring"?

I too have worked hard all my life. No one gave me anything. Ever. I would gladly add to my taxes to help cover a system that shows this country really is about the people and their security. I own a house too - and I know that if the lowest classes rise, we all benefit.

Selfish and narrow-minded and cheap is no way to go through life. It isn't Christian, and it isn't moral. Just my opinion.

DeeToo:

Then what's stopping you? Rather than do it thru taxes (which you can't control, and after it gets thru multiple government bureaucratic layers, the beneficiary is lucky to see 5 cents on the dollar), why don't you donate the same amount you're willing to pay to the charity of your choice (and if you don't know where best to put it, United Way is much more efficient than any government program)...

This is what I do. I don't need any pro-big government pawn to dictate over me and steal it from me. (And try to justify it by suggesting that non-compliance is non-Christian or amoral.) That simply suggests that you think you know better than I what I should do with my hard-earned earnings. For one thing, I vehemently disagree: I know I can put my charity dollars to more effective use than the Federal government. But, at least as importantly, why are my hard-earned dollars your business? I have no problem with you trying to convince me to contribute to charity....I'm sure Jesus would commend you. But when you're advocating for our Federal government to take it from me (as the Romans were doing to the citizens of Jerusalem, justified as necessary for their "protection")....well, you tell me what Jesus would say about that.