You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Too Loud to be Heard, Posted by Ron”.
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Too Loud to be Heard, Posted by Ron”.
Who are you again???? You think the people are rude and loud? Well I think when you watch the government rip up the Constitution right before your eyes and refuse to listen to the people that hired you maybe the people need to be loud enough to be heard. The ELECTED officials think they know better than us what we want, yet they have never had to live like we live, or face OUR everyday challanges, by the way it doesn’t sound like you have either.
And…if you believe what they’re telling you about the healthcare reform they are talking about… I’ve got a bridge to sell you. It’s simple economics & their numbers don’t add up.Have you even read it?
We are marching on Washington on 912 and I’m not a mobster or crazy or even violent, I just want my country back. With all due respect, I think you need to get out more and I’m speaking very softly.
Ron, it was refreshing to find something about the Health Care issue. But I am concerned about sitting on the sidelines to just listen and learn. Both sides are distorting facts, changing words to make it more palatable, (e.g. Public Options vs. Government Option). While I agree there are now multiple versions of Bills, Pelosi is hell bent to ram rod HR3200, as is the Senate with their version. They have clearly stated such on the news channels.
Both have no real intention to listen to the Republicans’, consider that 100% of the Amendments proposed in the Senate by the Republicans’ had been rejected. One example was an Amendment proposed in the Senate that stated that illegal’s and non citizens would not be eligible for Health Care under the proposed Health Care reform, yet this Amendment was defeated, while at the same time the Democrats state publicly at Town Hall Meetings, and on the news they are not included. My point is that action speaks louder than words. While the Democrats say one thing, they rejected this (1) One Amendment which clarified this point.
Yet the administration and members of the House and Senate keeps pushing the need to cover 47 million people. But let’s look at the numbers:
1. About 9.7 million are qualified for government programs now but haven’t bothered to do the paperwork;
2. 9 million make over $75,000;
3. 6 million are eligible through their employers;
4. 5.2 million are the illegal’s, another 5 million are non-citizens who probably aren’t eligible anyway;
5. leaving only 12 million who do need some sort of health care.
Yet, the President and Democratic Members of the House and Senate say, that illegal’s and non citizens will not be eligible for Health Care under the proposed reform.
If that is the case why do they include them in their numbers?
Why don’t they address the real number that is around 12 million?
I use the (1) one example above to illustrate a point, I could go on and on to make the point that the Dem’s simply want to share the blame when their plans fail, like Social Security, Medicare, Cash for Clunkers, the Post Office and so forth.
All that being said above NAR is one of the largest voices in Congress yet we sit on the sidelines, while the Unions have the ear of the President.
Why hasn’t NAR created talking points based on the proposed bills and created questions to survey the membership?
I am concerned how long the anticipate listening and learning will go on, when they can have experts review the proposed bills and get the real facts, not the SPIN versions. NAR has been pretty darn slow to react thus far – I am underwhelmed by NAR’s sense of urgency. When Congress comes back in session, they will pick up where they left off in an effort to rush this bill through.
If NAR is not prepared with the input and feedback from its members how can it represent its memberships views properly?
I went to Realtor.org and under Gov’t Affairs reviewed the FAQ about Health Care. Great info. While I agree with some points made in the FAQ, I believe NAR should still survey the Members to see what their respective positions are?
In closing, I am for reform to the Health Care, just not a Government Take Over of Health Care. I also feel one should not criticize unless they have a suggestion to a problem.
Therefore My suggestions would be take a look at the most successful health care programs in the world, Switzerland would be one example.
1. We must separate insurance from the employer to the individual. No longer state regulated, now federally regulated. Insurance should be portable like auto insurance.
2. The Insurers must offer a basic package of health care benefits to every US Citizen at the same cost. The Gov’t could define the minimum level or Basic Benefits required. The insurers cannot make a profit from selling “basic coverage”. But they can profit from selling extended or supplemental health plans.
3. Premiums would be deducted from paychecks and be tax deductible.
4. The unemployed and poor would be subsidized for the basic health care coverage.
Switzerland’s health care spending as a percentage of GDP is second only behind the U.S. (11.6% of GDP for Switzerland, 15.3% for the U.S. according to Frontline. Yet the Swiss Gov’t pays for very little of this funding.
There is a book out “The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health-care by T.R. Reid.”
Switzerland’s health care spending as a percentage of GDP is second only behind the U.S. (11.6% of GDP for Switzerland, 15.3% for the U.S. according to Frontline), yet the government pays for very little of this funding. The Swiss system is similar to the “managed competition” health care plan proposed by the Clintons in the early 1990s.
I am not saying this solution is perfect. But we need to look at other countries that have reformed health care without the Gov’t taking control.
While NAR’s oomments and concerns about proposed healthcare reform are well meant, it is disheartening to me NAR is looking at the trees and missing the forest. Health care costs in the U.S. are out of control primarily due to the strength of the insurance company and drug company lobbies. Quality of health care is mediocre at best in spite of the U.S. spending three times (!) as much per person on health care as other developed nations. Insurance companies deny care, ration care, alter doctor orders and in general do not act in the best interests of the insured. A third of our health care costs can be traced to ineffetive insurance administrative overhead. They don’t care because there is no control over them – they can raise fees at whatever rate they choose. Drug companies at best are using the American consumer to subsidize drug costs in other developed countries – but actually are just raking in huge profits working behind the scenes with insurance companies – and no competition means they charge whatever they want and pass it on to the consumer via the insurance industry. Medicare drug coverage is a joke. NAR should be advocating radical reform that eliminates the wasteful role of insurance companies and reins in the drug companies. Until that happens, no bandaid will work and it will always be easy to shoot holes in any proposal. Please stand up for us rather than insuarnce companies and drug companies for once. They own the legislative branches, but they shouldn’t own us.
I appreciate the latter part of Keith’s comments though I could have done without the partisan repeating of unverifiable ‘facts’. Another interesting system is Germany. The government prepares a budget. The stakeholders (labor, drug companies, insurance companies, medical fraternity) figure out how to amass the money (premiums charge by ability to pay) and share the wealth (who gets paid how much and for what). The government says figure it out or we’ll nationalize health care – and being Germany – the stakeholders believe it. The government doesn’t subsidize. Most other developed countries have sane systems that don’t ration health care and don’t let the majority of the benefits go to the insurance and drug companies. (Note that Germany has a very viable drug industry in spite of charge as little as 1/5 of the price of identical drugs in the U.S. – I know because I just receive my order of drugs from Germany avoiding exhorbinant U.S. prices for the same drug made by the same manufacturer)
Ron, After reading the NAR’s stand on Healthcare I am at a loss. Are the realtors a priority? The NAR has asked the insurance industry to work with the realtors for an affordable national plan. They have blocked any plan advocated for the last 10 years (source: The NAR site). Yet the NAR does not want a public option because they are concerned the reduction in insurance profits might hurt that industry. I guess the big question is why are we protecting a group that is not interested in working with us on a solution? Are my dues and RPAC donations providing cover for the insurance industry? Afterall, this is an industry that cares little about our plight. I want to feel confident that the NAR is looking out for our interests and not entrenched in partisan politics.
Ron,
You are right: Health care reform “requires serious, open discussion.” Thus far, I’ve seen very little of it.
Late evidence: Senate leaders and a WH rep are gathered behind closed doors to draft a new bill that they want to vote on quickly — without the American people or even members of the Senate having time to digest and debate. Is this democracy? Is this all we can expect from our elected representatives and senators and president.
Where’s the transparency?
This is such an important issue that any bill under consideration should be posted on the web for at least two weeks before debate begins in Congress. People have a right to express their opinions about legislation — and, in this case, very important legislation that will affect the lives of Americans for a long, long time.
Who’s paying for all of this, anyway? The debt is depressing, and it will lead to a disaster unless we are very careful on how we are spending dollars.
I say the NAR ought to be making sure that the nation’s people benefit from such a huge step before we go around endorsing programs like this. Why don’t you poll Realtors nationwide to see where we stand, rather than pitching a “yes-we-can” tent on the lawn of the White House?
Be deliberate, please.