Wow Kevin! What a fantastic video! Thanks for posting it Nance! Finally a politician with some logical thinking! Congressman Rogers is absolutely right. We have seen what government run healthcare's potential is. It seems clear that we would not implement such a poor healthcare system in America. We ARE a country of innovation so why can't we come up with a better solution for the uninsured? Truthfully, every American can receive healthcare if they simply go to any County Hospital ER. No American will be refused care there. They may have to wait a while, depending upon the severity of their emergency, but 4 hours will seem like 5 minutes after the government takes over and they have to wait 6 months to see a physician. Well Nance, this is a complicated topic, so I could go on forever, but hearing Congressman Rogers speech gave me a little hope for the future of Healthcare in America.
Nancy, I appreciate you sending me news of your updated blog. As I have said before, I am impressed with your willingness to step out into this thorny area and express your views. I was impressed with your effort to talk to your congresswoman. If more of us made such an effort, things would improve. I am writing however in regards to the speech by Congressman Rogers of Michigan. I felt that it was a demagogic rampage with really no substance. He started out by addressing the Chairman. But in the middle of his rampage he was talking to the small business man and repeatedly referenced him as "you". This is an indication that it was a typical grandstanding-spit-in-the-mouth tirade. His speech was loaded with innuendo he referenced the "strong men" who had "worked and earned" insurance and the weak men who didn't have it. The proposal was going to punish those "strong men", and pursue a futile effort to help the "weak man". He quoted some Canadian and British journal that said that America had better statistics on treating cancer and numberless diseases than Britain and Canada. What has that to do with the proposed legislation. There is very little resembling the Canadian and the British systems in the proposed legislation. He said that we would be sentencing our mothers and daughters to this ill treatment. Really tell me that this is being objective, and that it is a real effort to solve what he himself called a "huge problem". It is really surprising that he did not include our grandmothers, our babies, and all our crippled children in his partisan demagoguery. He offered not one little solution for that "huge problem". He did not mention any details of the "huge problem". He just lathered up -- spouting of platitudes about America. Is it wrong to consider that America is great enough to offer help for these "weak men"? He finished up by saying that we "have the greatest middle class in the world". How on earth does that fit into the "huge problem". He said that the government was going to tell the middle class what kind of car they should drive, what kind of light-globe they should buy, what kind of glass they would have to put in their house, and now "they are going to tell you who you can have for a doctor". The hell ya say? Let us please be factual. What does all of this light-globe business have to do with the "huge problem"? And is there anything in the proposed bills that would suggest that the government is proposing that I cannot go to Dr. Marv Allen when my heart misbehaves? He pitted the insured against the un-insured, offered absolutely no help for the un-insured, and no help for those who are unhappy with their present insurance. Nancy I am disappointed that you think that such speeches offer any hope for improvement. Is it really so wrong to want to improve the assistance we offer our population, and particularly the "weak men"? Is it really wrong to suggest that those who have insurance and make over two-hundred-thousand dollars a year should help those "weak men"? Perhaps it will make the strong stronger. Such has been said in the past. King Benjamin said that we had best not label that beggar (weak man).
Apart from this, I love you, and hope that the three of you are well, that Tyler is still happy with his job, and that you are happy with your life. I believe you are nothing but good in your efforts. But I have to admit that after listening to Congressman Rogers, I think that maybe he could consider running for Governor of Illinois, or for the State Representative from Utah County. I believe that he could write editorials for the Daily Herald.
Hi Nance, I wanted to make a comment about Bruce's post. I would not call Congressman Rogers passion a "demagogic rampage", but I will agree that he did not offer a solution to the "huge problem" of healthcare in this country. I also do not think that it is a problem for the "strong" men to help the "weak" men of America. What I do not like is that the ability to choose is taken away. Although I make far less than $200K a year, I am able to have health insurance, and I do want to help those in need, but I would like to choose how and when I will help those in need. America is indeed a great enough country to help those in need and there are numerous government programs currently available to those "weak" men. Rather then create additional programs, we should focus on perfecting the programs that are already in place. I believe in innovation and the power of the free market. I do not agree with government run healthcare. Maybe I do not understand the benefits of government run healthcare, but it seems to me that this proposed solution to help the "weak" men will in turn only create new problems.
Wow Kevin! What a fantastic video! Thanks for posting it Nance! Finally a politician with some logical thinking! Congressman Rogers is absolutely right. We have seen what government run healthcare's potential is. It seems clear that we would not implement such a poor healthcare system in America. We ARE a country of innovation so why can't we come up with a better solution for the uninsured? Truthfully, every American can receive healthcare if they simply go to any County Hospital ER. No American will be refused care there. They may have to wait a while, depending upon the severity of their emergency, but 4 hours will seem like 5 minutes after the government takes over and they have to wait 6 months to see a physician. Well Nance, this is a complicated topic, so I could go on forever, but hearing Congressman Rogers speech gave me a little hope for the future of Healthcare in America.
ReplyDeleteLove you.
Amy
This is a comment from Bruce:
ReplyDeleteNancy, I appreciate you sending me news of your updated blog. As I have said before, I am impressed with your willingness to step out into this thorny area and express your views. I was impressed with your effort to talk to your congresswoman. If more of us made such an effort, things would improve. I am writing however in regards to the speech by Congressman Rogers of Michigan. I felt that it was a demagogic rampage with really no substance. He started out by addressing the Chairman. But in the middle of his rampage he was talking to the small business man and repeatedly referenced him as "you". This is an indication that it was a typical grandstanding-spit-in-the-mouth tirade. His speech was loaded with innuendo he referenced the "strong men" who had "worked and earned" insurance and the weak men who didn't have it. The proposal was going to punish those "strong men", and pursue a futile effort to help the "weak man". He quoted some Canadian and British journal that said that America had better statistics on treating cancer and numberless diseases than Britain and Canada. What has that to do with the proposed legislation. There is very little resembling the Canadian and the British systems in the proposed legislation. He said that we would be sentencing our mothers and daughters to this ill treatment. Really tell me that this is being objective, and that it is a real effort to solve what he himself called a "huge problem". It is really surprising that he did not include our grandmothers, our babies, and all our crippled children in his partisan demagoguery. He offered not one little solution for that "huge problem". He did not mention any details of the "huge problem". He just lathered up -- spouting of platitudes about America. Is it wrong to consider that America is great enough to offer help for these "weak men"? He finished up by saying that we "have the greatest middle class in the world". How on earth does that fit into the "huge problem". He said that the government was going to tell the middle class what kind of car they should drive, what kind of light-globe they should buy, what kind of glass they would have to put in their house, and now "they are going to tell you who you can have for a doctor". The hell ya say? Let us please be factual. What does all of this light-globe business have to do with the "huge problem"? And is there anything in the proposed bills that would suggest that the government is proposing that I cannot go to Dr. Marv Allen when my heart misbehaves? He pitted the insured against the un-insured, offered absolutely no help for the un-insured, and no help for those who are unhappy with their present insurance. Nancy I am disappointed that you think that such speeches offer any hope for improvement. Is it really so wrong to want to improve the assistance we offer our population, and particularly the "weak men"? Is it really wrong to suggest that those who have insurance and make over two-hundred-thousand dollars a year should help those "weak men"? Perhaps it will make the strong stronger. Such has been said in the past. King Benjamin said that we had best not label that beggar (weak man).
Apart from this, I love you, and hope that the three of you are well, that Tyler is still happy with his job, and that you are happy with your life. I believe you are nothing but good in your efforts. But I have to admit that after listening to Congressman Rogers, I think that maybe he could consider running for Governor of Illinois, or for the State Representative from Utah County. I believe that he could write editorials for the Daily Herald.
Bruce
Hi Nance, I wanted to make a comment about Bruce's post. I would not call Congressman Rogers passion a "demagogic rampage", but I will agree that he did not offer a solution to the "huge problem" of healthcare in this country. I also do not think that it is a problem for the "strong" men to help the "weak" men of America. What I do not like is that the ability to choose is taken away. Although I make far less than $200K a year, I am able to have health insurance, and I do want to help those in need, but I would like to choose how and when I will help those in need. America is indeed a great enough country to help those in need and there are numerous government programs currently available to those "weak" men. Rather then create additional programs, we should focus on perfecting the programs that are already in place. I believe in innovation and the power of the free market. I do not agree with government run healthcare. Maybe I do not understand the benefits of government run healthcare, but it seems to me that this proposed solution to help the "weak" men will in turn only create new problems.
ReplyDeleteAmy