Please vote AGAINST Obama's "health care" bill!

Related Issues: Health Services , Universal Health Care , Health Care

Tags:

Similar Letters: Search for letters similar to this one

Monday, 07/20/2009 @ 11:02 PM

To whom it may concern:

The Obama health plan makes NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES in the delivery of health care. It simply depends on higher taxes and fewer services. It will increase unemployment as business trims employees to moderate higher costs. It will PUNISH people who seek private care. It is coercive. Hurt the many to help the few? Please NO!

Your Constituent

Robert_Kessler

Total Comments: 45

Write your own comment on this letter!

	The_Guru, on 07/22/2009 @ 11:03 AM wrote:
		The Obama healthcare plan will cause male pattern baldness, erectile disfunction, herpes outbreaks and may just cause your children and grandchildren to turn gay. Fire will fall from the sky, demons will break free from hell to run rampant on Earth and the next president of the United States will be none other than Vladimir Putin and his vice president will be Usama bin Laden. All this will come true because I say it will. Since the day a Democrat was elected to be the president of the United States our path to destruction was set in stone. The last chance we have is to hold back healthcare reform. God himself demands it. This has been a public service announcement from Ima Dumas.

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/22/2009 @ 11:31 AM wrote:
		I would be open to any specific refutation to my letter. From your response, you apparently have NO IDEA what Obama's plan is, and simply assume that if he says it, it must be so. Your letter sarcastically accuses me of simply being a doomsayer, because you haven't looked at Obama's proposals and you evidently have no understanding of economics. My letter reflects his actual proposals. Do you know where his suggested "cost savings" come from?

	The_Guru, on 07/22/2009 @ 04:04 PM wrote:
		Actually, I do. Improve current healthcare efficiency, something we've needed for at least 30 years now. Reform the market to improve competition...something that should be evident now that insurance companies have regained their top spot in profit-making now that the oil companies had to step down. Reduce long-term healthcare costs by decreasing the likelihood of needing major services by promoting preventative medicine, something not available to tens of millions of Americans...a number growing by the day. Just awful stuff he has planned for us.

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/22/2009 @ 05:49 PM wrote:
		Well, Guru, now we can have a dialogue. Obama's ideas are very nice ideas. Everyone wants efficiency. Everyone wants healthier people in order to lower healthcare need. As far as competition is concerned, I think you'd admit that conservatives are in favor of free markets. On the issues of efficiency and preventive care, you have a major stumbling block; human beings. Preventive care relies on people not doing what people do, which is; whatever they want to do. It would be nice if people ate responsibly and exercised regularly, but how are you going to mandate that? Much less design a budget that relies on that for cost projections? As far a inefficiency, yes, we can improve efficiency with software systems, but that's happening already, throughout healthcare. What is Obama going to do to make it go faster?

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/22/2009 @ 05:50 PM wrote:
		Now we come to "reforming the market". I'm ignoring your comment referring to the insurance company's profits because it's an irrelevant issue if you believe in free markets and the free enterprise system. In terms of competition, the one thing Obama's plan WON'T do is promote competition because BY DEFINITION he will undercut private insurers, because the government doesn't have to be concerned with things like profit and loss, and it he will drive private insurers out of business. One of the Republican proposals is to allow people to shop private insurers out of state, an idea that would absolutely increase competition, but the Democrats blocked it. So, what do you think?

	The_Guru, on 07/22/2009 @ 06:28 PM wrote:
		Funny thing about this free market...it hasn't delivered the best return on investment by a long, long, long shot. Too much of our "medical" marketplace is purely profit driven. Medicine in this country today could care less about curing anything. It's far more profitable to treat symptoms. The last time we had the best medical system in the world was the 1980s and it's been a long downward spiral since. Free markets are great...but free markets are giving us insurance premiums going through the roof while insurance companies are laying off people and reporting record profits. Sorry, but that isn't freedom. That's bullshit.

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/22/2009 @ 06:43 PM wrote:
		OK. Well, you're sidestepping an actual discussion and reverting to a nonsensical rant about capitalism and how terrible the "rich insurance companies" are. Insurance premiums are going up because the government is interfering in the marketplace by limiting choice, and not paying Medicare and Medicade claims. Not that a linear discussion is of interest to you.

	The_Guru, on 07/22/2009 @ 06:58 PM wrote:
		Funny... We're talking about healthcare costs and discussing the amount of profits insurance companies are making during a recession shouldn't be part of the discussion? What planet are you on? I guess on your planet insurance and healthcare don't affect one another. On this planet, in this country, they are so intertwined at the hip that you can't talk about one without talking about the other. That's why we have the worst infant mortality rate of any industrialized country. But hey, that's just talking points, not really dead babies right?

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/23/2009 @ 02:34 AM wrote:
		First of all, I'd appreciate some feedback on the original topic, specifically your claims about reducing healthcare costs through Obama's brilliantly unoriginal ideas about preventive care and increased efficiency. It seems that you are dodging my response to your first two issues. Secondly, infant mortality rates are highly controversial due to a) the way in which they're measured in other countries, b) the huge number of immigrant poor that the United States imports each year, and c) the entrenched welfare class that enjoys high obesity rates and high teen pregnancy rates. Infant mortality rates in the U.S. are not due to lousy maternity services.

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/23/2009 @ 02:40 AM wrote:
		As far as insurance industry profits are concerned, quite simply, a free market would keep costs under control but the Democrats are opposed.

	The_Guru, on 07/23/2009 @ 05:48 AM wrote:
		One of the problems these days in politics is each side wants to completely frame the debate. You're not doing that. You want feedback on the original topic, fine. How about the fact that you have literally no facts in your initial letter? All you have are broad generalizations unsupported by facts. Higer taxes and fewer services? Why not tell us specifically which services you're going to have fewer of. Also, tell us how your taxes are going to increase. Increase unemployment? Again, back that up with facts. What specifically in the legislation being considered is going to cost jobs. Punish people who seek private care? Again, how specifally? Those were a lot of assertions completely unsubstantiated. That better?

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/23/2009 @ 05:59 AM wrote:
		My letter is short and brief because it went to my representatives and they don't read long expository treatises. I was registering my viewpoint. The questions you are asking demand that I spend a huge amount of time laying out an explanation that you really aren't interested in being receptive to. I answered you accusations, and now you're demanding a dissertation on the healthcare industry. The questions you're asking indicate that really don't understand the topic beyond the claims of Obama. If you don't understand the fundamentals, e.g. why a government insurance plan will undercut private insurance, you have a lot of homework to do, and for someone who calls themselves "The Guru", you display a remarkable lack of knowledge.

	The_Guru, on 07/23/2009 @ 06:04 AM wrote:
		Also, about infant mortality rates... There's nothing controversial about infant mortality rates. There's also nothing controversial about life expectancy rates. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the US ranks 50th in the world in life expectancy. 50th. Considering we're paying something like 170% higher healthcare costs PER CAPITA, does that seem like we're getting a good return on our investment? To me, and to a large majority of Americans, it doesn't. It sounds like the market is running roughshod over consumers. It's not the first time in our nations history that this has happened and it won't be the last. It's times like this that we need government to protect us from the market that cares only about profit, not about what's best for our country.

	The_Guru, on 07/23/2009 @ 06:34 AM wrote:
		Isn't it odd that you asked me to provide feedback to the original letter and then just dismiss the feedback out of hand? I actually do understand this issue more than you could ever imagine. I've got 5 people in my immediate family who are nurses. I've both worked extensively in the industry as a computer programmer and been a major consumer in the industry. I spent most of 2 1/2 years working out of a PICU watching my son deteriorate and ultimately lose his life. During that time I saw countless families torn apart by our medical system. Experience has taught me our healthcare system is in tatters. Hopefully you never have to share in the same kind of experience, but if you do then maybe you'll have some understanding how bad it really is.

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/23/2009 @ 08:28 AM wrote:
		I actually simply asked you to stick to one subject at a time, which you seem unwilling to do. If you think our medical system is "in tatters", just wait till Obama gets done with it. Ask the nurses in your family how much they earn per year. Did your son pass away because he was refused care? You're really not making any sense.

	The_Guru, on 07/23/2009 @ 02:41 PM wrote:
		I'll try to type slowly so that you can keep up. You made the claim that I display a remarkable lack of knowledge. My rebuttal was that I know a lot more than you think. I know the healthcare industry exceptionally well from both the healthcare side and the consumer side. That was a direct response to your assertion. Sorry it was too much to expect you'd be able to keep up with that.

	The_Guru, on 07/23/2009 @ 02:47 PM wrote:
		I'll give you an example of how insurance companies have screwed up the industry. People whine about government calling the shots on what is covered versus what isn't. Today insurance companies, whose only thought is the bottom line, are making that call. My son was initially denied medication doctors said would add 2-3 years to the amount of time he had to get a lung transplant. Why? Because the medication was expensive. There was literally no reason besides that given. It took months and months of fighting (doctors and parents) against the insurance company and finally threatening legal action before they relented. That's months of damage to lungs that could have at a minimum given us more time with our son and at best given us time to get his lungs transplanted. That was lost for the sake of profit. When profit becomes more important than human life, it's time for government to step in because the free market ain't cutting it.

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/24/2009 @ 04:40 AM wrote:
		Excuse me, are you saying that you believe that government run health insurance is MORE likely to pay for outrageously expensive new drugs and treatments???????

	The_Guru, on 07/24/2009 @ 05:46 AM wrote:
		Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. When you take profit out of the equation, things like that are a bit more likely to happen. Another thing that might happen is a shifting of focus back to actual healthcare and away from unnecessary things like bodypart enhancement or giving old men boners. I think we can all agree that it's a waste of good resources "freshening" up a 60 year old vagina or giving grampa wood. Those are the priorities the free market has decided are most important.

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/24/2009 @ 06:02 AM wrote:
		OK. Respectfully, you're not making any sense at all. How are you going to "take profit out of the equation"? Are you going to FORCE drug companies to design new drugs? Are you going to FORCE doctors to deliver care without pay? I realize now that what YOU really desire is a Cuban-style economic system where the government forces people to give you what you want - AS IF such a system actually produces quality???? That's just ridiculous. And, as an aside, plastic surgery is a cash-only business paid for by the consumer, which, by the way, is the reason that it's one of the ONLY areas of health care that has seen prices DROP consistently due to competition. I realize that I have nothing to discuss with you if you actually believe that socialism, and a socialist economic system produces anything but poverty and squalor. You and I really ARE on different planets. (And I really don't mind that you've answered none of my responses to your "points").

	The_Guru, on 07/24/2009 @ 08:58 AM wrote:
		Tell you what...you haven't answered a single one of my points. I've attempted to address any even semi-valid points you've made. You've determined that our medical industry is far and away the best in the world and doesn't need to be changed. Even though evidence to the contrary exists, you've decided to ignore all that, don the "I'm an American and we do everything better than the rest of the world" robe and ignore then things we genuinely don't do better than the rest of the world. I can't argue against that kind of ignorance. You've yet to provide a single bolstering fact to your original letter. So I'll give you one more chance. From your letter, what specifics can you offer up? Start with "It simple depends on higher taxes and fewer services". Name one service there will be fewer of.

	The_Guru, on 07/24/2009 @ 09:14 AM wrote:
		Now, as to how you're going to take profits out of the equation... Insurance companies are once again making record profits while raising rates FAR faster than incomes are going up. Now if this were a reaction to higher costs as you seem to think, rates would go up but profits would remain at or near the same level. See, profits are what's left after accounting for costs. I learned that in high school accounting...might want to check into that. Why do you assume I want a cuban style system. I'd rather have a style similar to countries like Italy, France, Austria or Spain.

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/24/2009 @ 07:08 PM wrote:
		This conversation is getting a little odd. I answered your claim about savings from preventive health care measures. I answered your claim about savings from increased efficiency. I answered you claim that govt. health insurance will increase competition. I answered your claim about infant mortality. I answered your accusation that the govt. would make access to expensive treatments MORE likely. I NEVER claimed our system was perfect and didn't need change, you made that up out of thin air. You also never ASKED me what changes I might suggest.

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/24/2009 @ 07:14 PM wrote:
		Concerning insurance industry profits; I'm not going to start bashing profits because I'm not a Marxist. Profits also go up if more people by a product. Secondly, competition keeps prices lower, but the Democrats want to destroy competition by undercutting private options and limiting consumer choice. As for some other country's health system, I see you're informed enough not to cite Canada or England or Taiwan or Scandanavia, and I don't know much about Italy, Spain or Austria. I DO know that about 50,000 elderly people died in France a few summers ago of heat stroke because the hospitals aren't air conditioned. Perhaps you can enlighten me about the wonders of European health care.

	The_Guru, on 07/30/2009 @ 12:57 PM wrote:
		I agree completely with your assertion that profits go up if consumers buy more of a product. That's not what's happening. Insurance rolls are shrinking at the very same time profits are increasing. Sorry.

	The_Guru, on 07/30/2009 @ 01:00 PM wrote:
		As for European healthcare and you not knowing anything about the one's I cited...maybe you should actually do some research into all options available before deciding that they all suck. Look into them, then come back and we might be able to have intelligent discourse on the subject. As for France...what does air conditioning have to do with healthcare? Is it your position that air conditioners should be covered by healthcare, because mine currently isn't and I kinda doubt yours is either.

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/30/2009 @ 07:59 PM wrote:
		Hey Ru! I missed you while the site was down! OK. I'm not a socialist so I'm not going to get into a corporate profits bashing discussion. You think health insurance should be cheaper, so your answer is some kind of government control of profit? Am I correct?

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/30/2009 @ 08:04 PM wrote:
		I am completely open to you explaining what it is about another country's system that works so well. And let me understand, you believe that the cost of air conditioning in hospitals has nothing to do with the cost of healthcare? That leads me to believe that you have a rather truncated understanding of the health delivery system as a whole. Staph infections are rampant in British hospitals because they can't afford sufficient cleaning staff. That is a direct reflection of the failings of the public health system. You're aware of the classic picture of British people with rotting teeth? Do you think that's because they put sugar in their tea? It's because public dental care is atrocious.

	The_Guru, on 07/31/2009 @ 08:15 AM wrote:
		Ok, one at a time... I don't believe the government should be setting hard limits on how much profit a company can make. What I do believe is that the whole reason we have a government is to protect the people of this country. That doesn't just mean from foreign attack, but also protection from each other and from business entities. Business has the ability to make or break this country of ours, and in the case of the insurance industry they are breaking our healthcare markets. Poeple can say we have the best healthcare system in the world, but repeatedly they fail to provide a single shred of proof to back up that assertion.

	The_Guru, on 07/31/2009 @ 08:21 AM wrote:
		Now, back to France... All those elderly people who died weren't in hospitals. They were in their homes or their apartments. The criticism from the French parliament at the time blamed the problem in a healthcare system they believed should have somehow anticpated this problem and accounted for it. As far as I can tell, the only way that would have been possible would have been to either have doctors making house calls around the clock or for the healthcare system to have funded the purchase of air contidioning for the elderly. I'm sorry, but using these deaths to try and say there was a problem in the healthcare industry is just a red herring unless it truly is your position that healthcare should be responsible for providing all our basic needs including air conditioning in our homes.

	The_Guru, on 07/31/2009 @ 08:25 AM wrote:
		Now, to your point on staph infections in British hospitals. Apparently you're unaware that we have the exact same problem here in America. Especially drug resistant staph. In 2 1/2 years, my son managed to get 6 seperate staph infections while in the hospital, and he was in a "sterile" ICU environment. If that's the kind of healthcare you want for this country, count me out.

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/31/2009 @ 01:57 PM wrote:
		OK. I get it. You're describing a nanny state. I'm familiar with the idea. Here's my take on it. I think what you're describing is bad from a number of perspectives. Number one, there's no real way to define how such a state would work. What EXACTLY would it have the power to do? What you mentioned is this general idea that it would "protect" people. Well, that's one BIG gray area. here's the essential problem with that; when you give the government permission to interfere in the process of people's lives enough to do the things you're imagining, then you can't help but remove the legal barriers to it becoming a tyrannical oppressor. And the natural order of governments is to become oppressive unless held in check constitutionally.

	Robert_Kessler, on 07/31/2009 @ 01:59 PM wrote:
		The second big problem is that when you allow the government to interfere to the extent you imagine, you destroy the engine of progress and devolve into a bureaucratic somnambulism like the USSR and other socialist systems sucked of their life blood. Now, of course I understand that you don't believe any of that, that's why you're a liberal and I'm a conservative. As far as the French situation, I stand corrected. However, French Press characterized the deaths as due to understaffed hospitals, but this may have been due to staff vacations and such. Britain DOES have the highest rate of staph infections in Europe. I just think you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Britain, or France, or any of those countries has a better medical system than we do. I just think your facts are wrong. I'm also not clear on why you imagine that I'm claiming our system is perfect. I'm not. It's just that Obama's suggestions will make it worse.

	Escalade, on 08/02/2009 @ 03:43 PM wrote:
		FYI, everyone. Insurance companies only make about 1 penny on the dollar. Not a huge profit. Companies are allowed to make a profit. I know you agree. If more people had insurance the risk would go down and therefor the cost to each individual. Everyone buying insurance already pays approx. $1000.00 more per year to make up for those who will not or can not buy it. Illegals are a big cause. Using expensive emerg. rooms for free to treat minor illnesses.

	Robert_Kessler, on 08/02/2009 @ 07:36 PM wrote:
		That's a great point, Escalade. As you've read my posts, you know I agree on the issue of profits and illegals. The republican proposals include a) allowing people to write premiums off on their taxes, b) allowing people to pay for premiums out of their Health Savings Accounts, c) allowing people to shop for health insurance across state lines and carry it across state lines when they own it, d) limiting "pain and suffering" awards by juries, and e) allowing small businesses to group together to be eligible for group coverage plans. None of these proposals would require raising taxes, limiting choice, or turning health care decisions over to the government. And the Democrats continue to block them all.

	The_Guru, on 08/03/2009 @ 06:23 AM wrote:
		Come on... Do you honestly expect anyone just to accept that American health insurance companies are running on a 1% profit margin? With literally nothing backing that number up? Do you have a bridge for us to buy as well? Also, since you're clearly against government proctecting the citizenry (you said that creates a nanny state), let's get rid of the military. After all, our founding fathers believed that our country shouldn't have a standing military. It was because of this that they introduced the second amendment. Rememember the first part of the amendment goes "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". But hey, I guess our founding fathers were just a bunch of cheese eating libs, eh?

	Escalade, on 08/04/2009 @ 05:43 PM wrote:
		To Guru and others hoping for a National Health Insurance plan, Do you really want to add this much risk to your world? Do you believe a federal agency will take care of you better than you can take care of yourselves? Perhaps you are confusing medical insurance with health care. Health Care is between yourself and your physician. Medical Insurance is product one can purchase to reduce the risk of cost associated with medical care. Do you believe a federal agency will provide you with a better insurance plan? Why do you think many medicare participants purchase supplemental insurance? The current admin. wants to limit benefits provided to medicare recipiants. Perhaps this is their idea of population control. (more next)

	Escalade, on 08/04/2009 @ 05:56 PM wrote:
		Continued. Medicaid is insurance for the poor. It is bust. Social Security is bust as well. Do you think if another federal entity for health care coverage is created, it will be any different than the others? I do not. History repeats itself. An additional Gov't healthcare entity would not have to be competitive or innovative. If they mismanage, our congress simply raises taxes. It's not free. Your taxes go up, my taxes go up. Quality goes down. (more next)

	Escalade, on 08/04/2009 @ 06:12 PM wrote:
		Continued. Currently you can choose to buy health insurance to reduce your risk assoc. with medical costs. If you are really fortunate then your employer provides you with coverage as a full or partial benefit. You can elect to take it or not. You generally get to choose the type of coverage and cost you want to incurr. Insurance companies are constantly working on ways to be competitive in the market. To remain viable it is necessary for them to be innovative and creative and up to date with current technology. They employ thousands of individuals. Their profit margin is about 1 penny on the dollar. (more)

	Escalade, on 08/04/2009 @ 06:35 PM wrote:
		Continued. Our federal Gov't does not have to worry about profit margins. Once again, they simply pluck it from us to hang on the White House money tree. Another option--forget medical insurance. Forget a national insurance plan. Simply pay for medical coverage out of your own pocket at a price you negotiate with a provider. The point is---Medical insurance is there to reduce risk not complete liability. If the federal Gov't gets involved in your health care, your choices are limited; your cost increases, your quality diminishes. For all the reasons and more listed and presented to you by Mr. Kessler on this msg. board--please people think it through. You can make better choices for yourself than the federal Gov't can make for you. The more Gov't officials are involved in your life the more control they have over your life's decisions and well being and most importanty your right to pursue happiness.

	mattbuzaman, on 09/08/2009 @ 10:08 PM wrote:
		This 'health care reform' will further expand the heath care cartel. It is nothing more than a natural extension of the existing system and it's continued failure is due to the private/public partnership that has dominated American Health politics for 50 years.

	mattbuzaman, on 09/08/2009 @ 10:08 PM wrote:
		This 'health care reform' will further expand the heath care cartel. It is nothing more than a natural extension of the existing system and it's continued failure is due to the private/public partnership that has dominated American Health politics for 50 years.

	whiteheron, on 09/10/2009 @ 12:35 AM wrote:
		Considering the fact that there is at present no clearly defined plan put forward by Obama but only at present one plan that was quickly put together perhaps as a trial balloon in the House and many other plans under discussion in both the Senate and the House, it is perhaps a wee bit premature to be so against it. If there is a public option, people like me who cannot afford to purchase private insurance will be able to have something that provides preventative care which will reduce costs in the long run.

	Robert_Kessler, on 09/21/2009 @ 08:15 AM wrote:
		I have to compliment Escalade on his precision. His point are excellent. WHITEHERON: I would caution you against supporting a plan for which you know no details. Obama has consistently, "from the very beginning" as he likes to say, avoided giving any details about how his proposals would work. I would remind you of two things; 1) once a plan is enacted, we will NEVER get rid of it, and 2) when plans fail, it is the poor that get hit hardest, firstest.

	KathyRay42, on 09/30/2009 @ 10:58 PM wrote:
		I agree with you... I'm willing to BET it will cover Illegals too.. SAY " NO " to Healthcare !!!!!!!!!!!