MI Rep. Rogers' Opening Statement on Health Care
U.S. Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan's 8th district asks "Why should we punish the 85% of Americans who have earned health care benefits as part of their employment, and punish the employers who give it to them, to try to cover the 15% of Americans who don't have it?"
9 Comments:
All is about to be not so well in Mr. Rogers' neighborhood, if the reaction to previous individuals' speaking their opinion on the "health care crisis" is any indication.
The representative is trying to reframe the debate which is necessary if we are going to have reform instead of just a power grab by the federal government.
The other part of this picture is those that have health care either from their employers, or because they have decided to purchase it on their own will be subsidizing those who choose the government option through the tax system. So, how is that "fairness" or "reform"? To me it is just another attempt to rob from one person and hand it to someone else.
I wonder if Rep. Rogers wonders how this financial fiasco called ObamaCare will be paid for like Democrat Congressman John Yarmuth does?
At least its an honest comment, is America the country of "screw you, I've got mine", or is it the the "Great Society". That is the choice, and I suspect that Rep Rogers' is of the school of you you are self employed or a start up (i.e. the engine of growth in America), then "screw you". At the end it doesn't matter, and I suspect that the Republicans know this, if costs medical costs are growing faster than GDP growth eventually medical costs will equal 100% of GDP (its math), I suggest that the real debate is wait 4 years when the republicans take power then we will reform heathcare, first removing Medicare (all these older Americans should pay the real cost of healthcare), and then privatizing the whole thing -- the way God intended!
... first removing Medicare (all these older Americans should pay the real cost of healthcare)
Medicare removes itself, it has trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and offers only the illusion of security.
Here's an idea. Let's not confiscate the earnings of people during their entire working lives in order to perpetuate a leftist Ponzi scheme. That way they will be able to purchase health insurance in their old age from a private insurer who operates on a sustainable basis.
We don't need anymore of your "Great Society" failures.
Because the current system is unsustainable over time.
Where in the US Constitution does it give the Federal government explicit power to take the property of one person and give that property to another?
Yes, the Federal government has the power to tax, which covers the cost of governmental operations and functions, but the Constitution as originally written did not grant the Federal Government the power to redistribute personal income or property.
I'm not an historian, but I suspect this power to redistribute property was seized by FDR. Unfortunately, once socialism/Marxism starts, there is little to stop it - it spreads like a cancer until there are no more rich left from which to redistribute property.
I believe that FDR's programs were the first box of nails in the United States' coffin. LBJ's "Great Society" programs were the second box.
Ask all these people how they like their insurance. I know Mr Rogers has enjoyed the $800,000 he received from the insurance lobby.
Michigan’s unemployment rate in September rose from 15.2 percent to 15.3 percent, according to Wednesday’s news release from the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth. The U.S. unemployment rate in September also increased by 1/10th of a percentage point over the month to reach 9.8 percent.
I guess Mr. Rogers' main point is that it is unfair for the 85% of the population that has insurance to be "punished" so that the 15% that don't have it will be able to. I think of it not so much as punishment as perhaps compassion. Here's what I think is unfair, my daughter goes to get an x-ray to determine if she has a fracture, the charge for the radiology service is $1378, at least that's what the hospital would charge someone without insurance. Our insurance company has negotiated a rate for that service of $328. So someone who can't afford to pay for health insurance is going to be charged over four times as much for the same service as someone who can afford to buy health insurance. In essence the uninsured are subsidizing (albeit to a minor degree) the insured by paying higher rates for the same services. I don't think that's fair.
Mr. Rogers states (with a straight face) that he would like for the private sector to be allowed to fix this problem for us. I wonder how he thinks we got to this point?
Post a Comment
<< Home