TPM is reporting that Obama's ratings have reached a new low, 50%.

An August 16-19 2001 Gallup poll showed Bush's approval rating at 57% -- and he had just passed a tax cut (gave money away).  Only 7% higher than Obama's is now and Obama has faced the worse economy since the great depression, had two wars to contend with and he's battling the nation over reforming health care - very personal and effects ALL Americans.

Would be nice if these little facts would also be reported when talking about Obama's ratings.

Ruben Navarrette Jr., a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular contributor to CNN.com wrote the following:

It's not every day that you see an administration devour itself. But that's pretty much what happens when you have the Justice Department investigating the CIA. This will poison the relationship between the entities, which still have to work together to keep America safe in the war on terror.

And we're expected to believe that Holder is acting on his own, without approval from the president. Obama has said he wants to "look forward, not back" and called this "a time for reflection, not retribution."

This is not a good look -- not for Holder, not for Obama and not for the administration...

What do Americans know that the Obama Justice Department doesn't? Maybe this: If you wanted to demoralize and destroy the country's intelligence agencies, and thus put its people at risk, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more effective way of doing it than by prosecuting CIA agents who did the nation's dirty work and acted in good faith, oftentimes after consulting with lawyers about the legality of their methods.

By the way, where did those lawyers work? This is the poetic part. In the case of Steven Bradbury, Jay Bybee, and John Yoo -- the authors of the so-called "torture memos" that were the subject of so much reporting a few months ago -- they worked in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.

That would be the same Justice Department that is now investigating CIA officers for, in some cases, doing what the department's lawyers told them was legally permissible to do.

Mr Navarrette, would have you believe that the CIA is above the law, that they would never commit a crime and that they almost always consulted with the Justice Department before doing anything illegal.  Good grief! 

Mr Navarrette, would have you believe that the 'end' justifies the 'means'. 

He would also have you believe that because a few bad apples were caught in fact doing illegal actions for the Bush/Cheney administration, that other members of that same organization would rebel and purposely disobey any order given to them by the White House or Justice Department thereafter.  He would have you believe that they would want 'payback'.

"If you wanted to demoralize and destroy the country's intelligence agencies, and thus put its people at risk, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more effective way of doing it than by prosecuting CIA agents who did the nation's dirty work and acted in good faith"

If what you say is true Mr. Navarrette, then thousands of our military would currently be "demoralized" and our military would be "destroyed" over the prosecutions of some of their bad apples that committed atrocities while conducting military actions during war time.  You say that any prosecutions would:

"poison the relationship between the entities"

Are you implying that our troops would disobey Pentagon and White House orders if any of their fellow comrades were prosecuted or court marshaled for illegal actions?  You don't have much confidence in our troop's sir, if this is what you mean - nor do you have confidence in our CIA agents in doing their jobs.

Some CIA agents actually questioned the legality of the action they were taking.  In fact, a few have been reported as saying something like,

"We knew this was going to come back and bite us . . . These people weren't judges, they were just lawyers in the justice department. It was kind of like us telling ourselves it was okay to do it."

The official recalled the atmosphere at the time of the 9/11 attacks. "A colleague of mine said, 'I know this is all wrong but I keep picturing these people jumping out of windows and falling out of buildings'."

Yet they chose to go ahead and do 'the job' as ordered.  These people may be vindicated for their actions because they were ordered to do them.  The person(s) that did the ordering would hopefully then be brought to justice instead. 

It's been reported that there may have been some agents that went further than authorized - they should be punished for those war crimes - don't you think?  Otherwise sir, what would you consider a 'war crime' to be? 

If we were at war with Russia or China and these illegal actions took place against our own troops, would you still ignore them?  How would you explain that to the soldier that may someday be a POW themselves?

War Crimes may have been committed, most likely were from the reports we've been shown.  If America steps aside and ignores those crimes, how will we ever have the right to demand justice for crimes made by other nations?

It appears that even the Federal Employee Health Benefit for congressional members includes the END OF LIFE Advanced Directive option.  I wonder if YOUR Senator or Representative realizes this option is available for THEM TOO?  Does this mean we are PULLING THE PLUG ON CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS?

Your Rights

OPM requires that all FEHB Plans to provide certain information to their FEHB members. You may get information about us, our networks, providers, and facilities. OPM's FEHB website (www.opm.gov/insure) lists the specific types of information that we must make available to you. Some of the required information is listed below.

The right to an Advance Directive, living will, or other directive to your contracting medical providers with respect to your future healthcare choices.

The right to information regarding how medical treatment decisions are made by the participating medical providers or Health Net of Pennsylvania, Inc. as well a payment structure.

It appears a PRIVATE HEALTH INSURER also provides for end-of-life planning coverage that is similar to that being put forth by House Democrats.

Under the "Member Rights and Responsibilities" portion of United Healthcare's website there is an outline of "exactly what you can expect from your health care experience and how you can improve that experience, too." The list includes the following pledge:

Consumer will be allowed to "Choose an Advance Directive to designate the kind of care you wish to receive should you become unable to express your wishes."

The goal of the provision, it seems, is to offer consumers the type of medical consultation that is often needed (and frequently forgone) to make end-of-life procedures can be smoother and less painful. If it sounds similar, that's because the House provision that has been derided as creating government-administered.

Officials with United Healthcare did not immediately return request for comment.

The truth is finally seeping through the muck! Now what will Governor Palin, Sean Hannity and others say?  Will they apologize for scaring seniors into believing the government is going to kill them off -- I doubt it; but I do know they SHOULD!

Fox's website is reporting that veterans are worried about getting their college paid for, checks are running late to schools.  

With classes underway, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs telling school officials there will be a six- to eight-week delay, most students who signed up for the new bill don't know when to expect their money.

On Monday, the Veterans Affairs Web site showed 211,251 veteran applications for financial aid still pending. At this time last year, there were 43,522.

What the report doesn't remind folks is, the economy's in the deepest recession its ever been in since the Great Depression.  It's a known fact that when jobs are scarce, people rush back to school or join the military.

You suppose maybe the more than normal load of student applications may be the reason for the delay in getting them processed?  It's kind of obvious that work will slow down when the work load increases and the help doesn't.

Regional processing centers for the veterans department are hiring hundreds of new employees to ease the crunch, but that has also created problems.

"Some are overstaffing, and these new employees need more [supervision]

Well duh!?  What do you expect.  The legislation was just passed this month.  It takes months if not years to train an employee with the duties of any office, let alone the detailed applications sent in by veterans for school.

It angers me when I see headlines like this, implying there's something 'wrong' with the way government is running things.  I know they aren't perfect but Fox seems to find 'fault' in everything that is going on today since the Democratic Party has taken power -- ignoring the 'good' they've done, like increasing the amount that will be given to each and every vet that wants to go to school.

It appears to be Fox's job to report the bad side of everything - the complete opposite of what they reported during the past 8 years of the Bush administration.

Short and sweet!

This is a VIDEO that explains why we need Universal Health Care and a Public option.

We've heard nothing but the idea of tightening the rules on the financial markets, CEO pay, trade partners and on businesses since the worst recession showed its ugly teeth at the end of last year and the beginning of this year.  Perhaps it's time to loosen the strings a bit. 

Americans are starting to get a bit shakey over the new rules and seeing government hands in the pot, sort of speak.  Perhaps it's time to 'give away' something?

I'm not sure what that give back should be; but it should be something that effects millions in their everyday lives.

For example, maybe the President should announce a new task force that will investigate and produce a way to make easier, the way we report our taxes every year by using electronic means.  We all know how he loves the Internet and uses it within the White House and other departments within the government. 

Businesses and financial institutions all file reports on individuals and companies to the IRS and other respective government entities electronically now.  The government should have all relative information available to them.  You and I both know that if they wanted to, they could find out how much toilet paper we buy, let alone how much we make and spend. 

All a taxpayer should have to report is any income, investments or expenses that haven't been reported electronically.  It should be up to the government to search all the relative databases for the appropriate information to record our taxes every year -- not the tax payer.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party will most likely buck this idea as well as all the others.  It might eliminate the companies and individuals that do our taxes for us every year like accountants and software companies like Taxcut or TurboTax, etc...  Gee, we wouldn't want that would we?

PHOENIX - Sen. John McCain met with an angry crowd at a town-hall meeting about health care reform Wednesday, sometimes having to fight to talk and telling one woman who wouldn't stop yelling that she had to leave.

The Arizona senator hadn't yet opened up the meeting at McCain's central Phoenix church to questions when one audience member continuously yelled over him.

"You're going to have to stop or you're going to have to leave," McCain told the woman. When security guards approached to escort her out, he told her "Goodbye, see ya" to a round of applause.

I suspect some of you may have read this story in the news today.  Did anybody read anything about what the lady was screaming about?  The news reports I've Googled fail to tell that part of the story.  I'm just curious if she was for or against the health care reform?

Usually, if the yeller is against the health care reform or public option, the media gives the exact statements made and even displays a video of the angry person.  If this lady was 'for' reform, why didn't they do the same in this case?

Perhaps it's time for a debate.  Yes a debate, just like the ones we see during presidential campaigns.  We need to see a debate on health care.  We need to see a debate that is relatively controlled, without media intervention, without gun toting individuals and without rude interruptions by a constituent yelling his or her fears. 

Health care reform is such a huge undertaking with wide spread consequences that perhaps it would help Americans to decide what is best if we were to see our President take on an opposing Senator or House Representative during a televised live program?  I would even recommend that each member have a representative nearby that could assist each debater with the facts.  No one person can know all of the answers to such a wide spread system.

Personally, I would love to see MSNBC's Rachel Maddow as the moderator of such a debate.  She could produce her own questions or take some from the audience, it doesn't really matter.  I know from watching her show that she's ridiculed both sides about the issue in the past.

Imagine seeing the President of United States, a man that feels passionately about getting some form of health care reform passed this year, debating the issue with perhaps the leadership of the Senate minority or House minority.  Would we finally get the facts reported by both sides?  With Rachel handling the debate, I'm betting that would be the case - she always comes prepared.

The event should be held during prime time so that as many Americans as possible can watch it.

I recommend that President Obama take the initiative and challenge the Minority leadership to this debate.

Let's go Rachel - Call the President and the Senate/House Minority Leaders TODAY!  Get it done!

WASHINGTON -- Orders for durable goods rose last month by the largest amount in two years, as the manufacturing sector rebounded from the depths of the recession.

The Commerce Department said Wednesday that orders for goods expected to last at least three years increased 4.9 percent in July, the third rise in the past four months. Analysts expected a 3 percent increase. Orders for June were revised up to a 1.3 percent drop, from a 2.2 percent decline...

Orders for transportation equipment, which rose 18.4 percent...

Motor vehicle orders increased 0.9 percent...

Auto production improved last month as General Motors and Chrysler reopened many plants that were shut in May and June...

I thought I'd print this news since most in the mainstream press/media aren't doing so.  This is GREAT NEWS! 

This means companies are buying more goods to SELL!  Which means business will need help to SELL those items.  Which means employees will hire more workers or keep what they have instead of laying them off.  That is the ultimate goal.

Fox shows this news in their fine print instead of in the headlines (to their credit at least, others aren't even reporting it).  Fox however, would rather talk about why we shouldn't prosecute torturers.  Or they'd rather talk about the story of Microsoft's website business unit, replacing a black man's head with that of a white man. Real important stuff like that.

Should the Justice Department reopen -- and possibly prosecute -- cases of alleged mistreatment of terror suspects by CIA interrogators?

That is the poll that Foxnews is asking -- no surprise, the results are showing the NO's have it by a landslide. I think TPM viewers should go vote. Let's change that number for them.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The government promised $27.5 billion in stimulus funds to help fix the nation's crumbling roads and bridges as part of a broader effort to save jobs. The effort is working...sort of.

Nearly three-quarters of the funding has gone to short-term, road paving projects rather than longer-term work like repairing bridges and building new highways. Furthermore, jobs that paving projects create or save last for a shorter duration than other types of road construction....

Do you believe these people?  First everybody complains that money is being wasted and was in no way a 'stimulus' to the economy; now they claim it wasn't enough of a stimulus and more work needs to be done.

Has anybody considered the fact that even though the money was used for road paving projects -- that leaves money that would have otherwise had to have been spent by each State or city at some point?  Each State or city received a rebate, sort of speak.  Money that they themselves would have had to use to pave those roads-- wasn't needed; money that could now be used elsewhere in the state or city's budget.  Money that they could use to repair their own bridges with.

Think of it this way.  Let's say you buy a washer for $600 and get a rebate of $200 for buying it.  Couldn't you now use that $200 to save yourself money by buying a dryer as well, that normally would cost another $600, for just $400?

Have any of these people considered the simple 'fact' that if not for the stimulus that President Obama and the Democratic Party enacted back in February -- NONE of these projects would have been done and the unemployment rates would have been much higher than they currently are?

Roads and bridges have been in need of repair or replacement for many years.  Did any of these people complain to the Bush administration in the past 8 years about what wasn't being taken care of?  Somehow I doubt it.

President Obama and the Democratic Party could have voted all this money to have gone to education system, or to the health care system or to our electrical grid system; but no, they chose to spread the money (they could get) across the board, so that every system could be improved to a certain point, as well as giving or saving jobs for millions of people across the spectrum of careers. 

Do they get any credit for the way they created and implemented this plan and got it passed in less than 30 days, without the help of Republicans mind you, so that work could begin immediately?  No.  Instead, they get criticized for not doing more, or for not using the money on more specific types of work.

Give'm a break people!

Internal CIA reports released by the Obama administration on Monday suggest that former vice president Dick Cheney was right about one thing: the CIA's interrogations of suspected terrorists provided U.S. authorities with precious inside information about Al Qaeda's leadership, structure, personnel, and operations. In fact, the newly released evidence--some of which Cheney had pushed to make public--suggests that detainees provided so much detailed information, CIA personnel conducting the interrogations were under pressure to squeeze prisoners even harder in hopes of getting more.

What the newly declassified material does not convincingly demonstrate, however, is that Cheney is right when he insists that it was the agency's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques"--including sleep deprivation, stress positions, violent physical contact, and waterboarding--that produced this useful information....

The report doesn't say precisely what information he gave up before or after being harshly interrogated. So, based on this evidence, it is impossible to tell whether waterboarding and other brutal methods really were more effective than nonviolent techniques in extracting credible, useful information from Abu Zubaydah or other detainees.

There they go again, trying to say that if torture works it's legal.

The media is once again swallowing Dick Cheney's premise that torture PRODUCED information, or MAY HAVE.  They are swallowing the bait AGAIN.

The question isn't whether or not torturing gets information media, the question is -- did our government commit War Crimes subjecting those prisoners with torture?  We are a nation of laws, not a dictatorship where our president makes his/her own laws, nor are we a nation that makes excuses for what we do that is wrong.  We follow the law and we own up to our errors.

War Crimes were committed.  Americans must admit to it or more will be done in the future and our soldiers will be the ones to suffer, even more than normally, as retribution for OUR CRIMES.

I know I've said most of this in the past but it bares repeating:

As usual conservatives are spewing distortions of the truth about the health care reform that is being discussed by Congress; it's time for a bit of truth.

Whether you want a public option or not to be available for competition, it is not true that the private sector will be eliminated leaving the government as the, "only game in the country".  The proof is in the pudding.  Medicare, a government controlled (single payer) system has been in existence for almost 45 years now.  Guess what, private insurance is still thriving.  Some believe if it were not for Medicare being around, our health care costs would be even worse than they are today.
 
I for one believe expanding the Medicare rules to include those unable to pay for more costly private care, but may be able to donate a small percentage of their income, should be allowed into the Medicare system.  These folks tend to be younger therefore less health care is needed, bringing more money into the system.
  It could help Medicare, which is currently going bankrupt, if the fees for those members using it were to be increased, with the stipulation that more is covered, such as deductibles.  Currently seniors, if they can afford it, pay an additional $1500 per year for supplemental insurance to cover what Medicare won't. Instead of giving more profits to private insurers, put that money into the Medicare system where it is needed.
  They should also get rid of the confusing rule for seniors, where the government will pay only 80% of what they consider a procedure should cost.  I would also get rid of the Part A and B division of care.  Medicare should be treated just like private sector policies are.  It should be one plan that pays 80-90% of all health care that is covered.

As for the "end of life" option where government pays for you to talk to your doctor about a living will (death panels?) and the so-called new death book for veterans, they too are distortions.  What they fail to tell Americans is that the same option was offered by the Republican controlled Congress and the book was first created by the Bush administration.; It contains the same advance-care planning required of all health care organizations under federal law, it has been in use since 1997.

Get the facts folks before swallowing these gun toting conservative lies.

A $300 million cash-for-clunkers-type federal program to boost sales of energy-efficient home appliances provides a glimmer of hope for beleaguered makers of washing machines and dishwashers, but it's probably not enough to lift companies such as Whirlpool (WHR) and Electrolux out of the worst down cycle in the sector's history.

Beginning late this fall, the program authorizes rebates of $50 to $200 for purchases of high-efficiency household appliances. The money is part of the broader economic stimulus bill passed earlier this year. Program details will vary by state, and the Energy Dept. has set a deadline of Oct. 15 for states to file formal applications. The Energy Dept. expects the bulk of the $300 million to be awarded by the end of November. (Unlike the clunkers auto program, consumers won't have to trade in their old appliances.)

I'm thinking somebody read my previous posts about offering rebates or coupons for appliances as a way to get consumers buying again.  It's also, like getting rid of thousands of gas guzzlers, a great way to help our environment getting rid of energy sucking appliances.

So far in less than a year, I've missed out on two chances of getting a discount or rebate.  I bought a new furnace, air conditioner and water heater back in Sept of 2008, which I found out I could have gotten $1500 off the sticker price earlier this year, and I bought a new refrigerator back in July.  Shucks!!!

Too bad they won't offer to pay another rebate for the old appliance as well.

Health Care Reform: What are the goals?

Lower the cost of health insurance for those already paying for it.

Get affordable insurance available for those that don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid.

Cover those that cannot afford health insurance.

Provide children and seniors with care.

Provide preventive care for all.

Provide prescription drug coverage/discounts for those that cannot afford it

Help seniors feel safe in their retirement years.

Insure that patients can choose and keep their own doctors.

Insure that patients and doctors decide on the care that is given and not bureaucrats or government.

Stop any and all health care abuse and fraud (including by the medical and insurance professionals)

Allow patients to keep their coverage if they lose their jobs.

Force insurance companies to provide insurance regardless of previous health conditions.

Reward either or all the patients, doctors, nurses, hospitals and insurance agencies for good policies.

 

I'm sure this has probably been discussed in the past; but perhaps since Medicare needs to be 'fixed' soon or go bankrupt in 10 years; why not add more patients to it and merge other systems with it, thereby adding more customers paying into it and getting rid of redundancy. 

Instead of fixing Medicare and Medicaid, creating SCHIPP for children and providing a separate prescription drug plan for seniors, and a supplemental program for getting the ill back to work, why not merge them all into one government ran plan, instead of separate ones like we have them now?

Right now Medicare, Medicaid, the SCHIPP program, the supplemental program for disabled and the prescription drug plans are all ran by their own individual departments.  Departments that all require individual CEO, directors, assistant directors, board members, administrative and support staff, buildings, maintenance for those buildings, custodial staff and cleaning support, etc...  Instead of spending billions of taxpayer money every year on all these different departments, why not consolidate them all?  Yes it would require the loss of jobs; but isn't that what the Republicans want, less government?

Democrats, and for the most part, Republicans all agree that Medicare should be repaired, not removed or stopped, so that wouldn't be an issue when negotiating this idea.

Remember the Democratic Party's idea of merging several departments together during the presidency of George W Bush into a department called the Homeland Defense Department?  Why can't that be done with our current government ran health care systems?

While doing this merging, add a more diverse group of customers to the bucket, thereby adding more money into the whole system from those new folks joining up.  Allow the option to negotiate for cheaper drugs from other nations.  Mandate that every adult pays a portion of their health care from that new department (Public Health Care...PHC).    Even if that amount is only 1% of their income, it's more money coming into the system.

Eliminating SCHIPP, disability Medicaid and income based MEDICAID and adding those patients (money) to PHC would likely reinforce the system because they are younger and less likely to have severe health issues.  The bulk of the new patients would not even have to use the system, freeing up those premiums to help pay for the seniors health care (saving Medicare).

Those citizens that can't afford insurance but make too much to qualify for Medicaid or Medicare could also be included in the bucket.  They could be asked to pay a little more than the rest (but not as much as a policy would cost today from the insurance market).  It could be based on their income.  This too, would likely involve folks that are younger and less likely to require a lot of health care, saving the government money, but also bringing in more money (premiums) into the system for seniors and those that really need it like the disabled.

The PHC plan sould provide a set of preventive health care screening for all of its customers per year.  Everybody would be given blood work, urinalysis, chest xrays, pap/breast and prostate testing, ear, nose and throat screenings, vaccinations, etc...  The basic screens to make sure they continue to be healthy, saving taxpayers money in the long run-- by catching any diseases early.

The prescription drug plan would also be extended to those same patients; saving them all money.  That plan could be based on Wal-Mart's plan, whatever that is, that charges customers only $4 per prescription. 

This new PHC plan should also remove the 80% rule.  Medicare currently only pays 80% of what 'they think' (a group of bureaucrats) the service or procedure should costs.  That rule should be removed.  It's confusing and eliminates a lot of doctors from taking patients with Medicare or Medicaid.  If the new PHC plan only wants to cover 80% of care, then so be it; but no more of this confusing coverage.  It's unfair to the medical profession and it's unfair to seniors trying to understand it all and cover the difference by buying additional private coverage, which is just another windfall for the Insurance industry.  Removing that rule would also allow patients to see any doctor they want to, instead of just those accepting the Medicare rule.

If you asked the seniors that have to pay for additional health supplemental because of that 80% rule won't cover enough of the bill, if they would rather just pay more on their monthly premiums into PHP(Medicare), they'd be happy to do so.  Most seniors that can afford it are paying an additional $1200-2000 more a year for that additional coverage.

As for the private insurance industry and employers that provide insurance to their employees, everything would stay about the same, except to force them to provide specific preventive health care screenings like the PHP plan, pay for vaccinations that are available like the flu shot, to accept anybody regardless of previous health conditions and to accept customers from across state lines.  They should also allow the consumer the opportunity to keep their plans even if they lose their jobs.  They should also be allowed to choose their own doctors.

Private industry can choose to cover other procedures or not; competition will keep them in line with today's health needs.

If the customer can pay for a plan, they must be required to do so, just as we are required to pay for liability coverage on our cars.  This rule would provide more customers (money) into the health care industry, helping to pay for those that fall through the craps (ex: the homeless).  It should also make the insurance industry happy.

Health insurance costs will drop over time because the preventive care, as mentioned before with the PHC plan, would catch diseases early --preventing longer and more expensive care down the road.

Reward should be given to patients, doctors, nurses, clinics, hospitals and insurance companies for good policies either with tax deductions, reduced premiums or additional coverage, like the car insurance policies do now.

All of the above should please most involved.  Seniors, parents with children will know that they will be covered, no matter what.  Citizens will get access to affordable coverage as well. 

Employers will see reduced costs in the long run.  They will also find they cannot just stop offering plans, forcing employees to go to the PHP, because those employees will most likely be making too much money to even qualify.  Employees will find better work and insurance plans elsewhere if their current employment should choose to walk away from providing insurance. 

Citizens that are for a public health plan get their way --- PHP (replaces Medicare, Medicaid, Dis Ins and SCHIPP).

Citizens against creating a NEW public health plan get their way.  No new plan is created.  What we already have is just revamped removing redundancy.

The Republican Party and the Democratic Party will be please that a lot of waste in government will be eliminated by merging Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIPP and disability insurance departments and by eliminating the 80% rule.

The Democratic Party and President Barack Obama will be happy because they will have gotten universal health care for all without raising the deficit by any great amount.

I'll be the first to admit that I do not know what cost savings this plan would bring; but to insure everybody, make everybody happy - isn't it worth looking into?

Where's the Beef GOP?

The Republican Party claim they too want health care reform and that they too have a plan.  Back on June 17th they announced that plan.

Minority Leader John Boehner, left, said they would take the current system and improve it by reforming Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.  Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said "we believe we can come up with a plan where every person in the uninsured has access to insurance."

The four-page Republican health care outline lays out a plan that would allow states, associations and small businesses to pool together to offer health insurance. It would give tax credits to low and modest income Americans to help them buy health insurance. It would also let dependents under twenty-five stay on their parent's health insurance.

The plan also stipulates some of the following:

To lower the costs of health care, the Republican plan includes:

Tax credits

Creates incentives to save now for future and long-term health care needs by

improving health savings accounts and flexible spending arrangements as well as

creating new tax benefits to offset the cost of long-term care premiums.

 

Sounds like they hope your buy your own nursing home care as well.  You can't afford normal health care yet they are asking that you pay for your own end of life care?

 

Provides flexibility to Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries by allowing them to apply

the value of their benefit to a health plan that better meets their needs than the onesize-

fits-all government program.

 

Isn't that what you would call in the education environment - a voucher?  Are they giving you a voucher to go buy your own plan instead of relying on Medicaid and SCHIP?  Are they saving 'you' money here?

Would somebody tell me how this plan helps to LOWER health care costs for the consumers/patients?  Can anybody show me how it 'reforms' the insurance and medical profession?  This plan is reforming the patient, not the doctors or insurance bureaucrats'. 

They want 'you' to improve yourself, you to pay for your own families health care-- even if you can't afford it.

This plan sounds more like a typical Republican giveaway to the wealthiest among us.  If you have insurance, you'll get yet another tax deduction.  If you can 'prove' you are taking 'care' of yourself with weight management, by quitting smoking and/or drinking and you are managing your diabetes, you'll get a tax credit.  If you take your ailing mom, dad, grandma and grandpa into your home instead of placing them into a nice medically safe environment like a nursing home or assisted living arrangement, you'll get another tax deduction.

Creates incentives to save now for future and long-term health care needs by

improving health savings accounts and flexible spending arrangements as well as

creating new tax benefits to offset the cost of long-term care premiums.

 

Encourages home care and independence for patients rather than forcing individuals

into institutionalized settings.

Gives financial help to caregivers who provide in-home care for a loved one

 

It also appears that they are planning on creating a committee to influence the decisions that you and your doctor make about your health care.  The following statement implies that doctors will no longer need to provide 'necessary' medical testing because the Republican Party will have written legislation to stop patients from being able to sue those doctors and nurses that don't do their jobs correctly.

Implements comprehensive medical liability reform that will reduce costly,

unnecessary defensive medicine practiced by doctors trying to protect themselves

from overzealous trial lawyers.

 

Rewards high-quality care, instead of encouraging health care providers to order more

and unnecessary services.

Who decides what is necessary?

The plan, like the Democratic Party's plan, will help patients decide what the best way to manage their health care is, from day you are born to the day you are die.  Will they too provide access to living will information as well (Death Panels)?  It also appears to allow Medicare and Medicaid to stop what 'they' call wasted services.  Who decides what is waste and abuse; a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk that has never even met you?

Improve Americans' lives through effective prevention, wellness, and disease

management programs, while developing new treatments and cures for life threatening

diseases.

Provides Medicare and Medicaid with additional authority and resources to stop

waste, fraud, and abuse 

 All these tax incentives imply that you make enough money to buy an insurance policy to begin with and do nothing about the rising costs of health care.

 Where is their plan to cut the cost of health care?  Read between the lines folks.  They aren't cutting 'our' costs for health care, nor are they reforming the medical and health insurance industry of 'their' abuse and fraud.  They are actually increasing our costs and helping the medical and insurance industry by lowering costs for coverage of a patient by requiring less of the medical profession. 

They want you to pay for all your health care (giving you a modest tax deduction).  They want you to pay for your entire parent's end of life care and your own end of life care with some provided wellness, and disease management programs (Bureaucrat decision makers and death panels?).  They want to cut Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIPP costs by cutting services to children, seniors and the disabled and forcing you to pay for those services yourself.

 

They are simply cutting the costs to the medical and insurance industry by stopping UNECESSARY medical procedures, getting less nursing home patients to pay for and offering parents the ability to pay for a big chunk of their child's health care (pay for your kids insurance till they are 25? - your premiums will go up, not down), even if they can't afford it -- by offering you a 'voucher'.

The Republican Party wants to reform YOU and ME (even more so, than the Democratic Party does) --- not the insurance or medical profession.

Where is the beef?  In what way are we, the consumer, saving money?  Congress tells us that unless reform is done, our cost for health insurance will cost us half of our income within 10 years.   In what way will our costs for health insurance decrease in the next ten to fifteen years with what we're being offered by members in Congress?

Republicans have always pushed 'competition' as being the best solution for lowering costs for things like Social Security, Medicare and prescription drug plans.  Why are they now refusing to provide that same sort of competition within the health insurance industry?