Editorial: A decision on health care reform is needed

Luke J.
03/21/2010 3:57 PM

I think the 30 million who currently don't have health insurance will be quite happy, Same goes for those who have been denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Health care is already outrageously expensive. I'll gladly take a little bit more of outrageous to help those who don't have any coverage at all. Why? Blame it on my Sunday school teachers who taught me we are to care for the poor.

Report a Violation

Sam K.
03/21/2010 11:25 AM

A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 81% of voters think health-care reform's costs will be higher than projected. This is one poll I would have to agree with. Why do I have little hope that Obamacare will end up costing astoundingly more than what the Democrats believe ... history. If you can find me ONE government program that actually cost what it was initially intended to cost, please send me the link or call the show. In the meantime, I can give you an example of one government program that cost us way more than initially estimated. Medicare. Back in 1965 when Congress wanted to establish a national Medicare program, Part A of the program was estimated to cost $9 billion by 1990. Well I'm sure you know what happened when 1990 came around. A program that was estimated to cost $9 billion actually cost $67 billion. Even after taking into consideration inflation and other factors, the actual cost of Medicare Part A ended up being 165% higher than originally predicted. Just one year later, in 1966 we got a new Medicare program. With all of its parts now combined, was supposed to cost $12 billion in 1990. Again ... when 1990 rolled around, the actual cost was $110 billion. The estimates were off by a factor of ten! Okay .. so that was just Medicare. I said I would give you an example of one government program. But what the heck, let's go ahead and take a look at Medicaid as well. In 1987 Congress estimated that Medicaid would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. Well 1992 came and went, and so did a $17 billion price tag. Changes to the Medicare home benefit in 1988 .. the projected costs for 1993 was $4 billion. The actual cost: $10 billion. The list goes on and on. Need I keep going? From Neal Boortz

Report a Violation

Rick C.
Willmar, MN     03/20/2010 9:12 PM

Do you remember any of this from last year Gary? http://unsilentgeneration.com/2009/08/07/obamas-sellout-to-the-drug-kingpins/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

Report a Violation

Rick C.
Willmar, MN     03/20/2010 8:28 PM

BTW Gary since you are interested the industry sector that has given the most in contributions for the 2010 election cycle is lawyes and law firms. 80% of their funds go to Democrats. And I wonder why we dont get tort reform.

Report a Violation

Rick C.
Willmar, MN     03/20/2010 8:23 PM

Gary it jkust proves the Dems can be bought just as easily, and the health care bribes are proving maybe more easily, as any Republican. So far in the 2010 election cycle the Insurance insustry is going 53% Dems to 47% Republicans. Figures are only compiled for election cycle years.

Report a Violation

gary l.
Troy, NY     03/20/2010 7:18 PM

Rick C. What'd they do in 2009? In any event, if what you write is true it proves they've seen the light. How about the insurance folks?

Report a Violation

Rick C.
Willmar, MN     03/20/2010 6:05 PM

Gary in 2008 Pharmaceutical Companies gave 49% of their political contributions to Democrats and 51% Republicans. So far in 2010 they have given 54% to Dems and 46% to Republicans. Who is buying who?

Report a Violation

gary l.
Troy, NY     03/20/2010 12:44 PM

Rick C. OK, I'll agree that the Dems are working on "buying" congressional votes if you'll agree that the Repubs have already been bought by the pharmaceutical industry. Deal??

Report a Violation

Rick C.
Willmar, MN     03/20/2010 10:29 AM

Perhaps the "West Central Tribune" missed it but the Republicans brought the measure up for a vote this past week so a "decision" could be made. But of course the Dems voted it down. They hadn't had enough time to buy votes yet.

Report a Violation