Skip to main content

Why is it that Congressman Mo Brooks is so secret and doesn't publicize what he is and what he is for?    I never saw anywhere that he was a Mormon before and since the election. 

 

Also he doesn't seem proud to talk about his vote to dismantle the MediCare system and replace it with private insurance companies.  Going to be fun to try to get insurance when you are 65,  I hope you like eating dog food to pay for it, even if you can get insurance.  I've never seen his vote on this mentioned and discussed.

 

And the newspapers seem to not be excited to report what happens with Congressman Mo Brooks.  Does the family that took over the Times Daily have an agenda?  Nothing wrong with that,  private owned newspapers always have a political agenda, it's just nice to know what bias is in the articiles you read, or don't read in this case.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by EvilGenius:

Why is it that Congressman Mo Brooks is so secret and doesn't publicize what he is and what he is for?    I never saw anywhere that he was a Mormon before and since the election. 

 

Also he doesn't seem proud to talk about his vote to dismantle the MediCare system and replace it with private insurance companies.  Going to be fun to try to get insurance when you are 65,  I hope you like eating dog food to pay for it, even if you can get insurance.  I've never seen his vote on this mentioned and discussed.

 

And the newspapers seem to not be excited to report what happens with Congressman Mo Brooks.  Does the family that took over the Times Daily have an agenda?  Nothing wrong with that,  private owned newspapers always have a political agenda, it's just nice to know what bias is in the articiles you read, or don't read in this case.

It must be wonderful to live a content free life, one in which one knowis nothing and proudly advertises it.

 

The aforementioned plan to replace medicare for those 55 and under is:

An exchange of insurance policies exactly like those offered to congress  and federal civil service would be offered to anyone at 65.  Policyholders can't be turned down for previous existing conditions, age, etc.

 

The government would supplement the cost up to $15,000 with inflation increases.

 

At present, full cost for a high end policy is $7,000.  No dog food required.

 

So, is it ignorance of the program, or demogoguery that explains your thread>.

Thats not true.

 

I know of two folks that are 50-55 years old, have some health issues but still work everyday, drive, fly their own plane, etc, and pay over $12,000/year for insurance after shopping around to every company in AlObama.  And insurance in AlObama is cheaper than the national average.  Even the threat of Medicare reform will cost the Repubs seats in the House and control of the Senate. 

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Thats not true.

 

I know of two folks that are 50-55 years old, have some health issues but still work everyday, drive, fly their own plane, etc, and pay over $12,000/year for insurance after shopping around to every company in AlObama.  And insurance in AlObama is cheaper than the national average.  Even the threat of Medicare reform will cost the Repubs seats in the House and control of the Senate. 

So, two people found insurance for about $6,000 per person.  Well below the $15,000 in the Ryan plan.

 

Here's the plans now used by federal employees and congress.  All less than $7,000 per year.

http://www.opm.gov/insure/heal...nonpostalffs2011.pdf

 

When the system is broke, what will they do!

 


 

It is dangerous to assume that older folks at 65 will be able to afford health care based on calculations by a man and party whose aim since the 60's was to completely do away with MediCare.  We can't afford to throw our elderly people to a wholesale change that would depend on the kindess of insurance companies and right wing southern republicans, neither of which are for policies of kindness.  They believe that you should get the health care you can afford.  

 

The ones this will effect who are 54 and below now are not getting the job benefits and retirement plans that those 55 and above now have been fortunate to have had since the 1940s.  They will not have the financial security of company pensions and the savings as the years go forward like retirees now.  It will be a tragic mistake to turn over our elderly's health care to insurance companies and the fickle process of exttremist legislation.  

 

This has been caused by an ignorant group of loud mouths calling themselves the Tea Party who has empowered the Republicans who have always been anti MedCare and anti Social Security to disrupt our culture of charity and providing for our elderly.  I despise the Tea Party and what they are doing to this country.  The Republicans, the real ones, are just greedy corporate asskissers, who are taking advantage of these tea party goobers.

 

Jesus didn't ask those he healed to pay insurance companies for policies they had to go without food to pay,  and call me a sucker but I believe one of the functions of our government should be to provide affordable and accessible quality health care for everyone, in an efficient manner, especially for the elderly and vulnerable not throw them to the wolves so you can give a millionaire a tax cut of 2 %.   

Originally Posted by EvilGenius:

It is dangerous to assume that older folks at 65 will be able to afford health care based on calculations by a man and party whose aim since the 60's was to completely do away with MediCare.  We can't afford to throw our elderly people to a wholesale change that would depend on the kindess of insurance companies and right wing southern republicans, neither of which are for policies of kindness.  They believe that you should get the health care you can afford.  

 

The ones this will effect who are 54 and below now are not getting the job benefits and retirement plans that those 55 and above now have been fortunate to have had since the 1940s.  They will not have the financial security of company pensions and the savings as the years go forward like retirees now.  It will be a tragic mistake to turn over our elderly's health care to insurance companies and the fickle process of exttremist legislation.  

 

This has been caused by an ignorant group of loud mouths calling themselves the Tea Party who has empowered the Republicans who have always been anti MedCare and anti Social Security to disrupt our culture of charity and providing for our elderly.  I despise the Tea Party and what they are doing to this country.  The Republicans, the real ones, are just greedy corporate asskissers, who are taking advantage of these tea party goobers.

 

Jesus didn't ask those he healed to pay insurance companies for policies they had to go without food to pay,  and call me a sucker but I believe one of the functions of our government should be to provide affordable and accessible quality health care for everyone, in an efficient manner, especially for the elderly and vulnerable not throw them to the wolves so you can give a millionaire a tax cut of 2 %.   

 

 

 

That is an ignorant statement.

Originally Posted by EvilGenius:

It is dangerous to assume that older folks at 65 will be able to afford health care based on calculations by a man and party whose aim since the 60's was to completely do away with MediCare.  We can't afford to throw our elderly people to a wholesale change that would depend on the kindess of insurance companies and right wing southern republicans, neither of which are for policies of kindness.  They believe that you should get the health care you can afford.  

 

The ones this will effect who are 54 and below now are not getting the job benefits and retirement plans that those 55 and above now have been fortunate to have had since the 1940s.  They will not have the financial security of company pensions and the savings as the years go forward like retirees now.  It will be a tragic mistake to turn over our elderly's health care to insurance companies and the fickle process of exttremist legislation.  

 

This has been caused by an ignorant group of loud mouths calling themselves the Tea Party who has empowered the Republicans who have always been anti MedCare and anti Social Security to disrupt our culture of charity and providing for our elderly.  I despise the Tea Party and what they are doing to this country.  The Republicans, the real ones, are just greedy corporate asskissers, who are taking advantage of these tea party goobers.

 

Jesus didn't ask those he healed to pay insurance companies for policies they had to go without food to pay,  and call me a sucker but I believe one of the functions of our government should be to provide affordable and accessible quality health care for everyone, in an efficient manner, especially for the elderly and vulnerable not throw them to the wolves so you can give a millionaire a tax cut of 2 %.   

 

The present program is not sustainable -- period. 

it is sustainable with some tweaks.  No one is suggesting it go on like it is currently, but it is rediculous to make such a drastic change.   People in politics and who take adamant positions politically always assume every issue has an on and off switch.  i would think anyone with any sense would be open to minor changes.   And why would someone that has a large income in retirement need Medicare or social security.   If someone draws say 250,000 dollars a year in interest or some other income they don't need help with health care or social security for that matter.  There are ways to modify it and make the system workable.  

 

Also all these illegal aliens should be brought into the social security and medicare system and pay into the system with their taxes.  The vast majority that are here are young working age, that's why they are here.  That would be millions of working people contributing to the system.  All these issues are tied together.

 

I know that a few years back when they cut back on what they paid doctors for medicare patients, the waiting room at my doctor went from about 50 people who were 65 and above, to about 10 people total.  It was obviously to the financial benefit of the medical practice to bring medicare patients in more often for appointments and for more tests.

 

I and most people are for trying to improve the system, but I don't believe Republicans should use this insane uninformed anti healthcare fervor to essentially cut out these programs they don't like that impact working class people's quality of life.

Originally Posted by interventor1212:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Thats not true.

 

I know of two folks that are 50-55 years old, have some health issues but still work everyday, drive, fly their own plane, etc, and pay over $12,000/year for insurance after shopping around to every company in AlObama.  And insurance in AlObama is cheaper than the national average.  Even the threat of Medicare reform will cost the Repubs seats in the House and control of the Senate. 

So, two people found insurance for about $6,000 per person.  Well below the $15,000 in the Ryan plan.

 

Here's the plans now used by federal employees and congress.  All less than $7,000 per year.

http://www.opm.gov/insure/heal...nonpostalffs2011.pdf

 

When the system is broke, what will they do!

 


 

 

They pay $12,000 each, for crappy insurance.  They are two unrelated people. 

 

 

Because most people, especially when they are 65 don't make as much money as a Congressman and can't afford the plan they have.  As far as your interpreation of "looting from Medicare", you and your kind want to gut the program and give the money as a tax break to the wealthy,  to heck with the healthcare of the retired working class, as far as you're concerned.  

Originally Posted by EvilGenius:

Because most people, especially when they are 65 don't make as much money as a Congressman and can't afford the plan they have.  As far as your interpreation of "looting from Medicare", you and your kind want to gut the program and give the money as a tax break to the wealthy,  to heck with the healthcare of the retired working class, as far as you're concerned.  

Your statement is rather rediculous on the face of it.  Neither Republcans, nor conservatives like myself have expressed a desire to scrap medicare to give a tax break to the rich.  We have expressed a desire to replace it with a system that is sustainable.

 

At present, the old socialist system in Europe is in a state of decay even worse than the US. Greece and Spain, once showcased as socialist exemplars are now near complete collapse.  Greece exists on loans from German.  Spain has an unemployment rate of over 21 percent. Remember all those green jobs in Spain (which for every one created, destroyed 2.1 regular jobs).

 

The new UK budget cuts all government programs, except defense and healthcare, by 25 percent.  Defense will be cut 10 percent and healthcare about 8 percent.  And, the UK produces about 75 percent of their own oil.

 

If not for their oil profits, Norway and Denmark couldn't afford their socialist government.  Soon, they won't be able to.

 

Evil Genius, Lex Luthor, you ain't!  The Joker, maybe!

 


 

 

In all three countries, there is great variation of opinion within the population on both the quality of medical care and the availability of affordable healthcare. It is a testament to national health systems that people in Canada and Great Britain are significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare than their American counterparts are.

In Great Britain, satisfaction with access to affordable healthcare (43%) is consistent with satisfaction with quality (42%). In Canada, satisfaction with access to affordable healthcare (57%) is slightly higher than satisfaction with quality (52%). But the most dramatic variation in satisfaction with these two facets of the healthcare system occurs in the United States, where only 25% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, but 48% are satisfied with quality. Once again, this dichotomy seems to support the hypothesis that private healthcare encourages high-quality standards, but may be a barrier to access and affordability.

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/805...-britain-canada.aspx

Originally Posted by EvilGenius:

Because most people, especially when they are 65 don't make as much money as a Congressman and can't afford the plan they have.  As far as your interpreation of "looting from Medicare", you and your kind want to gut the program and give the money as a tax break to the wealthy,  to heck with the healthcare of the retired working class, as far as you're concerned.  

What part of the upto $15,000 supplement and the insurance polcies costing about $7,000 did you understand!

Originally Posted by EvilGenius:

And I have spent time in Salt Lake City and Utah.  I do not want the Mormon church and Mo Brook's idea of of what America should be.  Give me Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower's (Two good Republicans) view of American any day over Mo and the Mormons.

What is their idea of America? I think their religion is a little out there but it sounds like you think there's some grand conspiracy coming out of Salt Lake. Will we forced to give up caffeine and tobacco? Made to cheer for BYU? What?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×