The poor have top quality medical.  They are also provided with food, housing, electricity, social security (before 65).  This class is used by the liberals to get whatever they currently want.

Do we need to ditch our health care system for a group deemed the empathy target? 

Why can't we evaluate the uninsured and give them help or incentives.  The number 46.7M is actually 12M once illegals, people who can afford insurance, between jobs, those who are entitiled (but don't know it or want to fill out the paper) are eliminated.

Change 100% for 0.04%.

And they say 14,000 are added each day.  This is 5,100M for 0.17% added per year.  How many are because of unemployment?  Shouldn't we work on the employment, not give over our health care system?

Congress can solve the uninsured problem in a few days.  The employment problem could be solved if congress helped small business.

Increasing health care costs will excel to exponential increases once the government is in control.

The reason employers provided health care insurance was the government froze salaries.  Business needed a way to attrack the best talent.  Eventually, the employers will drop health insurance coverage.

Once this happens, the workers will realize how much is set aside for insurance.  It is like taxes.  Not seen, then the government can mismanage.  When the government makes mistakes, they raise taxes or cut back on services.

It is true the rich know how to shop. After all, they have the money to have this experience more than the poor.

One exception to the rich shopping experience is Medicare. The government does not allow the rich to opt out of Medicare. If they were allowed to opt out, taxpayers could save and the rich would shop, resulting in more competitive prices and more transparency.

I could not find any information on cancer treatment costs before I incurred the costs. And, forget about shopping around. I did find immense information on cancer treatments, none on cost. It is assumed money is no object.

Further, unnecessary tests are made. With my experience, one doctor order a CT Scan on me. Later, I saw the results delivered to him. He did not even look at it, but continue to give me my health care results. I'm sure the test results were never used.

A similiar shopping experience is when corporations charge full price on new technical gadgets. Those who can afford it, pay this price. After corporations recup their initial costs, they can offer them at better prices.

Sometimes cancer pills are required after cancer treatments. These pills are $1,600 a month. I met a person in radiaton who receives goverment-pay medical assistance. She will have these pills subscribed. Her response was those evil drug companies should be investigated. Is it the drug companies or the government interferrence, keeping the drug compaines from recupping their costs?

Most do not know when a medical emergency could happen. This is why the republicans proposed to set aside money for every American for this critical event. Each American could shop around for the best price. Every side wins.

This proposal was voted down. Yet, the democrats continue to say the republicans have offered no alternatives.

Eventually, insurance companies would have more competion. They could offer more plans, covering more electives. This would keep the insured from confusing different costs and if the costs are covered. After all, if the risk is kept at cost-effective percent, the plan can be offered. The government has no such limits. Offer all kinds of care, even if huge volume would keep most from having access to the care.

Why do you suppose the government would rather spend more money and off less service?

The answer is CONTROL...

Obama wants to tax the rich for his nearly a trillion dollar give away programs for each and every year.

This mortgage and credit crunch were a ponzi scheme.  The house of cards was ready to come down many steps on the way.

I would ask those people who blame our lawmakers as to why they did not stand up to this before, why did they stay silient.  At least twice republicans in unison voted to stop and regulate this and democrats in unison voted to keep piling on the cards.

I would ask the speculators who bought houses to flip them, you speculated. Didn't you believe it was wrong to add on $30,000 and profit of $100,00.  You speculated to gain or lose.  You lost.  I have two friends that lost every thing during the 1987 market drop -- one lost his small business and the other his inheritence.

I would ask those mortgage holders who got stuck, then why did you accept these esclated prices.  During my wind down to retirement, we looked for a house.  The cost was too high, so we went back to work for another year.  The next year the prices were 10-20% higher, which wiped out that working year's profit. 

After two more tries, we got in at 20% more than we wanted to pay.  We paid cash.  And, we are not looking for the government to make it easy.  It was our choice.

I would ask those who don't want to bail out the rich investor that took the risk and got caught, look at the entire picture.  Go down the line to each who passed along bad mortgages without caring or fudging the details.  I agree that who last bought the pig and the poke, have to accept their loss.  This is capitalism.  But, to blame the rich and not the investors who kept wanting more return than the year before, only fuels the fire toward socialism.

As people had houses above their means, they had to borrow to have a nice car to go with their nice house.  This causes the credit crunch because they could no longer make their payments.

I understand they already are re-structuring mortgages for the poor.  After this reimbursement, the poor individuals who were making their payments will want the same hand-out.

Congress brought up items that could make our capitalism healthier so this downturn is as short as possible.  Many of these can be enacted with a stroke of a pen.  They will go to the way side once the glar of the money is shown.

Once, I told a friend that social security is a ponzi scheme.  She just giggled.  She was against privatizing social security for the young people.  Even this market down will pass, once they retire.  Like the constitution, personal responsibility is a thing of the past.

The House Republicans were double crossed.

They agreed to deliver 50% and the Dems agreed to vote with them.

Pelosi broke the agreement by saying the blame was all at the Republican's feet, Bush's feet and because of capitalism.

This changed the spirit of the agreement to vote together.

It was clear to them she was going to use this as a club against Republicans.

Given time, our congress persons can find our capitalism system solves its own problems.  Democrat Rep. Peter DeFazio has looked into and has found ways to get capitalism back to work.

•  The total revenue in the last three years is 1.15 trl with cost of revenue of 659 bln, leaving 491 bln. 
• Applying taxes (81 bln), research (258 bln), other (36 bln), leaves the net income is 116 bln for the last three years. 
• If they could buy this without reporting, they would have no profit and 118 bln debt, resulting in no liquity.  How could they pay their employees or pay for drilling sites that cost $350k per day? 
• They would have to sell something worth 118 bln to get out of debt.  
• They would have sell even more or make loans to meet operations. 
• The next statement is this why they sold their service stations.
  

• The tax rate cut on the top 1% decreased from 39.5% to 35%, for a tax rate savings of 4.5%
• Only 2% of the rich had their wealth given to them
• The remaining 98% worked themselves up into the wealthy bracket
• The number of millionaires have doubled since 2000
• In 2000, the top 1% paid 25% of the tax revenue collected.
• In 2008, the top 1% paid 40% of the tax revenue collected.
• In an article comment, a person said well the rich make 80% of earned income.  No, not true.  This commenter made it up, not looked it up.
  • In 2007 where I have this type of records, the top 1% were 1,357,192 taxpayers for 1.7 trl earned income of the total earned income of 8.1 trl, which is 21%.
  • This top 1% taxpayers and 0.3% of the population, paid 408 bln of the total collected of 1.0 trl, which is 40.8%.
  • To recap, the top 1% earn 21% of income, not 80% of the income.  And, they paid 40.8% of the total taxes collected.
  • Even if you say use the top 5%, they earn 2.0 trl of the 8.1 trl income and pay 616 bln of the 1.0 trl tax collected.
  • To recap this top 5%, the earnings is 25% of income and the tax they pay is 62% of the total taxes collected.
• The tax is progressive, where the rich have the greater burden.
• The government has collected more tax revenue than any time in history.
• I thankful for every rich person that has provided me jobs I have had in my life.
• You may think if we did not have this tax cut we could collected more.  No, not true.  I have lived in the business world all my life.  I know the retraction of work when the companies can not invest because of their expenses.  Adding taxes, adds to their expenses.  And to recoup their expenses, they pass it onto their customers.  So they earn less, pay less taxes, and add expenses to the lower level taxpayers.
• All government programs have continued percent increase every year.  I watch C-Span, which is directly from congress, not filtered through a news and entertainment programs.  Congress works overtime to fund these government programs and take vacation when it is time to solve economic problems.

Tired short-term statements are wrong.

From Richardsons weekly radio address, he said what energy plan Obama has.  Link is http://www.townhall.com/News/NewsArticle2.aspx?UrlTitle=richardson_touts_obamas_energy,_economic_policies&c=politics-elections&dt=06/28/2008&submitted=true&comments=true&sort=desc#comments

Richardson admits we have responsible drilling, but implies it is irresponsible drilling, by limiting how many leases.  97% of offshore is not leased.  94% of government land is not leased.

Richardson says oil companies do not explore nor drill with what they have.  Exploring means to look at all the possibilities.

Richardson's short-term fix is to rob from the rich.  This will work in about a year when the taxes are collected again, then for about five years when the oil compaines and other targeted corporations have move out of our country.

Another short-sighted agrument is to take our emergency supplies of oil by stop supplying our oil reserves.

Stimulus checks are short-term fix, too.  When the people look for another fix and the national bank is drained, what will Obama do.

So yes, Obama and democrats have short-term fixes and short-term solutions.

Waiting for alternative energy is a big risk.  We have waited for them for 30 years.  Do you really believe that in five years the cost will come down for everyone and we will have the infra-structure to re-fuel? 

Are we on the Star Ship Lollipop?