White House:

A staggering new report indicates that under the status quo, around half of all Americans under 65 will lose their health coverage at some point in the next ten years.

Thankfully one of these plans below by the Governor of Illinois never went through, however, this is just an example of what President Obama and the Democratic Party are saying to the American people about how easily it could be you or I that loses our health care or the cost of our plans could go so high that we find ourselves unable to afford insurance.

Retirees will have to start paying Dental premiums:

Aug 25, 2009:  About 76,000 retirees from state government jobs don't have to pay premiums for the dental insurance they have. But Quinn wants them to pay the same amount as current state workers.

State Employees Could See 245% Increase in Monthly Insurance Costs

April 21, 2009:  The Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, which produces reports for the General Assembly, is projecting that a state employee who participates in the state's preferred provider health insurance program would see a 245 percent increase in their monthly insurance costs.

Currently, a state worker in that health plan pays about $89 per month. That amount would jump to $309 per month on July 1 if the governor's budget proposal is adopted without changes, the report notes.

The governor's proposal would hit certain retirees even harder.

For a retiree who is not yet old enough to qualify for Medicare, premiums would rise from $12.98 per month to an average of about $582 per month.

Many of the retirees who are not old enough to qualify for Medicare include prison guards, state troopers and state transportation workers.

A spokesman for the state's largest employee union called the increases "unimaginable."

If you think your insurance is always going to 'be there' think again.  It may be offered, but unless you are very wealthy, you may end up not being able to afford it someday.  We need to stop the cost of health care from going sky high.

Well, well, well, the truth shall set us free they say.

On Wednesday night, Rep. Joe Wilson [R, SC-2], shouted "You lie!" at President Obama when he said that the healthcare bill would not cover illegal immigrants. "The supporters of the government takeover of healthcare and liberals who want to give healthcare to illegals are using my opposition as an excuse to distract from the critical questions being raised about this poorly conceived plan," Wilson said the next day in a campaign fundraising video.

However, in 2003, Wilson voted to provide federal funds for illegal immigrants' healthcare. The vote came on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which contained Sec. 1011a bipartisan bill in Congress to make it permanent. authorizing $250,000 annually between 2003 and 2008 for government reimbursements to hospitals who provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants. The program has been extended through 2009 and there is currently

Hospitals have a legal obligation to treat everyone who comes in seeking care, regardless of citizenship status, insurance or other characteristics.

Everyone hates hypocrites and Rep. Joe Wilson and other members of his GOP Party are just that. 

99% of them voted for that Medicare Presription Drug Act in 2003 giving illegal immigrants HEALTHCARE. 

Now they are standing up against any such care in any Democratic Party plan?  What a bunch of hypocrites.

General Motors is hoping to jump-start its revival by guaranteeing car buyers that if they don't like their new Chevrolet, GMAC, Buick or Cadillac, they have 60 days to bring it back for a full refund.

The marketing effort that starts Monday is called "May the Best Car Win" and aims to win back customers leery of GM since it filed for bankruptcy protection earlier this year. The nation's largest automaker needs to improve sales so it can repay billions in government loans and stay in business.

New GM Chairman Edward Whitacre Jr. will appear in the initial burst of ads, telling viewers in his folksy, Texas accent that he too had doubts about the company when he joined this summer. Now, he likes the cars he's seen, and consumers should too. If they don't, they can have their money back.

Running through Nov. 30, General Motors Co. will allow buyers of new GM vehicles to return them, no questions asked, for a full refund within 31 to 60 days.

The vehicles must not have more than 4,000 miles on them and the drivers must be current on their payments.

This is a pretty good deal I think, however, I worry about those that will buy one, just to play around in, then return it.

I think GM and any other car dealer (I've recommended this several years ago to them all - in writing) should offer something like a, "Save for your Kid's First Car" plan.  It could be treated something like the plan they have for saving for their kid's future college education.

Allow the customer to create a tax free savings plan that after a specific amount of time, your kid's first car will already be paid for by the time they are 16.  They could even lock in the price of any future car.  For example, if a Malibu cost $13,000 today, that's the price you will pay the day your kid buys it.  Everything would be centered around the age of the child and when you started the plan of course.

Number one, it locks the customer into having to buy from that dealer and secondly, it put's money into the dealer's bank every week or month that will accumulate interest and more than pay for any new car say 6-10 years down the road. 

Of course, there would have to be a way for the customer to get his original payments back, minus any administration fees, if they should choose not to buy from that car dealer by a certain year, or if the dealer closes up shop in the future. 

The dealer still makes a profit because of the interest that was accumulated over those years that the customer paid in.

July 16, 2009: The Senate health, education, labor, and pensions committee passed its health care bill with 13 Democrats voting for and all 10 Republicans voting against.  While the vote was not bipartisan, the Bill was more partisan then bipartisan - leaning toward Republican issues.

788 amendments were filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. Only 197 amendments were passed in the end--36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.

Yet many of the GOP amendments on this incomplete list do seem pretty substantive. For example, one amendment offered by Oklahoma's Tom Coburn requires members of Congress and their staff to enroll in the government-run health insurance program. Another, sponsored by Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, would "establish an auto advisory council to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Treasury regarding how best to represent the taxpayers of the United States as the majority owner of General Motors." An amendment written by North Carolina's Richard Burr requires that "a private plan would be exempt from any federal or state requirement related to quality improvement and reporting if the community health insurance option is not subject to the specific requirement."

The list goes on. An amendment from Mike Enzi of Wyoming promises "to protect pro-patient plans and prevent rationing." Another of his would "prohibit the government run plan from limiting access to end of life care." An amendment from New Hampshire's Judd Gregg "requires all savings associated with follow-on biologics to go towards deficit reduction."

Today the Republican leadership claims none of their amendments have been looked at, let alone included in any final bill.  Bullwicky!  Talk about "You Lie"!

"The thing that's killing me is that those very members on the Republican side have over the course of the last five months offered some 800 amendments and individual pieces of legislation to the -- to the president and to (House Speaker) Nancy (Pelosi) and Harry Reid, to say, 'Hey, this is our contribution.' Every last piece has been rejected," said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele."

I want you to ask for a censure or recommend punishment of John Shimkus of Illinois for walking out during a Presidential speech to the American people and to Congress.

Shimkus failed to do his duty by attending and listening to what the President of United States had to say.

Just as any employee would be fired or at the very least punished in some way if they were to walk out of a meeting with the BOG's, simply because he/she didn't like what he was hearing, John Shimkus, should not be allowed to get away with NOT DOING HIS JOB (representing his constituents) and attending the whole event.

Does it seem odd to anybody else that just at the right moment when (R) Rep. Joe Wilson yelled the words, "You lie", a camera person has got his or her sights on Wilson last night during the Presidents health care reform speech?

I don't know the way things are set up over there but I find it hard to believe that each and every representative, senator and cabinet member has a camera pointed in their direction through out the whole one hour speech.  Yet somebody (AFP) was able to catch Rep. Wilson yelling those words out.

Guess what the story has been about all day?  Rep. Joe Wilson's words and apology to President Obama and his reasoning for blurting out those words last night ---not--- about Obama's speech and his health care plan.

It sort of reminds me of the last press conference Obama had when the reporter from Chicago asked him a question about the white cop arresting his black professor friend.  The press conference was null and void afterwords because the media did it's usual thing and went for the 'scandal type' story.

Call it one of my conspiracy evenings but I wonder if Rep. Wilson wasn't 'planted' or 'asked' to yell this comment last night.  We all know Congress gets to read the president's speech before he makes it, at least the leadership does, because they have to produce a rebuttal for the Republican side afterwards.  What if they remembered how the last press conference was ruined by the Chicago reporters question and Obama's answer and decided, hey, we should create a distraction tonight as well.

With this bunch of Republicans, anything is possible.

In my local paper today they printed a story from the Associated Press which sounded almost as though it were written for a Fox News reporter to say. 

The paper included "Fact Check" comments.  They mentioned the President's comments about those of you that already have health insurance through Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance being able keep it if you like it.  The paper pointed out that reality is, your work can change things or even drop their offer of health insurance if they wanted to. 

Well duh!?  Can't they do that right now?  Can't they suddenly decide it's too expensive and drop any coverage at all, tomorrow? Haven't they done so in the past where you work?  Haven't the plans and cost per employees changed over the years at your work place?  If you have the very same plan today, the very same doctor today and are paying the very same amount that you paid some 20 years ago - then you a very lucky unusual person.  Pass that insurance company's name onto the rest of us will ya?

The president said this,

If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. 

For the millions who lack insurance _ or have trouble getting it _ Obama's plan would set up a new marketplace in which consumers could pool together. Government subsidies would be available to make premiums more affordable. But individuals would be required to get coverage, and employers would have to contribute.

As I've said previously, I would much rather have a user fee than forcing individuals or businesses to buy health insurance they may never use or rarely use; but at least this forces a shared burden among all of us and not just the few.

Keep in mind folks, competition among the workforce keeps large companies currently paying for part of your health insurance - it's a benefit from them to draw you to their place of business to work and to keep you working for them.  Isn't competition within the work force what Republican's demand to have?

The president says that,

An additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.  It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance.  No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance.  In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

Isn't competition within the marketplace what Republican's demand to have?

Now, going back to my title of this post; where is the "Fact Checking" of the Republican's health care plan?

Louisiana Rep. Charles Boustany says,

Federal spending is soaring. We're piling huge debt on our children. And families and small businesses are struggling through a jobless recovery, with more than 2.4 million private-sector jobs lost since February.

So where is the FACT CHECK that it was under a Republican administration over the past 8 years that millions of jobs were lost and our nation was put into the longest and worst recession since the Great Depression starting in 2007?

He also said,

Replacing your family's current health care with government-run health care is not the answer.

Where is it said that your family's current health care will be replaced by government care?  Where?

He also said,

It cuts Medicare by $500 billion.

The president said there would be no cuts in health care provided to those on Medicare, none.  Besides, since when did Republicans care about Medicare?

Republicans and conservatives want 'the market' to control our health care and the costs of premiums, yet they claim they want reform?  Exactly where would this reform come from?  YOU and ME, that's who; Change your ways or pay more for premiums.  They want the market to tell you what is a healthy choice and what is not - just as they do now.

We agree much needs to be done to lower the cost of health care for all Americans.

Insurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention - something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they'd simply made healthier choices earlier in life.

Who do they think has been running our health care system and getting us where we are today with out of control health care costs; the Democratic Party? Heck no, it's the private insurers and medical providers.

Wake up folks - it's time for a complete overhaul of our health insurance.  As the president said,

No one should go broke because they get sick.

And just as the late Senator Ted Kennedy said,

"While I will not see the victory, I was able to look forward and know that we will -- yes, we will -- fulfill the promise of health care in America as a right and not a privilege

The Pentagon recently reported back in 2007 that it spends roughly $8.4 billion per month waging the war in Iraq, while the additional cost of our engagement in Afghanistan brings the monthly total to a staggering $10 billion. Since 2001, Congress has spent more than $500 billion on specific appropriations for Iraq only.  That was back in 2007.

As for spending 900 billion dollars over 10 years, what's more important to you, giving profits to health insurers and medical providers, fighting a war that wasn't justified, giving the wealthiest among us a tax break or providing health care for all Americans?

I vote for health care for all.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. - A decision by the University of Wyoming to name a new center for international students for former Vice President Dick Cheney is drawing criticism from people who say Cheney's support for the Iraq war and harsh interrogation techniques should disqualify him from the distinction.

The former vice president and wife Lynne are expected to attend Thursday's dedication of the new Cheney International Center on the Laramie campus.

I sincerely hope that thousands show up to protest this dedication.  This man deserves to be in jail --- not given praise. 

If you live nearby or can get a charter bus to travel there on Thursday --- please please please DO SO!

The school board of my city and other surrounding schools swallowed the right winged propaganda that the President of United States was trying to indoctrinate our kids conspiracy theory and refused to allow students access to the President's speech about getting a good education.

Several conservative media figures said President Obama would use the speech to push an ideological agenda or indoctrinate children.  Good grief!  Will you people listen to yourselves for once?

The education board are supposed to educated people making these decisions.  Did they do their own research on what the President wanted to say yesterday?  No, they just listened to Fox news and their right winged conservative extremist friends and decided to denied our students the right to hear from THEIR president and to hear his inspirational speech during what is suppose to be during the time they are being 'educated'.

Think about this folks, seriously.  If the president had done what these nut cases were accusing him of wanting to do, millions of parents and family members, including me, would have blown a gasket.  We would have all abandoned this administration within a heartbeat.  His administration would be null and void today if it had happened.  Do you seriously believe the man and his administration wanted that to happen?  Seriously?

Get a grip people.  Get your facts before swallowing everything you read and see on television.

This reaction by school boards across America is just showing politicians once again that they can 'control' the nation's actions with fear tactics.  And it sure as heck is proving that the Republican Party is full of extremists that will do anything in their power, including depriving children of an inspirational words that they may someday use - just John F Kennedy's words did for our past generations:

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"

Just as conservative columnist Kathleen Parker said in today's paper:

Just when you thought things couldn't get any stupider, schools across the nation decided to censor President Obama's speech urging kids to work hard because "being successful is hard."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, was the terribly scary bit of propaganda that prompted certain Americans to cry "socialism" and "indoctrination," and force some schools to opt out of hearing the president's message Tuesday. When and how did we become so ridiculous?...

But overall, the president's message was a conservative hymn, a GOP platform for kiddies: Take personal responsibility, don't blame others for your failures, listen to your parents and your teachers, work hard.

"Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future."

The only thing missing from this orgy of conservative orthodoxy was ... a Republican president. And that is the lesson of the day.

I agree 100% with most of what Parker says except for the part about there missing a Republican president.  After these conservative's past actions and after the previous 8 years of actions -- you should see by now -- why we don't need any Republican leadership.

I recently wrote a post talking about Senator Baucus's mandated Health Insurance plans.  It has occurred to me since then that perhaps another way to get back at least a portion of the money spent on the uninsured is to require that they pay a USER FEE on any amount of medical bills they incur.

Lets say an uninsured person goes into the hospital and ends up racking up a bill worth $100,000.  If that person or family has fallen between that crack that people are talking about today, whereas they make too much to qualify for Medicaid and they don't make enough to buy their own health insurance, then why don't we require those people to pay a USER FEE of say 20% of the total bill using a monthly payment plan?

While they may not be paying all of the bill, they are having to fork out some money or they will go to jail for not doing so.  There are many insurance companies that pay only 80% of the bill requiring even those paying customers to pay the other 20%.  Well, perhaps the government should do the same.  Perhaps they should charge these UNINSURED 20% of any bill, whether that be a $100 bill or a $200,000 bill - perhaps up to a certain point?

The government could allow for a payment plan to be created according to their income.  At least the medical profession would be getting a portion of those bills back, and in the long run saving those of us that carry health insurance -- some money.

And unlike Senator Baucus's plan to mandate everybody pay for health insurance they may never use and possibly cannot afford.  At least this user fee gets part of the money DUE medical providers back. 

To insure that the money is paid, the government could go as far as garnisheeing that person's wages unless the person or family can prove they qualify for governmental assistance financially.

Keep in mind that if a person or family is found to be able to pay the medical bill financially, they should be forced to do so or their wages should be garnished as well.

The latest proposal: a bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker.

Baucus, meeting with a small group of fellow senators, promoted a plan that would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans at a cost to taxpayers of under $900 billion over 10 years.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in most states, Baucus would a require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to get insurance would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level - about $66,000 for a family of four - would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

I'm afraid I would have to see how they would help those that cannot afford health insurance to see if I would support this one. 

Who would decide just how much you should be covered for?

While I agree that we are now mandated to buy car insurance, that is a luxury in many cases.  Millions could ride a train or bus to work or carpool and save having to buy car insurance, while others are forced to buy insurance if they need transportation to work or school. 

Forcing someone to buy health insurance, especially at private insurance 'chosen' rates - is very risky and costly.  It's also unfair since they will have no other OPTION but to do so.

Besides that, who will be the ones enforcing this new law; work, the State you live in, the county you live in or district you live in? Will the government be controlling how much the private industry can charge and what they have to cover at minimum?

Where would this fine money go?  Who gets it?  Will it go to the entity that enforces the law or the Federal government?

Details please.