deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 21, 2011 15:04:39 GMT -5
It would be hard to convince me that most federal government programs are absolutely essential or operated efficiently otherwise we would not be running an endless budget deficit. It is also difficult to understand how our new health insurance reform bill based on CBO projections can cost us almost a trillion dollars over ten years and reduce the budget deficit by 143 billion over ten years. I think from what I have heard these projections are based on the creation of many service jobs in and related to the health care industry. Service jobs are equivalent to overhead in any other business. While some are important to many will sink the boat. We have get past the mind set that we can ship our manufacturing jobs out of the country and create more service jobs here. It just won't work and our endless budget problems prove it. Even if there are some suggestions in this bill that would improve our national health care like more preventative care and electronic record keeping that would actually that would reduce our national costs and improve efficiencies these things don't and shouldn't cost a trillion dollars to implement. We have to draw a line and do the things to improve our health care with out borrowing more money to do it otherwise our children will be sending interest checks to China instead of taking care of their children's health and education. We could do more for our national health care cost starting today with NO BILL and NO COST if we as individuals just were a little more conscious of our diet and exercise. Bottom (no pun intended) line is we have become fat and lazy and just want the government to come up with an easy fix regardless of the cost is to our children's future instead of just addressing the real problem. "We could do more for our national health care cost starting today with NO BILL and NO COST if we as individuals just were a little more conscious of our diet and exercise" --------------------------------------------------------------- You couldn't be more right , and not major changes either. Teach the kids , early on, read the labels on the food containers, and simple guide line #'s , what is acceptable and what is not..they don't have to become certified nutritionist to improve their lives in that important happening, what you eat if you start young enough. As adults, making decisions for them and you too, never to late to start. ALL sodas out, especially non diet, white breads. More chicken, fish, less meat, smaller quantities, grains , beans are good. Exercise? Forget The running and the weights..just walk, walk, walk. Down the road, less diabetes which Will solve so many problems, no high blood pressure, cholesterol. One will still pass, but guaranteed less serious health problems with the costs and not a big sacrifice, till the evetual happening ..the passing. Hey can't have everything can we.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Jan 23, 2011 13:53:03 GMT -5
Actually it may be more of a problem than you think. If the job can be done cheaper elsewhere because elsewhere doesn't have the same laws that we have then its really not enough to say "that's ok" and expect to get new jobs. We need to look at the laws at the root of the problem and decide if we as a nation believe they should still be on the books. Extreme example: it will be cheaper to manufacture goods in a country that has no environmental laws and no child labor laws. Then we should either decide to remove those laws from our books or not allow goods from countries that don't view things the way we do. It seems pretty silly to loose a manufacturing base here because we are protecting children and the environment to a country that exploits one or both.
So it might take 4 votes or ten, it might actually get passed if the two sides would talk to each other before presenting the bill for a vote. From what I've read they did know what was in the original bill and wanted to amend the language but that would have required another vote which wouldn't have passed after Scott Brown took office. So they went with what they had.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 23, 2011 14:51:10 GMT -5
"if the two sides would talk to each other before presenting the bill for a vote." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possibly....but thinking the next two years ? ........... Naaaaaaa
|
|