Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, October 04, 2007
John Boehner :: Townhall.com Columnist
Looming Entitlement Tsunami Threatens America's Health Care Freedom
by John Boehner
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Every day millions of Americans reap the benefits of having the best health system in the world. We have the most skilled specialists, doctors, nurses, and medical technicians available to us, usually within a short distance. Americans are living longer, healthier lives as a result of the sophisticated, patient-focused, competition-based health system that has emerged in our country since the advent of medical science and technology. Yet with all of its success, there are clear threats to the system’s long term financial sustainability and the health care freedom Americans enjoy. The federal government faces a tsunami of debt and deficit caused by the explosion of promised benefits that—if left unchecked—will swallow up all other government spending. The time for dealing with these threats is upon us. The solutions need to start now.

The Medicare ‘Entitlement’

A quarter of health spending in the United States, about $420 billion this year, is by the Medicare program established by the government in 1965 to ensure people 65 years old and older have access to health care. Medicare is an entitlement covering 44 million older Americans (or 14 percent of all Americans) and pays hospitals, doctors, suppliers, drug plans, and a variety of other providers. Medicare is financed by a mix of premium payments by beneficiaries, payments directly from federal revenues, and a payroll tax on workers and employers.

Entitlement programs, usually established by Washington policy makers with noble intentions, are programs literally on auto-pilot. Like all entitlement programs, Medicare spending automatically increases by significant amounts every year. The yearly increases for Medicare have been skyrocketing for many years, averaging 8 percent every year from 2000 to 2005, well ahead of the pace of overall economic growth.

Medicare spending has doubled since the mid-1990s and is expected to continue growing at about 8 percent every year for the next decade. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by 2017, Medicare spending is projected to more than double to $853 billion. As a share of the total economy, Medicare expenditures currently stand at 3 percent, growing to 6.5 percent by 2030. As a comparison, we will spend 4 percent of the economy this year on national defense.

These shocking rates of increase for Medicare spending would be of little consequence if money grew on trees. But absent any commonsense reforms by Congress and combined with the imminent explosion of Social Security entitlements, these increases are simply unsustainable. They constitute a gathering fiscal tsunami for America’s taxpayers. Three simple and unavoidable demographic realities are certain to push Medicare to the breaking point.

Disturbing Trends

The first of these realities is the retirement of the Baby Boom generation beginning next year, as the first Boomers born in 1946 start collecting early, partial Social Security checks. The trend accelerates in January 2011 as the ’46 Boomers retire at age 65 and become eligible for full Social Security and Medicare benefits. Put simply: the population moving into Medicare is set to explode in less than four years.

The second reality is the dramatic narrowing of the ratio of workers to retirees. According to estimates, there are roughly 3.5 workers today for every retiree. By 2020, the ratio will narrow to about 2.5 workers, and by 2040 there will be 2 workers for every retiree. To give some perspective on this: in 1945, the ratio was 40-to-1. By the 1960s, the ratio had slipped to 5-to-1.

The third reality is the rise in American life expectancy. On September 12, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that life expectancy in the United States has reached 78 years, the highest ever. In the 1950s, life expectancy in the U.S. was less than 70 years. The typical American citizen now lives nearly a decade longer than the typical American citizen a half-century ago. This is good news, of course—but it also puts upward pressure on entitlement programs that have been put on autopilot by Congress.

There is another factor that has to be taken into account, and that is the on-going surge of health care costs in the United States. Unlike the three demographic changes, this trend is not inevitable. Maintaining the best health care system in the world can’t be done on the cheap, but there are many factors within our control as a society that drive up costs or infringe on health care freedom. Two examples are over-regulation and predatory litigation, which are tremendous cost drivers in health care.

The cumulative impact of all these trends on the current health system is clear and dramatic. It means an ever-increasing number of longer-living retirees moving into a Medicare program financed, proportionately, by a shrinking number of working Americans. Put succinctly, it means Medicare is locked on a collision course with massive, certain, catastrophic bankruptcy.

The impact of a Medicare bankruptcy will have an enormous impact on the personal lives of virtually every American, from the young and healthy to the aged and needy. If policy makers in Congress do not begin to alter Medicare’s path now, Washington will eventually be forced to decide between three punishing options: dramatic tax increases on all Americans, including working families; dramatic cuts in non-entitlement spending, eliminating programs Americans regard as vital, like defense or education; or, a combination of both.

A colleague of mine, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, recently warned on the House floor: “We have a system today where all the fiscal experts in Washington and across America from the left and the right are telling us health care’s unsustainable; the entitlements in this country are bankrupting America; that our children and grandchildren simply won’t be able to pay for the government of tomorrow because of the cost of health care today and the trajectory it’s on.”

Trustees Pull Medicare ‘Trigger’

The 2007 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report, issued the past April, underscores the perilous condition of Medicare’s finances. “Social Security and Medicare both present daunting fiscal challenges,” the Trustees say, adding “their fiscal problems are driven by inexorable demographic change and, in the case of Medicare, relentless increases in health care costs, and are not likely to be greatly ameliorated by economic growth or mere tinkering with program financing.”

Medicare’s financial position is so severe is that the Trustees this year issued the first ever “Medicare funding warning.” The “trigger” for this warning is that, within the next seven years, the Trustees estimate that more than 45 percent of Medicare’s funding will come from the government’s general revenues as opposed to premiums and fees.

Retired Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is also among those who have recently warned of the need to do something about Medicare’s ongoing march toward fiscal disaster. In a September 17 interview with Fortune Magazine, Greenspan said the most urgent economic problem facing America is addressing Medicare. “[W]hat’s at stake here is the fiscal stability of the American government…the problem is that the arithmetic is inexorable,” Greenspan said, adding “it’s unethical and immoral for a government, when confronted with these types of events, not to take action. What do we elect people for?”

Commonsense Reforms

Greenspan is correct. Action must begin today to avert a catastrophic collision between Medicare and bankruptcy tomorrow. Today’s elected leaders have a moral obligation to current and future generations of Americans to begin to confront the challenge.

As the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, Congressman Ryan crafted an alternative budget for Fiscal Year 2008 that balances by 2012, addresses the runaway growth of entitlement spending, demands accountability in other government spending, and helps maintain a strong economy. Unfortunately the Ryan plan was ignored by the majority in Congress in favor of a budget that does nothing to acknowledge the increasingly dire condition of Medicare’s finances.

Some positive steps have been taken by Congress in recent years, however, that may present a foundation for future progress. In 2003, a Republican-led Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) to start the process of addressing Medicare’s troubling trends by emphasizing prevention and personal choice and utilizing the health care market place. The MMA created a prescription drug plan designed to lower out of pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries and ease financial pressures on the parts of Medicare supporting hospitals and doctors.

The reforms implemented in 2003 recognized an important fact: in the long run, investing in the technological advancements of modern medicine to keep beneficiaries healthy saves money and resources that would have been used when a beneficiary becomes ill. It’s more efficient to support preventative drugs than long hospital stays. While criticized for its high cost projections at the time, the program is now expected to cost significantly less than originally estimated by Washington’s static-minded budget forecasters who rarely take into account the positive impact of markets when making their calculations.

Last year, the premium for the drug plan, originally expected to average $37 a month, averaged only $24 per month. The reason? Competition and freedom. Seniors can chose from a variety of drug plans to meet their specific health care needs. The declining costs were recently noted in the annual Medicare Trustees report.

The other reform passed in 2003 was Medicare Advantage, private health plans which provide greater flexibility and choice—beyond traditional Medicare—for things like specialized care and preventative medicines. Medicare Advantage now has 8.3 million beneficiaries enrolled, the majority of which are urban poor seniors, rural seniors, and minorities. One of the most notable achievements of Medicare Advantage is its success in coordinating care for seniors with chronic illnesses like diabetes, which is a huge driver of Medicare’s cost.

Regrettably, instead of being emulated, these effective reforms have been under attack in Congress this year. The House, in fact, targeted Medicare Advantage at one point with $157 billion in cuts that would have left 3 million seniors without coverage. Fortunately that plan has at least temporarily been abandoned.

Republicans recognize more government control will do nothing to head off the financial tsunami that looms on the horizon for the entire health system. Rather, solutions must be found that emphasize individual choice, competition, greater access and flexibility—a more patient-centered health care system, rather than a one-size-fits-all government program. We believe reforms should put each American at the center of his or her health care decisions, maximizing personal freedom and control and keeping the heavy hand of government intervention to a minimum.

As Congressman Ryan puts it:

“Do you trust Washington with your money to make personal decisions for you or do you trust individuals to make them for themselves? I would argue, and I think the evidence is clear, that when individuals make the decisions for themselves, when they’re spending their own money, when they’re talking to their doctor and making decisions on their own treatments, with affordable insurance, that the system’s going to be far better, people are going to be much more satisfied, and we’re going to save a lot more money and we'll have healthier outcomes.”

In their report, the Medicare Trustees concluded with this lucid piece of advice: “Prudence dictates action sooner rather than later to address these fiscal challenges.”

Let’s hope decision makers in Congress start listening soon. For Medicare and future generations of Americans, the work must begin today.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

John Boehner is the Republican Minority Leader for the House of Representatives.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY:

Be the first to read John Boehner's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

CAT..
Thanks for proving good ole' Hal D. wrong when he said noone is calling for just pulling out of Iraq. Kinda' shows him to be a liar doesn't it?

Kstater
Some of the ideas these libs come up with are goofier than HE!! lately. I'm starting to think they WANT another 9/11. I'm sure this one is not chewing gum while he types as it would be a little above his abilities. LOL!!





Hal: Hillary said she's going to make me her chief of Bullsh!t. Whoopie!!!!!

Social Security
Since you brought it up...

That 3.5 workers for every retiree is a load of crap.

Most people never live long enough to draw out of SS what they paid in. If the money paid in had been properly invested by the government (you and your predecessors) as it was being paid in, I'd be getting my own money back when I retire in a couple of years.

But no, you folks chose to spend what was there over the years like drunken sailors on liberty (apologies to the Navy).

Now you're whining about SS going broke. What the crap did you expect?

41 million uninsured
(1) How many of those are illegal aliens? Why should US taxpayers fund illegal aliens?
(2) How many of those are young people with no medical problems?
(3) How many of those are people who have the option of corporate health insurance but choose not to take it? (See point two about healthy young people.)

Prescription drug entitlement
Of course, Medicare spending wouldn't be quite as high if Congress and Bush hadn't created the new prescription drug entitlement.

Had we wanted big spenders, we would have voted for Democrats. Don't enact new entitlement legislation, then claim to be against "the heavy hand of government intervention."

CATastrophe
Sir I will give you "provide for the common defense" as this is part of the role of the federal government and our Constitution. However lets talk "Roads". If the "Interstate Highway System" had not been funded by so heavy by tax mandated $, would not the rail sytem be much more developed today and the cities be not confronted with urban sprawl, public transportation developed in a much more efficient manner, and a lessoning of dependance on oil? Again socialism fails because government does not provide the best use of resources. The lobbies(GM,FORD,&UAW, of 70 years ago developed because FDR and his "NEW DEALERS"(Markist)introduced raids on the public treasury(TVA) that disruted free market uses of capital and let the politicians decide for your best interests.

CAT, read your history, open your mind!

KAT 2:13pm
"I've changed my mind about this over the years."

I've changed my mind in mere seconds, after reading this thread.

I first thought (after reading your 12:55pm post) that you were a Liberal Troll. You had written: "But then again, you are just a streetwalker for Richistan and Big Pharma, taking bribes on an epic scale."

You called the writer of the article names, instead of offering some intelligent reasoning or debate.

After reading your 2:13pm post, I realize I was mistaken. You are a DUMB Liberal Troll. (You implied that communism and socialism actually work!?!)


Robert:

Hal, did the USSR fall apart because shaggy and I didn't move there?

Further KAT.....
In your 2:03pm post you ask "eastlake joe", who is "Hal D"?

However, "eastlake joe" never said "Hal D" in his 1:52pm post. He omly said "Hal".

Only certain regulars at TH sometimes say "Hal D" or "HalD".

You have been "outed"!

I'll be sure to pass the word around.


for kstater
kstater says: "Give all the SS and Medicare premiums back to the people"

I'm probably the last generation whose parents and grandparents were old enough to remember what life was like before SS. So I asked them and they told me:

Before SS, old age was often a route to poverty. The reason is that people living on a fixed income could burn through their savings real quickly, especially if their lifetime nest egg got wiped out in a stock market crash.

Maybe you think that could never happen to you. But it happened to the employees of Enron, who invested their life savings in Enron stock and ended up penniless in their golden years. What happens to them? Do they end up as elderly greeters at Wal-Mart?

The stock market will always be a crap shoot. Whereas old age is a certainty. Never forget that.

The Unsolvable Problem
The Problem with reforming healthcare in this country is that it has been formed, grown, and nurtured under an entirely different paradigm than in other western countries which have socialized medicine.

Doctors go to med school with a certain expectation about their lives as doctors. Hospitals are owned by non-profits, labs are private, the pharma companies are private, the clinics are private or non-profit. If we could start from scratch and have monopolistic control over med schools, hospitals, etc., then we might be able to 'take the best features from other countries and make them our own.'

But we can't do that because millions of people and companies have a vested interest in the current paradigm.

Take INSURANCE companies (who employ millions). What do they contribute to healthcare? Administration, spreading of risk, and fraud prevention. Under a socialized paradigm, these functions are superfluous. Govt can do administration, spreading of risk is automatic, and fraud (by patients) is not an issue.

Is Congress going to do anything that would put the health insurance industry out of business? Are you kidding? Yet that is the first thing that ought to be done - if you want the best solution.

Government giving (tax) money to people to pay insurance premiums is INSANE! The money is being spent for health insurance, not health care.

We are lost.

SteveL 3:18pm
I respectfully disagree.

Life itself is a "crap shoot".

You are entirely correct that the stock market could collapse and you lose everything. But you could have invested in Savings Bonds or real estate.

I would prefer to do my own investing for my "golden years". What I didn't use would then go to my chidren. If I invested badly, then that would be my affair. (Note: I don't believe in government hand-outs, like welfare, either.)

for CATastrophe
kstater writes: "Some goods and services are best provided by a natural monopoly"

How about mass transit? I'll bet you think that mass transit should be a Government monopoly, yes?

THINK AGAIN:

Circa 1900, the highly successful New York City subway system was built and run for years entirely as a private profit-making operation. Two profit-making companies: the Interborough Rapid Transit (IRT) company and the Brooklyn Manhattan Transit (BMT) company.

The ONLY reason why this changed was that New York City's government grew greedy and wanted a piece of the action. So first they built their own competitive subway system--the Independent (IND). And then because that system was Government subsidized, the IRT and BMT couldn't compete with that advantage and they went out of business, with the City taking over their operations too.

Nevertheless, that shows that private enterprise got the thing built in the first place. Contrast New York's huge vital subway system with the entirely Government-funded mass transit boondoggles we've seen more recently around the country. In Massachusetts where I live, you can see totally empty buses rattling through neighborhoods because the routes were set by politicians despite their utter unprofitability.

And as far as roads being a "natural monopoly," how do you like the way Boston's Big Dig came out?

for Gray Ghost
"Life itself is a "crap shoot".

But that's why we have guaranteed (as opposed to variable) annuities, even in the private sector. SS is not an investment program, it's a guaranteed annuity, only one that's Government run.

Every time I've had this discussion, folks like you always come off sounding like a cross between Ebenezer Scrooge and Cain:

"Life is tough."
"Stuff happens."
"Suck it up."
"If you go broke, it's your own stupid fault."
"I am not my brother's keeper."

It may all make perfect economic sense from the point of view of laissez-faire economics--but from a sociological point of view it's still heartless.

What's the point of having an "economy" anyway? The point of an economy--any type of economy--is to support and nurture the community of humans who participate in it, not to swear fealty to some textbook theory.

SteveL...
Steve your comment proves the Ghosts point...

"What's the point of having an "economy" anyway? The point of an economy--any type of economy--is to support and nurture the community of humans who participate in it, not to swear fealty to some textbook theory."

Your feel good approach does not even work in your own words. People who participate are not on welfare or if they are, it is not generational welfare. People eventually have to take care of themselves. When you offer handouts the inherently laziness in people comes out... So are they participating or just simply sucking off the "participating" participation?
And yes, I said lazy, because in this country, opportunity exists for everyone...

stevel
Steve your comment proves the Ghosts point...

"What's the point of having an "economy" anyway? The point of an economy--any type of economy--is to support and nurture the community of humans who participate in it, not to swear fealty to some textbook theory."

Your feel good approach does not even work in your own words. People who participate are not on welfare or if they are, it is not generational welfare. People eventually have to take care of themselves. When you offer handouts the inherently laziness in people comes out... So are they participating or just simply sucking off the "participating" participation?
And yes, I said lazy, because in this country, opportunity exists for everyone...

SteveL 3:43pm
Thank you for the reply. I hope we will have a good discussion on this subject.

I don't believe that I sound like a cross between E. Scrooge and Cain. As a Christian, it is my duty to help those who need help.

However, that is not the purpose of our government, as stated by the Constitution. The government, as stated in the Preamble, is to:

"form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

I believe that some things are better left to the people themselves, than to be determined by the federal government. At the best, the federal government can "promote" the general welfare by laws and regulations.

SteveL
So Steve, If Boehner's article is correct and nothing is done to correct the problem, what is your solution? The present system is socialist and doomed to failure.

My solution is to phase out the present system and let people decide in their own futures. Honor the obligations of the failed policies of socialism but can it kill it and bury it.
BTW during the depression years their was a saying "The only owns who had any money was the life insurance companies." Why? Because they had obligations to meet that would not allow them to take risks like Enron. They were invested in portfolios that deversified their holding to meet their future obligations.

Also Cat is the own who said "Some goods and services are best provided by a natural monopoly"
I am not a beleiver in Keynesian economics and his theorie on natural monopolies. RE_read my earlier post sir.

Lastly "What's the point of having an "economy" anyway?" AS long as we don't live in the "Garden Of Eden" we are going to have an "economy". The question is "What System of Economics allocates scarce resources in the best way?"

KAT 4:22pm
Just one time will I answer your posting, as you are a Liberal Troll. You are not here to debate or discuss anything. You are here to make glib remarks, raise Conservatives' blood-pressure, and cause any problems you can.

You wrote: "I can only hope and pray.....".

This is exactly why I called you a "Liberal Troll". No Christian would be that mean-spirited to pray to our Heavenly Father that: "your world falls apart....". If you understood anything at all about Christianity, you would be scared to death to pray that. Because God KNOWS men's hearts, He might perhaps pass that little bit of "Bad Luck" to you instead of me.

Even if He passed it to me, I trust my Heavenly Father. I WILL NOT lose that trust of Him, no matter what.

Thank you for proving my point that you are a Liberal Troll. I will pray that God will give you understanding, so that you realize that to pray for someone's economic downfall is not a Christian act.

Note: Unless I see that you are ready to discuss or debate your views in a polite fashion, I will henceforth ignore you.

Very soon, 2010, Medicare
A and B (no one knows how bad D will be) will actually be "in the red," in that what is taken in from general taxes and normally apportioned out will be less than the demands on the system.

Eventually, the gov't will have to do one of three things: 1) drastically raise Soc. Sec. and Medicare deductions (will not sit well with the productive people still working), 2) extend SS and Medicare taxation to all income and not end it at the cutoff of c. $88,000, and/or 3) cut benefits.

Cutting benefits for those already dependent would likely prove disastrous and pol. impossible. Retirees are very avid voters. So, those younger contributors may easily face much smaller pay outs in the future, along with higher deductions. I warn my son and daughter-in-law all the time: save, save, save.

To add to the problem, many private pensions also never anticipated that most people would live well into their 80s, esp. those that allowed a full vestment after 20 years of employment. Those pensions are stuck with huge numbers of former employees who retired at 40 and will now draw down the pension funds for 40-45 years or more.

Worse, the US gov't has stepped in to guarantee some of those tottering pensions.

Rationing
Whenever I read phrases like this one from the article:
"addressing Medicare’s troubling trends by emphasizing prevention and personal choice and utilizing the health care market place"

I hear: rationing. The mechanism: Personal wealth. If you don't have the tens of thousands of dollars saved up to pay for your cancer treatment, or dialysis, or insulin, well, too bad, so sad, we'll pray at your funeral.

The "health care market place" would choose, whenever allowed, to exclude coverage to those with chronic ailments. Blaming the individual by saying "personal choice" is a very nasty way to say "it's OK to let these people die". It also ignores the fact that most people with chronic ailments contracted them from God, and not from personal behavior.

John
"Every day millions of Americans reap the benefits of having the best health system in the world."

Are you living in the past? 40 years of living through fundamental conservatism ended the best in the world medicine. We no longer have that. STOP using buzz words like socialism and get results. Oh I forgot you conservatives have proven you are incapable of producing results. It is over John.... Time to put people in charge who just don't care about your emotion they only care about getting results

Excellent Idea
"2) extend SS and Medicare taxation to all income and not end it at the cutoff of c. $88,000,"

I've read elsewhere that extending the taxation to include all income would solve the SS insolvency problem. (Not the Medicare one, though.)

LMAO Grey Ghost
"This is exactly why I called you a "Liberal Troll". No Christian would be that mean-spirited to pray to our Heavenly Father that: "your world falls apart....". If you understood anything at all about Christianity, you would be scared to death to pray that. Because God KNOWS men's hearts, He might perhaps pass that little bit of "Bad Luck" to you instead of me."

You lie I have had worse remarks said about me here. The truth be told the religious right is very much neither. I LMAO at your comment

Pro-Birth or Pro-Life?

Sadie Fields from the Georgia Christian Alliance has been consistently out spoken about the rights of unborn children. Sadie has made it clear that pro-choice Americans are supporting a parent’s the right to murder a child.

Yet when it comes to the welfare of those children fortunate enough to be born, Sadie is willfully blind to how denial of needed healthcare could result in death for the child or the mother. How can she be so outspoken about a child’s right to be born, yet so quiet about a child’s right to life-saving healthcare?

I am shocked that Sadie rejects proposals like those from Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton that require everyone to buy health insurance (similar to the requirement to buy car insurance). Why isn’t Sadie screaming for healthcare solutions that make sure every child is protected and parents are held responsible!

Instead, Sadie fights for unborn children, but then shamefully quits the fight after birth-which accounts for only 4% of childhood.

The Truth about Healthcare

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/pro-birth-or-pro-life


Hal
Hey Hal I was just wondering; when are you going to answer Gunny's Question? Just curious.

eastlake joe
"Hey Hal I was just wondering; when are you going to answer Gunny's Question? Just curious."

Done just because he does not like the answer does not mean he did not get one

????????
I haven't seen it, when did you answer?

Sheez...
Didn't this guy vote for the Prescription Drug Benefit act? These columns of his must not be written by himself. I don't know how he could live with himself doing so.

Hal, 40 years of conservatism?
The sixties saw the unraveling of conservatism and the ushering in of increased implementation of liberalism. When I began social work school in the early eighties, this was required knowledge in our eductional process- that we progressives finally began to get the upper hand in the late 60's. Well, you see the results. I can admit I was on the wrong page for a while, though I meant well. You can't just wipe the results of liberlism off like an icky booger onto another ideology, Hal. At least I hope not.

eastlake joe 7:58pm
I just got back from taking my wife to supper. I saw that "Hal" got on this thread.

He won't answer GunnyG's question. After watching the way he operates for the last few months, I decided to just ignore him and every Liberal Troll who drops by.

By the way, I hope I catch some more of your comments. They have always caused me to stop and think a minute. I've enjoyed them.


Hal:

Robert, you stop drinking the rubbing alcohol.

Politics
The art of the possible in politics involves compromise. When the Right compromises with the Left, the Left wins. Ultimately, anything Congress comes up with will be the equivilent of throwing good money after bad because of the Leftists.

Entitlement spending will be swept under the rug by giving Dubai control of our ports, selling our mortgage companies to the Chinese, and giving national forests to multinational corporations.

It will take a successful terrorist attack on DC--when every politician, bureaucrat, and lobbiest are in the city working feverishly to screw the taxpayer--before any meaningful reform will occur. I'd miss the Smithsonian.


This version of Schips a socialist crock
Aaaaawwwwh, but what about the children...and the media provided poor-mouthing mommies..on cue.

And shame on those RINOs who are participating in this misrepresentation of health insurance meant for the children of low income disadvantaged and working poor... Not for adults, and families with employer insurance already, or those earning up to $80,000 dollars!

President Bush did exactly the right thing by exercising his veto power on this Democrat socialized medicine trial balloon. I just wish he had started using his veto pen a long time ago.

This legislaltion is a Scam, and I hope that Congress strips the bill down to what it is supposed to be.. health insurance for the children of poor families, hopefully US Citizens.

I also see it as very irresponsible for Many in Congress to justify this Schips budget buster by comparing it to war spending, as if that was relavant!

Cost of Medicare
I have noticed that no one has mentioned that all Medicare recipients pay for medicare. It is deducted from their Soc Sec check. As for me it costs $144 a mth or approximately 10% of my check, which of course is merely a small portion of what I contributed in 50 years of employment.

strange word contributed, kind of makes it look voluntary

oldsocialworker
"Hal, 40 years of conservatism?
The sixties saw the unraveling of conservatism and the ushering in of increased implementation of liberalism. When I began social work school in the early eighties, this was required knowledge in our eductional process- that we progressives finally began to get the upper hand in the late 60's.".

Well you know, it may be a question of liberal versus progressive. But by NO stretch of the imagination can the WWII GI bill, the Space Race actions or even the Cold War actions be called Conservative. Kennedy's saying ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country recognised that we were all on the same team. Today everything I mentioned would be condemned as "Socialist" by the fundamental conservatives. The "progressives" or extreme liberals were a big part of the problem too. After all it was the conservatives along with the left who vastly expended the homeless population when they closed the mental hospitals and dumped the folks on the street. Here is where I am coming from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hal-donahue/the-coming-collapse-of-fu_b_66490.html

Catastrophy
My sister too, bless her soul, got the same call a few years ago and was a firm believer in Christ. Her suffering was greatly reduced by her beliefs and convictions. I am greatly sorry about your call and hope that before long you too get some relief as did she. God Bless.

Gray Ghost
I used to try to get along with Hal untill he accused me of hating the troops. I am a Viet Vet and care very deeply for every troop over there in harms way. I have sent numerous care packages to people I don't even know through friends and relatives and always sent enough to "share the wealth". I'll never defend that liberal jerk again. Thanks for the kind words though.

EQUAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL
Our health care system is already patient-centered via the doctor---patient relationship. The fatal flaw in our system is that health care is treated as a business commodity, thereby leaving the dollar bill as the ultimate measure of success as opposed to the reality of a sound, ongoing doctor---patient relationship for every patient penetrating into every community across our country. Our current health care system is clear evidence of this. Mr. Boehner's article is simply rhetoric, which adds to the camouflage that covers and disguises this fatal flaw. Of course, Senators Clinton, Obama, and Edwards offer no better.
R. Garth Kirkwood M.D.
http://www.equalhealthcareforall.com
doctork@equalhealthcareforall.com

eastlake joe 9:28am
Hal has done the same to me, accused me of not supporting the troops. I have also sent several "care" packages to Iraq. However, I will admit you are better than I am. I sent them to nephews and 2nd cousins. But like you, I always sent enough so that they could "share the wealth". It is amazing what you can get into a "shoe box" size box.

By the way, I meant the "kind" words, no idle flattery at all.


Hal:

Robert, would you stop using the rubbing alcohol to wash down the laxative pills.

Liberals
I am amazed at the stupid posts by you guys. You advocate socialism because you are too weak and incapable of taking care of yourselves. Just admit it.


CATastrophe...you don't know squat about capitalism let alone responsibility.

Gray ghost
I know what you mean. I sent one package that had 37 tablets, 13 decks of cards, a whole case of ramen noodles and 14 sample tubes of toothe paste. I think the world of all of them. The ones who don't are fools as they are the ones defending their right to have what little opinion they have.



Hal: Roberto,Roberta that cigarette you gave me made me eat every THING in sight!!!

Up-side down?
A strange idea came to me while reading the responses posted above.

The 'structure' of our health care system is up-side down.

The description of the idea is much too long to post here, but you can read it by clicking on my nickname.

If you read it, please comment... I'd like to know if I'm wasting my time.

Rickey Braddam

Tnhillbily
The drugs you talk about are only ones that have a generic equivalent. Take Topamax 100 for instance, each tablet is about .75 to 1.00 each. thats because there is on generic equivalent for it. While soma 350 can be bought as carasoprodol and they are very cheap because of the generic.

eastlake joe
Yes, but the idea is that ALL drugs become generic because the patent belongs to the U.S. government (us) and we license it to all the pharma companies.

/R

Tsunami of Entitlements
You forgot to add the additional threat that will increase all Social Security payments by about 50% or more if the Department of Labor Statistics ever corrects it's calculation of Consumer Price Index (CPI) which, until President Clinton authorized the change in the early to mid 1990s, was calulated on a standard linear change in costs each year on the same basket of goodies but due to the change is then until now calculated on a geometrically weighted increase in costs.
This change is small over a couple of years but it is also cumulative if compared to the years before it was changed.
All the seniors drawing social security benefits have their benefits increased annually based on the CPI, a phony substitute for reality.

Tnhillbilly
I understand but if you take the ability to make a profit out of the equasion then you also take away the incentive to invent new drugs. Also not everyone that is diabetic have good results with natural cures. Like vitamin E, it lowers mine a little but not much.

liberals
the govt cant manage medicare,medicaid or social security,all are going broke and liberals like hillary clinton want the govt to take over healthcare also,bull, anyone who beleives the govt can do the job better than private enterprise has feces for brains,look at england or canada

Lifestyle choices
Congressman Boehner’s excellent article left out one critical point, Americans need to live healthier lifestyles. Quite simply, we cannot afford to continue to eat the same unhealthy foods, and live the same sedentary lifestyles. However, as link between unhealthy living, and higher medical costs remains indirect, people will continue to live unhealthy lifestyles. But as soon as you start charging people for their lifestyle choices they will change. For example, it costs around $2400 a year to provide medical care for a healthy person, but over $6000 a year to provide healthcare for someone with a chronic disease (most of which are preventable). Once you begin to make individuals responsible for their own healthcare costs, they will start to make the appropriate lifestyle choices.



And for those people that exercise their right to live unhealthy, that’s ok to of course, as long as they pay their own way and don’t require the rest of us to pay for them. You can find out more about his issue here http://kronesblog.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html where I look at California various proposals.



MEDICARE TRUSTEES' REPORTS
Those reports have been very enlightening. They're right there on the Internet for anyone who wants to read them.

I beg to differ with Mr. Boehner about the MMA PDPs (the Medicare Modernization Act Prescription Drug Plans). And probably the latest Medicare Trustees' Report, too. This was a huge mistake for which everybody's grandchildren will be paying for a long time.

I still do not understand how adding all these middlemen will lower the prices of drugs -- for seniors or anybody else. Just think of all the new Medicare employees. Think of all the space they need. Think of all the computers, etc., they need. Think of all the training they need.

Then begin to think of Medicare having to deal with the hundreds of plans in effect and the thousands of individuals who may have problems with them. And I'll bet there are a lot of them.

Think of seniors needing to deal with insurance companies who don't mind screwing some customer out of $30 here, $60 there, $10 someplace else. Then multiply all that my the thousands and thousands of Medicare PDP participants. And don't think those companies don't try it, either. They do, every chance they get.

It's more trouble than it's worth. It's an entitlement to which many of us are not really entitled.


Kroneburg
What about the diseases that can't be avoided by living healthier? I don't support gov. healthcare and never will. There are even exceptions to your statement as to the ones that can be avoided. For example the RVN vets that have type 2 diabetes due to exposure to defoliants. The railroad has been using the same chemicals along their beds since before Nam. You ever seen as a kid anybody going along the r.r.beds picking wild asparagus? I have seen them many times. There are exceptions to any rule you can name.


Robert,Roberta: Hal, you are my exception!!!!

Kroneborg
Sorry I butchered your name. It was not intentional.






Roberto, Roberta: I have five sexy girlfriends on the right and five sexy girlfriends on the left. It's so hand--Y

Congressman Boehner
Does he ever do anything except apologize to the
dems?

We've known for a long time...
The country has known about this problem for at least 20-30 years. Many warnings and solutions were offered. Conservative voters put Republicans in the majority to address issues just like this. Pres. Bush proposed private SS accounts a few years ago; the GOP wouldn’t even DISCUSS it and the Dems misrepresented the whole concept. I expect:

The Democrats will continue to push for higher taxes and MORE govt. programs/spending, ignoring the looming disaster. It’s who they are; it’s what they do.

The GOP (except for the conservative caucuses in the House and Senate) will continue to display paralysis and a lack of leadership in the face of the Dems/MSM and their own desire to kick these issues down the road. It’s craven and cowardly, but it lets them continue their OWN love affair with pork barrel spending.

Social Security and Medicare WILL go bankrupt.

Seniors (and others) will then HAVE to pay for their own healthcare (what a concept!).

Retirement WILL be put off until seniors can afford it.

If the political class tries for huge tax hikes, there WILL be a tax revolt. I guarantee I won’t be paying any huge tax increases to fund political malfeasance and ineptitude, and I bet I’m not alone in that.

Maybe at that point, our “representatives” will be interested in tax and entitlement reform; they aren’t there yet. And when I read things like the following from Robert Novak, I know Mr. Boehner isn’t there yet either:

“In a secret meeting Wednesday of the House Republican leadership, Minority Leader John Boehner ruled that Rep. Jerry Lewis of California will continue as the party's ranking member of the Appropriations Committee while under federal investigation on ethics charges.

That widened the gap between Boehner and reform-minded House Republicans, including members of the leadership. Under investigation for sponsoring questionable earmarks, Lewis remains a major Republican spokesman in Congress.”--10/6/07

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.