Keating 5 cost taxpayers $125 billion.
Posted By: O's ALLEGED ties cost $0. nm on 2008-10-06
In Reply to: Obama's poor judgement...Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Tony Rezco.. - votinginde
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Fannie/Freddie going to cost 7 billion...
if we are lucky.
Why should taxpayers be funding
any network? Just for the record.....it is O'Reilly.
Taxpayers do not fund PBS
You obviously do not watch PBS. It is solely viewer funded and publicly owned. (Although lately I HAVE seen paid commercials on there)
I'm beginning to see the reason some of the posters here sound so ignorant.
Obama robbing taxpayers? Do you
bwitch and moan when we give OPEC 700B a year for oil? With this stimulus, an energy policy will be started to relieve us of that huge bill EVERY YEAR!! Not to mention national security. Just that one fact alone makes it worth the money, IMHO. Also, you would pay taxes anyway, no matter what!! Did you mind paying your taxes so the FAT CATS could get fatter over the last 8 years? Do you bwitch and moan about that? Give me a break.
Keating Five
History, it is said, is written by the victors. Or alternatively by John McCain, who has proclaimed that his role in the 1989 Keating Five corruption and racketeering scandal -- which led to the Lincoln Savings and Loan (S&L) bailout, part of the larger United States S&L crisis of the late 1980's and 1990's -- is his "asterisk." Excuse me? His asterisk? This writer begs to differ.
But apparently the American corporate media agrees, judging by its all but collective failure to report on McCain's primary role in the one incident in American history where the exact same catalyst, government deregulation, led to a comparable financial shipwreck, albeit not on the same gargantuan scale as the present, historic economic collapse.
This is not to say that the S&L crisis was not big. To the contrary, the immensity of the Lincoln Savings and Loan collapse, indeed of the entire S&L sector--and John McCain's role in it--is impossible to overstate. At this point, a bit of historical context is in order.
It all began when Charles Keating's American Continental Corporation purchased Lincoln in 1984. In the span of five years, with Keating as chairman -- and with the S&L industry newly deregulated -- Lincoln's assets ballooned from 1.1 billion to 5.5 billion. Much of this booty was the result of using customers' federally insured deposits to engage in high risk, highly speculative real estate and junk bond dealings.
By 1986, Lincoln had $135 million in undisclosed losses, and they had surpassed the newly imposed cautionary 10 percent "direct investment" limit of institutional assets by $600 million dollars. It doesn't take a financial wizard to recognize that this did not bode well for Lincoln's individual depositors -- or for the government's insurance fund, the Federal Depositor Insurance Corporation (FDIC). In 1989, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), growing increasingly alarmed by Lincoln's use of FDIC-insured funds for commercial real estate deals, initiated a probe into Lincoln's free-wheeling investment practices.
Once Keating got wind of the investigation, he decided to capitalize on his political investments, his estimated $1.3 million in campaign contributions to various U. S. Senators. And John McCain, the deregulator's deregulator, was the recipient of the most cash, $112,000 -- which may not seem like much by today's standards, but it was a bundle back in the 1980's.
And that doesn't include the other fringe benefits afforded to McCain, like private jet rides to Keating's opulent Bahamas estate, myriad fund raisers for McCain's House and Senate campaigns, or Cindy McCain's (and her father's) involvement with Keating in a "sweetheart" shopping mall deal in Arizona. As the Feds closed in, Keating decided to call in his markers.
Keating orchestrated at least two April 1987 meetings between several San Francisco FHLBB board members, including its chairman Edwin Gray, and five U. S. Senators -- The Keating Five -- including the good John McCain. In spite of this blatant obstruction of justice, the San Francisco regulators found Lincoln guilty of unsound lending practices and recommended its seizure. The Keating Five exerted pressure and the takeover was delayed for 2 years. Gray was replaced. Meanwhile, Lincoln's customers were steered into extremely risky, uninsured investments, junk bonds held by Keating's American Continental Corporation, which ultimately went belly-up in April 1989. Lincoln was finally seized by the FHLBB that same month.
Meanwhile, more than 21,000 mostly elderly depositors lost their life's savings in the sordid affair, to the tune of $285 million, prompting an approximate $2 billion federal government bail-out. Keating was found guilty of fraud and racketeering and served 50 months of a 12-year prison sentence. McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing and chided for "poor judgment" by the Senate Ethics Committee.
In the two decades since this disgraceful affair, McCain has maintained that he did not knowingly do anything wrong. All the money and graft did not influence his actions.
Not so, according to Keating who is quoted in the 2003 book, Philosophical Dimensions of Public Policy. When asked if his political donations amounted to quid pro quo, Keating reportedly said "I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so."
No such candor from John McCain. To let the senator from Arizona tell it, he was only helping Keating because he was one of the largest employers in his state. Besides that, Keating's accountants vouched for Lincoln's financial viability. Even Alan Greenspan authored a favorable report commissioned by Keating, McCain routinely deflects. How could anyone blame him for not knowing that Keating was looting Lincoln? (This is kind of like the Bush Administration's circular defense of the massive "intelligence failure" with regard to Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.)
At any rate, that is McCain's story, and he has been sticking to it for almost two decades now. Not that he has had to talk much about it in recent years. He has been too busy straight-talking about ethics and campaign finance reforms, not unlike the burglar who repents and becomes an anti-theft crusader. And lo and behold, so far it has worked. In perhaps the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy, it would seem that McCain has succeeded in making The Keating Five mess his self-proclaimed asterisk. And who can blame him for trying to sanitize this most shameful chapter of his political career? But the so-called Fourth Estate's silence is another story altogether.
It is nothing less that mind-boggling that most of the media establishment, America's supposed "watchdog" is ignoring this crucial chapter of the McCain story. Really, when you think about it, it is obscene; and an objective history will judge them harshly. Particularly when one considers that this is the same media that acted as drum majors in the run-up to the Iraq War, and were enthusiastically embedded with the military in the delusional days of "shock and awe." Or were they in bed with the Bush Administration?
This is the very same media that obsessed over Bill Clinton's sexual peccadilloes and savaged AL Gore for inconsequential things like visiting a Buddhist temple or kissing his wife too passionately after his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Committee...and who barely made a sound when the Supreme Court basically overturned an American Presidential election. And it is the same media that was basically complicit in the swiftboating of the decorated Vietnam veteran, John Kerry.
The same press corps that has rendered the Democrats spineless and, for the last eight years, afraid to act as a true opposition party (and too fainthearted to raise the Keating Five in this election cycle) lest they too be savaged by the Republicans who, with a wink and a nod, constantly rail against the "liberal media" who have now apparently taken a vow of silence about John McCain's "asterisk."
In a clear-eyed, reasonable, straight-talking society, the Keating Five would be the lead of any John McCain biography, second only to the Hanoi Hilton. Some might even argue that the monumental racketeering scandal should take a back seat to nothing in the story of this man who would be president -- particularly at a time when this nation's economic infrastructure is literally crumbling. Count this writer in that number.
Taxpayers will pay for Gonzales' private attorney
This is incredible.
Lawyers from the Justice Department's civil division often represent department employees who're sued in connection with their official actions. However, Gonzales' attorney recently revealed in court papers that the Justice Department had approved his request to pay private attorney's fees arising from the federal lawsuit.
Dan Metcalfe, a former high-ranking veteran Justice Department official who filed the suit on behalf of eight law students, called the department's decision to pay for a private attorney rather than rely on its civil division "exceptional."
"It undoubtedly will cost the taxpayers far more," he said.
According to a person with knowledge of the case, the Justice Department has imposed a limit of $200 an hour or $24,000 a month on attorneys' fees. Top Justice Department attorneys generally earn no more than $100 per hour. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.
Asked why Gonzales made the request, Gonzales spokesman Robert Bork Jr. said that his client "values the work that the department's civil attorneys do in all cases" but thinks that "private counsel can often be useful where (department) officials are sued in an individual capacity, even where the suit has no substantive merit."
Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the department wouldn't have any comment on the reasons for the approval and wouldn't answer questions about the cost to taxpayers.
Geithner plan will rob American taxpayers
Geithner plan will rob American taxpayers: Stiglitz
Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:12am EDT
By Susan Fenton and Deborah Kan
HONG KONG (Reuters) - The U.S. government plan to rid banks of toxic assets will rob American taxpayers by exposing them to too much risk and is unlikely to work as long as the economy remains weak, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said on Tuesday.
"The Geithner plan is very badly flawed," Stiglitz told Reuters in an interview during a Credit Suisse Asian Investment Conference in Hong Kong.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's plan to wipe up to US$1 trillion in bad debt off banks' balance sheets, unveiled on Monday, offered "perverse incentives," Stiglitz said.
The U.S. government is basically using the taxpayer to guarantee against downside risk on the value of these assets, while giving the upside, or potential profits, to private investors, he said.
"Quite frankly, this amounts to robbery of the American people. I don't think it's going to work because I think there'll be a lot of anger about putting the losses so much on the shoulder of the American taxpayer."
Even if the plan clears banks of massive toxic debt, worries about the economic outlook mean banks could still be unwilling to make fresh loans, while the prospect of a higher tax burden to pay for various government stimulus plans could further undermine U.S. consumers, he said.
Some Republican lawmakers have also expressed concern over the incentives offered by the government, which could end up providing private investors with more than 90 percent of the funds to buy the troubled assets. But President Barack Obama has said the plan was critical to a U.S. economic recovery,
Stiglitz, a professor at New York's Columbia University and a former World Bank chief economist, also urged G20 leaders at their London summit next month to commit to providing greater resources to developing countries and said China should be given bigger voting rights in the International Monetary Fund.
"The voices of developing countries, and countries like China that will provide a lot of the money, are not heard."
China would be hard pushed to reach its targeted 8 percent economic growth this year, but the important thing was that at least the Chinese economy was still growing, he said.
Stiglitz welcomed China's proposal on Monday for an overhaul of the world monetary system in which Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China, said the IMF's Special Drawing Right has the potential to become a super-sovereign reserve currency.
Stiglitz has long called for the U.S. dollar to be replaced as the only reserve currency. Basing a reserve system on a single currency whose strength depends on confidence its own economy is not a good basis for a global system, he says.
"We may be at the beginning of a loss of confidence (in the U.S. dollar reserve system)," he said. "I think there is support for some sort of global reserve system."
Two words... KEATING FIVE!! nm
x
The Keating Scandal
Over the weekend, John McCain's top adviser announced their plan to stop engaging in a debate over the economy and "turn the page" to more direct, personal attacks on Barack Obama.
In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to change the subject from the central question of this election. Perhaps because the policies McCain supported these past eight years and wants to continue are pretty hard to defend.
But it's not just McCain's role in the current crisis that they're avoiding. The backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like the other major financial crisis of our time.
During the savings and loan crisis of the late ྌs and early ྖs, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.
Sound familiar?
In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain.
The point of the film and the web site is that John McCain still hasn't learned his lesson.
And this time, McCain's bankrupt economic philosophy has put our economy at the brink of collapse and put millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes.
Watch the video to see why John McCain's failed philosophy and poor judgment is a recipe for deepening the crisis:
http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
It's no wonder John McCain would rather spend the last month of this election smearing Barack's character instead of talking about the top priority issue for voters.
It's long (13 minutes) but information every voter should know.
Why don't you ever mention the other 4 in the Keating 5 were....
Democrats? Three of whom were much more than "rebuked." The Keating 5 was a small part of the article. The lead with the pic of the "indicted" guy has been refuted...and Obama also has an "indicted" friend..Rezko. But you did not bring that up either.
Bush and the Playboy Playmate - Why are taxpayers paying for this?
Bush team backs Anna in fight over fortune
By Inside Track
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
An unlikely fellow Texan has teamed up with Playboy playmate Anna Nicole Smith in her U.S. Supreme Court fight to claim her late husband’s fortune: George Bush!
The Bush administration’s top lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, filed arguments on Smith’s behalf and wants to take part when the case is argued before the justices.
The high court will decide early next year whether to let Clement share time with Smith’s attorney during the one-hour argument on Feb. 28.
Smith, 38, has been desperately trying to collect millions of dollars from the estate of oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II, whom she married in 1994 when he was 89 and she was a 26-year-old topless dancer in Houston. Marshall died in 1995 and Smith has been in a legal battle with his only son, E. Pierce Marshall, over his fortune ever since.
In previous rulings, federal bankruptcy judge sided with the Trim Spa spokesgal in her claim on the estate, awarding her $474 million, which was subsequently reduced to about $89 million by a federal district judge, and then tossed out altogether by a federal appeals court.
The current issue is the question of when federal courts may hear claims that involve state probate proceedings. Clement contends the justices should protect jurisdiction in disputes.
The zany reality TV star lost in Texas state courts, which found that Marshall’s son was the sole heir to his father’s estate.
Although both Bush and Marshall graduated from Yale University, were both in the oil business and held government positions in Washington, the Bush administration’s filings in the case are strictly technical.
Yeeeeeeee-haaaaaaa!
http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/moreTrack/view.bg?articleid=118756
Good grief! Taxpayers get stuck with the bill...
and Franklin Raines gets a over a million per year in "retirement..."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/28/national/main663502.shtml
Google and look.....for instance the Keating 5....
one of those was also Senator John Glenn of Ohio, a Democrat. Did we see HIS name prominently in the letter? People love John Glenn and NO ONE ever mentions HE was one of the Keating 5. In fact, all the other 4 were Democrats. John Glenn and John McCain were the only 2 that the senate ethics committee said were NOT centrally involved and cleared of impropriety. Both ran for re-election the next year and both were re-elected. And John McCain has apologized for any involvement, said it was poor judgment, and mentioned that again at the Saddleback interview. At least he admits when he is wrong and takes responsibility. Yet another reason I like him.
THAT is what I mean about getting the WHOLE story.
Let's talk about McCain and the Keating Five or his
Let's talk about how he left his wife who waited for him while he was in prison for five years. Then he dumped her because she was disfigured in an accident. Now he has Cindy who makes life wonderful with $100 mil a year. He needs to be president to bring something to the table for HER because his war vet thing is nice but not really as prestigious as PRES and as PRES he could do a lot for rich people like wifey.
And he's related to Charles Keating!
nm
Like JOHN MCCAIN - Keating 5 Scandal
I guess JM is a crook, too
http://www.mahalo.com/Keating_5_Scandal
McCain has spoke ad nauseam about Keating 5
Get over it already!
The corrupt ACORN bunch are still at it and Obama is backing them every inch of the way. They are his push into office don't ya know?
You call Keating, Ayers, ACORN et all serious debate?
I don't. How about the economy, the wars, the exploding national debt, unemployment, homelessness. That's the issues I'd like to see discussed and your proposed solutions, not who can sling the most mud. Get it?
So now we taxpayers are expected to pay for a motorsports racing track facility and a mine rescue tr
What the ... ?
A tax exemption for wooden arrows made for use by children?
And economic development for American Samoa?
An increase in the rum excise tax for Puerto Rico?
Do these senators think we CAN'T read? Or just hoping that we WON'T?
Oh, it isn't $700 billion any more... it is
now $850 billion!!, I am shocked both Senators from LA, 1 Dem (Landrieu) and 1 Rep (Vitter), voted NO.
34 BILLION...............
To the poster who said ALL the garbage had been taken out of the stimulus bill, which of course hasn't, I suppose you believe the Dept of Commerce spending 34 BILLION of our money is just fine, especially since they are a huge anti-American group to begin with. Do your homework.....Dept of Commerce is not the least bit interested in businesses in this country.
Gee, $1.2 billion?
pretty soon we'll be talking about real money!
You will never be able to deny that $559 billion
su
That would have been 30 billion to ACORN of the...sm
return on the investments. That and other returns going to special interests.
Think about it. This is an investment. NOT a bailout. They need to get rid of that word.
If the dems wanted to write in 30 billion dollars to the ACORN from future profits....and others....they know this is an investment.
They need to tell the public this.
These profits need to be returned to the taxpayer, and to Social Security and pay down the national debt.
Not more special interests.
That's a big holdup of all the add ons that the dems put on, that need to be changed for the good of the people.
They need to get back closer to three pages....instead of 103 pages of earmarks for special interests.
I thought it came out of the 700 billion as...
part of the consumer housing protection part of it. The way I understand the 700 billion is that is how much is allotted but nothing in the bill said specifically how it was going to be spent other than to "rescue" the economy. The bill did have mortgage protections in it, meaning "try to keep people in their homes." So, I believe that he is saying 300 billion of the 700 billion would go to that purpose.
$14 billion in taxes isn't even a
Certainly, no reason to legalize a dangerous substance, which is what pot is.
Let's reverse all the smoking restrictions and get all our kids hooked on cigarettes instead, if that's our logic. We'll make a lot more than $14 billion!
Stamp out tobacco and legalize pot. We're doing some real good thinking here.
And hey! You! Drop that Twinkie and put your hands in the air! Wipe those crumbs off your lips! This is the Fat Police you're dealing with, buster, and you're goin' downtown. Lookout boys! He's got a can of whipped cream under his shirt!
(Later, at home): Son, I'm so disappointed in you. Why can't you smoke pot like all the other kids?
Not very cost effective, is it? nm
x
The boxes only cost about $75.... sm
and as the poster above said, this has been in the offing for some time now. Surely, if a person can afford a television, they could afford a box.... Even if they have to save up for it. What about when all the analog televisions have been converted? They are no longer making analog televisions, so the jobs in this field would go bye-bye.
What would cost more in the long
The government astronomically increasing the deficit -or- the government doing nothing our nation nosediving into economic collapse?
Yes, our taxes will increase, as will our children's and probably, at least for some of us, our grandchildren's. But the alternative is far more dire.
Frankly, I don't know if what the feds have done (during both administrations) was the right thing to do. Even the economists can't agree. Some say it was ill-advised, some say it was misdirected, some say it was too much, others say it was not enough. I am just glad that, for the moment at least, I have a roof over my head and do not have to stand in a soup line. The future? Who knows?
It may have cost her this crown........... sm
but it may have preserved her other one! I, for one, am glad to see a Christian standing up for her beliefs in the face of being unpopular and losing something that is important to her.
I think it did cost her the crown
I heard that Perez gave her zero points for her answer. If he was being at all fair, she would have gotten something for her answer; it was a good answer, and her opinion, but he didn't agree with it.
She was in the lead before this question, so yes, I believe it did.
700 billion dispersed to every citizen would only come to
.
I heard this morning it was over $850 billion...
with added stuff...one particular one I saw was for wool research and wooden children's arrows of all things. The Republicans did manage to get some tax cuts in there that will help to a point so that maybe not so much of the $700 billion will have to go out...because people will be encouraged to invest again. A drop in the bucket probably, but at least a try. Now it has to go back to the house and no telling what they will want to add. The bill went from what was posted on the internet (about 10 pages I think) to 450+. Sigh. THAT kind of experience we don't need anymore of. Bring on Sarah Palin. I wish we could replace every member of congress with common sense folks like Sarah Palin. THAT is change I can believe in. I am sick to DEATH of Washington Politics as usual.
As to Dodd and Frank...I hear that! Not willing to accept one iota of the blame when they should have all of it. And where is the mainstream media? Out to lunch? Can you imagine what will happen to this country if Obama is elected, with a Democrat majority and mainstream media cover? What is WRONG with people? Hellooo. Sigh.
Mccain did say that he had a plan to use 300 billion...
of the 700 billion to buy back bad mortgages and renegotiate them to a fixed rate so that people could stay in their homes. Obama said this morning that was a bad idea and it rewarded bad lenders. But it WOULD protect the homeowners. He can't have it both ways, and neither can you.
Obama has not said how he will fix the economic crisis either. He talks in generalities. He said that yes, maybe some programs should be cut, but won't given even ONE example. He says he still plans to raise taxes on the rich (which are the businesses, the corporations, most of the jobmakers in this country). Now you tell ME how THAT is going to HELP the economy.
McCain has said he would FREEZE spending except for the most necessary programs. THAT is what will HELP the economy. If Obama said freeze spending his base woudl go apoplectic.
McCain has said more specific things than Obama has said about getting us out of his crisis. You just aren't listening to anyone but Obama and the Obama campaign. I am listening to BOTH of them.
errr...$2.1 billion committment....
Why can I not type?
What with the rise in the cost of living....(sm)
its hard to make it on just $169,300 a year.....ROFL...they should try working with my budget.
How much does it cost to throw a party?
Look, I don't care if Obama's inaugaration party is costing 21 million, but in the light of where our economy is right now, do you think it's a good idea? I mean, can't you have a good party for around 10 million? This is NOT a political question. I'm not attacking Obama, it's more of an economic question.
Nothing is very cost effective and now i heard
they want to up the ethanol production by 12%....so that means higher corn prices again next year.
and of course, the speculators are currently driving up the cost, again.....
All the more reason to institute Picken's Plan..........there
and of course, the speculators are currently driving up the cost, again.....
All the more reason to institute Picken's Plan..........there isn't
We don't know if the answer cost her the crown.
There were apparently either 10 or 12 judges, each of whom rated each candidate in the final round as "1 through 5". Depending on the margin she lost by, and how her answer figured in each judge's assessment, the answer may very well have cost her the crown - or not. We simply do not know without seeing the score cards and also finding out from each judge how her answer figured into their decisions.
The deficit is coming down. It is down by 18 billion just recently
how do you know no one has anyone serving over there. You have no way of knowing that.
It took spending 1-1/2 BILLION dollars a month...sm
over years on the war in Iraq to get us to this point, borrowing from other countries, the highest deficit ever, printing money by the government with no gold behind it to drive the value of our dollar down around the world. Nothing to do with the democrats. When Bush became president we had a huge surplus. Did you forget that?
Remember the $150 billion in TARP "sweeteners"
That one was sorta like a bribe to get pubs onboard. This bill rider is a bit different, maybe a tad more understandable but nonetheless, pretty hard to swallow, given the circumstances. Apparently, whereas Congress gets an automatic COLA raise, judges' raises have to be subjected to vote. In 6 of the last 13 years, judges were denied COLA raises (leaving their salaries stagnated at a mere $169,300 annually). This particular measure was the only remaining unresolved issue remaining on this lame duck congressional session. They will be getting 2.3% raise, if it passes. Here's a link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081210/ap_on_go_co/judicial_pay_raise
Yeah.Like it's hard to live with $12 Billion
8600 earmarks = 6 BILLION DOLLARS!
to that line by line lie Obama told when he wanted to be elected? He hasn't looked at one page, let one line by line...... thanks to all who put such a thug and liar in office!
This does not cost anything. Just pick a card and a message...sm
Or even type your own message and Xerox handles the mailing. This is neat.
And do you know why the cost of living for the middle class has gone down...?
because we are being taxed to death. The amount of our income off the top for taxes has increased over all those years. More programs to help the "poor," some of which have moved people from what used to be middle class to the "poor class" to get on some of those social programs...which is never a good thing...and meanwhile the working middle class continues to get the tax shaft. Yeah, we are being had...by those who want to spend, tax, spend, tax, spend....
Again, you are skirting the major issues and the cost...
did you read all the France article? Their physicians make two-thirds less than ours...and why? Because there is no medical school tuition in France. Can you imagine what would happen to this country's quality of care if you made medical schools no tuition? Can you see Cornell Medical School, Harvard Medical School to name just two, schools who graduate the most brilliant minds in medicine...going to a no-tuition basis? How are they going to be able to train physicians with only government doled-out money to support them? The quality of physician in this country, followed rapidly by the quality of care would tank. If you come from academic medicine, ask those physicians how they feel about no tuition medical school and having their fees capped. Go ahead and ask them.
Our own socialized care is substandard. Articles every day about VA Hospitals and the deplorable conditions in many of them. Veterans having to wait weeks and months for appointments, etc. I know. I have seen the system at work. The government cannot oversee the socialized programs they have now. Medicare and Medicaid are both rife with waste and fraud. We all know this. Because the government cannot oversee them the way they should. And you want to extend this to every person in the US? Look at this reality-based. It is a fiasco in the making.
I am sure the Canadians and the UK thought it would be wonderful too. In the first months it may have been. However, things get skewed when the cost starts to catch up. That is when you end up with a population having over HALF their income taken off the top in taxes to feed the fatted calf. You will note that the article said France was considering taxing both earned and unearned income to feed THEIR calf. When that happens, ask the French how they feel about socialized medicine.
I don't know where you get that healthcare costs are driven by insurance companies. That is nuts. They don't set the fees doctors, clinics, drug companies, yada yada, charge. In fact, it was some of the organized insurance companies, like HMOs, who went to clinics, physicians, etc., to negotiate deals for their consumers...so that those clinics would accept a certain rate for their services. The clinics would agree to less than their normal fees in order to get the business of that HMO. That is the free market WORKING. The clinic I go to for my care, when I get a bill, the insurance company shows what they charged, what they paid, and in nice bold letters at the bottom it says that I am not responsible for the difference because the clinic agreed to that amount for that service, regardless of what their normal charge is.
So, yes, in a way insurance companies do drive health care...but in a good way in my case, and I am sure in other cases across this country, if people would just open their eyes and look.
What this appears to be, on the face of it, is that people just do not want to pay for their own insurance, they want to turn it into yet another entitlement...the biggest one ever. If they want to let the government control them to that extent...more power to them. These same people who want to give up their personal right to control their own health care are the same people that complain about civil liberties and wiretapping. Don't tap my phone, but go ahead and take my health care completely out of my hands as long as you pay for it I don't have to.
No thanks. I do not want to be tied to the government for my health care and I do not want them making my decisions for me. One thing leads to another and before long the government (or more specifically, the Democrats) have you tied to them for your every need. Then, my friends, they have you. You will be living in a socialist country. And if that looks good to you...look at Venezuela. Look at the disparity there between those in power and the "people." Look at Cuba. Look at what socialist Germany turned into before World War II. Please look at history, folks. Socialism always evolves into a dictatorship. Always. Because once they have you dependent upon them for your every need...all I am saying is be careful what you ask for.
Read the article...it says it all there cost of bed and electricity...nm
Palin is a fraud....
lol
I agree....cost and insurance practices DO...
need overhaul. And McCain has good ideas to take care of that, called competition. Making all insurance available in all parts of the country is a start...so no monopolies in certain parts of the country. Now there are some really great plans, trouble is, not available everywhere in the country. McCain thinks if you offer a policy, you offer it everywhere, if you are a national company. Insurance companies, if they toe the line, can help control costs, just like they do in certain parts of the country where physicians will take whatever the insurane company is willing to pay. If they are made to compete nationally prices will have to come down. That is what competitive market does. And rather than having the government muck around in it, McCain is just going to give a tax credit $2500 individual and $5000 family to help pay premiums. That is pretty significant, and no strings attached. You still make your own health care decisions. And that works for me.
|
