Health Care: The Road to Washington
January 12, 2010 at 7:54 am 40 comments
Political Columnist
WordPress
Over the past 11 months, the debate about health care reform has reached both highs and lows for democrats, republicans, and independents. Stained with Tea Parties, bitter fights, and tumultuous town halls, it should be no surprise our representatives in Washington as well could not find consensus on the issue, leaving the legislation on substantive reform battered and bruised. The hope, which once existed, of reconstructing the health care and insurance industry in the fashion that benefits the American people, was lost in translation. And yet still Americans do not realize that all throughout the health care debate the source of their tumult had been language. The Tower of Health Care Babel was constructed and has fallen, and the people have dispersed to their respective political corners.
To the people’s dismay, a significant portion of the public involved in this debate allowed the media, radio-talking heads, political pundits and the insurance industry to define the debate language, creating a lexicon using the same names but with the injection of a jargon and idiom perpetrated by the insurance industry et al, that defined and misrepresented common ideas resulting in confusion. In spite of the health care jargon, Americans should have looked back on history to their fathers – and to the institutions they built in which this great country, instituted major social change.
Americans would have to look past the formation of Medicare but not as far as Social Security, and rather look to a much simpler instance in American history to the days of Eisenhower and a social project to which everyone can relate, understand, and apply to the current health care debate.
The Interstate Highway System was authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, as a means of creating a nationwide highway system that would be accessible all across the United States. Initially planned in 1921 by the request of the Bureau of Public Roads to alleviate current and future traffic congestion, assist private and commercial transportation, and to supplement states and private entities with the cost of road construction, the cost estimate to the United States government in the mid-1950s was $25 billion over 12 years; the final cost was $114 billion, which is approximately $425 billion adjusted for inflation in 2006 dollars.
How could have a major project, such as the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, been passed in the congress of today?
Though the initial cost estimate to the U.S government was seriously inaccurate, could the estimators have predicted the $255.5 billon in revenue the trucking industry generates, which delivers approximately 70% of all freighted transport accounting for $671 billion worth of manufactured and retail goods, and generates $295 billion in trade with Canada and $195.6 billion with Mexico? Did the estimators predict the 8.9 million people employed by trucking-related jobs, 53.9 billion gallons of fuel consumption or the $37.5 billion in federal and state highway-user taxes? The answer is simply, NO!
There are countless other examples of industries that were built off the interstate highway system, including towns, cities (Vegas), and even private service industries. This was not a debt on future generations, but a smart investment that created more opportunities than what was initially envisioned.
Substantive health care reform stands to accomplish the same feat, making health care available and more accessible to the public, as well as assist private industry with the cost of competing internationally. Furthermore, it stands to create more health-related jobs, produce more doctors, nurses and a healthier population.
Division and a lack of historical knowledge have crippled our ability to think clearly and to trust ourselves and our government. Congress, we need another public road to Washington.
Documentation:
Information in this article was provided by Wikipedia, DOT, and truckinfo.net
Related Posts:
Republicans rewrite Tea Party History – compares the original tea party against today’s Tea Party http://keironjackman.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/republicans-rewrite-tea-party-history/
Abortion, Religion, & Politics – the constitutionality, legality, and religious consistency in abortion http://keironjackman.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/abortion-religion-politics/
Charlie and the Tea Factory – article that investigates the reasons behind Crist’s performance http://keironjackman.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/charlie-and-the-tea-factory/
WordPress
Over the past 11 months, the debate about health care reform has reached both highs and lows for democrats, republicans, and independents. Stained with Tea Parties, bitter fights, and tumultuous town halls, it should be no surprise our representatives in Washington as well could not find consensus on the issue, leaving the legislation on substantive reform battered and bruised. The hope, which once existed, of reconstructing the health care and insurance industry in the fashion that benefits the American people, was lost in translation. And yet still Americans do not realize that all throughout the health care debate the source of their tumult had been language. The Tower of Health Care Babel was constructed and has fallen, and the people have dispersed to their respective political corners.
To the people’s dismay, a significant portion of the public involved in this debate allowed the media, radio-talking heads, political pundits and the insurance industry to define the debate language, creating a lexicon using the same names but with the injection of a jargon and idiom perpetrated by the insurance industry et al, that defined and misrepresented common ideas resulting in confusion. In spite of the health care jargon, Americans should have looked back on history to their fathers – and to the institutions they built in which this great country, instituted major social change.
Americans would have to look past the formation of Medicare but not as far as Social Security, and rather look to a much simpler instance in American history to the days of Eisenhower and a social project to which everyone can relate, understand, and apply to the current health care debate.
The Interstate Highway System was authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, as a means of creating a nationwide highway system that would be accessible all across the United States. Initially planned in 1921 by the request of the Bureau of Public Roads to alleviate current and future traffic congestion, assist private and commercial transportation, and to supplement states and private entities with the cost of road construction, the cost estimate to the United States government in the mid-1950s was $25 billion over 12 years; the final cost was $114 billion, which is approximately $425 billion adjusted for inflation in 2006 dollars.
Entry filed under: Health Care, Politics. Tags: .
1.
Mike | January 12, 2010 at 6:32 pm
What!?
“Substantive health care reform stands to accomplish the same feat, making health care available and more accessible to the public, as well as assist private industry with the cost of competing internationally. Furthermore, it stands to create more health-related jobs, produce more doctors, nurses and a healthier population.”
The problem is that American’s have bad lifestyles that require us to go to the doctor so much. Having more doctors doesn’t solve anything other than add more complexity to the real underlying problems – that most American’s are fat and lazy. We need to work on getting more people biking or walking to work, exercising, eating better, etc. Or we could just throw more money at the problem…
2.
Tinwarble | January 13, 2010 at 2:54 am
Your assertion, comparing Health Care to the formation of the Interstate is erroneous at best. First maybe you have never read the Constitution but under Article 1, Section 8 it states:
The Congress shall have the Power – To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
That the mail, especially at the of the building of the Interstate system, travels on all roads. The formation of the Interstate was & is Constitutional.
However, no where in the Constitution does it state that the Congress shall have the power to mandate the citizens to the US to buy a product, or fine them for not buying that product.
3.
Al | January 18, 2010 at 9:25 am
What precisely was I supposed to do to prevent myself developing crohn’s disease before the age of 18?
I’ve never been overweight, and to this day have more physical endurance than most, but NOBODY will sell me health insurance, at ANY PRICE!
In fact, without health reform this will make me even LESS attractive as an applicant to most businesses, because their entire group rate could be jacked up due to my condition.
You want a real, underlying problem, there’s one for you right there, unchecked corporate greed and public expense. If you don’t want the government to interfere in business, then let’s get it all the way out and get rid of the concept of “limited liability” for corporate owners and make them think twice about ethics. This will of course have a deleterious effect on the economy. The only other option is regulation to un-do the negative side-effects of isolating CEO’s and Chairmen from the consequences of their actions, and as a common-sense liberal i say we NEED conservatives there helping us make regs WORK rather than crowing about how its impossible and deliberately throwing wrenches into the cogs of government.
4.
John | March 16, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Hey Mike, I’m with you. We don’t need government oversight of healthcare, we need a healthier population. Government could start with giving teeth back to FDA/USDA and forcing food Mfg’s to disclose more about their products. Or spend the money on education, teach our little ones not to eat the junk on today’s shelves. How about subsidizing gym memberships, or healthy food choices in every household? Let’s be creative here people, we are Americans! Once we sign off on paying for healthcare, it is another entitlement that we cannot afford. The government cannot give to one person, what it does not take from another. That spells higer taxes, forever. Wake up America, call and write your Representative. Don’t make your grandchildren pay for our mistakes.
5.
flyovermark | January 13, 2010 at 3:43 am
It should be noted, kJ, that although the federal highway system has benefited us all, it was NEVER intended as a Social Program. It was undertaken as a military program, in the interests of National Security. In addition, no one faced fines or imprisonment for NOT using an “government-approved federal highway”. Comparisons do not exist for HCR. It represents a radical departure from government that (correctly) “promotes” the general welfare, or even (erroneously) “provides” for the general welfare. This legislation is the FIRST TIME that the federal government compels the individual citizen to PURCHASE a “government-approved” PRODUCT. Obamacare is tyranny.
6.
Jose Von Hussein | March 4, 2010 at 9:27 pm
“flyovermark | January 13, 2010 at 3:43 am
It should be noted, kJ, that although the federal highway system has benefited us all, it was NEVER intended as a Social Program.”
All publicly funded roads are, by definition, socialist. So are fire houses, police stations, etc. Your point is pure sophistry.
“It was undertaken as a military program, in the interests of National Security.”
No, that’s how it was SOLD to the American people, due to the Cold War. You must be too young to remember that little bit of history, or perhaps you didn’t learn that while being home-schooled.
“In addition, no one faced fines or imprisonment for NOT using an “government-approved federal highway”. Comparisons do not exist for HCR.”
Not true – people do face penalties for not purchasing state-mandated individual auto insurance. So a comparison exists, and it works, because most people DO carry insurance. This also keeps insurance rates down for everyone (though more expensive – and impact-absorbing – cars, cause the costs to go up, but that’s an actuarial distinction).
I realize this is state vs. federal, but it is still something the government compels all drivers to do; the difference between this and federally mandated health care is a small distinction, especially given that, well, people travel across state lines using interstate highways to obtain medical care (ever hear of the Mayo Clinic? It ain’t in every state!).
Not only that, if conservatives want people to be able to BUY health insurance across state lines, why shouldn’t the federal government be able to regulate that interstate commerce, as it HAS THE POWER TO DO in the Commerce Clause? It makes more sense – and would be LESS COSTLY for insurers if the regulations are the same – insurers have argued for years that they don’t like they state-by-state patchwork of laws, and that a single set would be easier. Problem is, they haven’t wanted to give up their anti-trust exemption, but now they’re likely to lose that (about time!).
Next?
7.
deeznuts | March 5, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Someone said:
“In addition, no one faced fines or imprisonment for NOT using an “government-approved federal highway”. Comparisons do not exist for HCR.”
Jose said:
“Not true – people do face penalties for not purchasing state-mandated individual auto insurance. So a comparison exists, and it works, because most people DO carry insurance. This also keeps insurance rates down for everyone (though more expensive – and impact-absorbing – cars, cause the costs to go up, but that’s an actuarial distinction).”
Hey Jose — you’re not very good with logic, are you? I am only required to buy auto insurance if I CHOOSE to drive on the road. No one is forcing me to buy a car and drive on the road. there are buses, cabs, trains and other ways to get around. This bill will FORCE people to buy health insurance under the threat of heavy fines. Perhaps you’re okay with a statist government telling you how to live your life and what to do with your money, but a lot of us aren’t.
8.
Kris | January 18, 2010 at 8:14 am
I think a more appropriate analogy would be to compare the healthcare bill to the disastrous water management that destroyed the Everglades natural aquifer. In order to accommodate the increase in population, the U.S. Congress authorized the Central and South Florida Project in 1948, which created the most effective water management system in the world.
Did the attempt to control the water flow via levees and canals predict the ultimate ruin of the ecosystem that had provided clean water to the Florida community? Did they realize that the remaining salty marsh would not be able to sustain the growth of native plants that helped filter the water supply? Did they anticipate that a result would be alternating drought, wild fires and crop failure? No.
There was an inextricable link between the water management and the resultant restructuring of the watershed. As water itself flows, there can be new and unexpected complications to human plans as time reveals. Now the state and federal government are involved in a $11 billion plan to restore the Everglades to its prior condition, as best they can anyway.
This is the more likely result of the present healthcare plan being forced down our throats. The money that is supposed to be saved in the short term will ultimately be surpassed by the demands for more universal coverage by those who do not contribute to the tax base. The over $400 billion cuts in Medicare alone should be the warning we all need to heed. As with the Everglades restoration project, a future attempt to reestablish the earlier status of coverage will only cost many billions more and not be able to offer the treatment options previously available.
Sometimes what appears to be merely a swamp to the casual observer is really not fully understood and government should not interfere.
9.
Freddie | January 18, 2010 at 11:17 am
Sorry, but this comparison does’t fly by a long way. The problem ist, that 80% of the people have insurance and they are more or less satisfied with it. There where not 80% of highways built at that time.
10.
Jose Von Hussein | March 4, 2010 at 9:46 pm
And 51% of that 80% ALREADY have a government run health care program (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, civilian or military health insurance).
So that leaves us with 40% with “free market” coverage. Well, fully more than half of that percentage is covered by an ERISA-based self-funded plan, where the employer sets up the plan, and claims are paid by a third party administrator. This typically applies to groups of 100 employees or more.
Problem is, that last group of 20% uninsured, and 10-20% that have coverage, but it sucks or isn’t any good (or is with a small employer, that has a hard time keeping up with annual 10-20% increases). So let’s assume that’s 30% of Americans – well, that works out to about 100 million people!
Do you think 100 million people without coverage or having crappy coverage (or worse, coverage they might lose because they work for a small employer) is a GOOD thing?!? Do you think we might need to DO something about that many people not having access to good care, or are in danger of losing it?
11.
Arkham Grundy | January 18, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Health care reform in NOT a Constitutional issue. There is no way the founding fathers could have predicted the world of today and its problems any more than they could have predicted the need for auto insurance and airline regulation.
Health care reform is a moral and economic issue. As a society we have the means and hopefully the will.
Too many people have been either financially crippled or cut off from needed treatment by the greed based system we have now that is incredibly inefficient and inhumane. Let’s stop the partisan nonsense and do the right thing.
Reform health care.
12.
nigchipper | January 18, 2010 at 6:39 pm
There are a lot of “good ideas” out there. Commenter #3 cut to the chase: it is illegal for the government to do (or not do) certain things. Any single word spoken past that point in the debate is irrelevant and superfluous, unless the words “constitutional amendment” are in there somewhere.
Now if something is a good idea, and if it is profitable, then let individuals and corporations go after the problem, without government impediments. It is the height of irresponsibility for my government to prevent or hinder my chosen health care provider to provide services to me.
Just because there is a problem somewhere, why do we automatically think it is the government’s responsibility to fix it?
13.
Mason Wheeler | January 27, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Post #7 asked, “if something is a good idea, and if it is profitable, then let individuals and corporations go after the problem, without government impediments.”
Thing is, that’s the problem right there. The unregulated profit motive is the cause of the health care problems, because the nature of the business creates a conflict of interest. Doing a good job involves making sure people get care and stay healthy. Maximizing profit involves paying out for health care as few times as possible.
I’m all for responsible capitalism, but when the profit motive is diametrically opposed to the needs of the people involved, and especially when lives are on the line, the system breaks down and needs to be replaced by one that cares about performance, not profit.
14.
Black-eyed Pete | March 20, 2010 at 10:20 pm
UNREGULATED???? You have got to be kidding, certainly, because no one is that ignorant. Healthcare is not free market and hasn’t been since the middle of last century. The reason we even have health care insurance is because of government wage controls following WW2. That started the 3rd party payer system that has spun costs out of control.
To say that health care and health care insurance is unregulated capitalism has got to be the most ignorant assertion I’ve ever read on a discussion board. Ask a doctor if he works in an unregulated industry. Ask a pharmaceutical company scientist. Keep your ignorance inside your head where it is safe and won’t hurt the rest of us, please.
15.
karen | March 4, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Oh, that’s right, look how the “free market” has helped health cre in this country. Billions wasted so unnecessary middle men can make profits, and the burden for health care is still on the employers.
80% satisfied with their health care? Really???!!!! (real statistics please, not just Fox ‘polls’). Wait till the ‘free market’ raises their rates, or they get laid off.
By the way, I just found out that my federal tax was LOWER this year, with same salary and deductions as last year. Weren’t we all supposed to be afraid that Obama would raise our taxes?
16.
Jose Von Hussein | March 4, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Did the “free market” flood the country with plans to cover seniors?
NO! That’s why we have Medicare.
Did the “free market” offer to cover the poor?
NO! That’s why we have Medicaid.
Did the “free market” decide of its own volition to cover pre-existing conditions for people with medical problems?
NO! Why do you think we need health care reform?
Did the “free market” magically cover everyone on their own, through the employer based system we have now?
NO! Why do think we need health care reform!!!
17.
Interstate Trucker | January 18, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Briefly, you are right about the Interstate Highway Program. And totally wrong in trying to compare Obamacare to it. What I’m trying to figure out, not knowing anything about you or your politics, is whether you are a liberal shill who is simply trying to confuse honest, but ahistorical and economically illiterate people, OR if you truly believe what you say.
In either event you are wrong, intelligently sounding wrong, but still wrong. Point one, there was no comprehensive, let alone high quality national highway system here before that the Interstate system was going to take over from, let alone one that everyone (or almost everyone) could afford to use. There IS such a Medical system, and Obamacare will devastate it in more ways than I have the patience or the time to enumerate. Highways (where no highways were in existence before) stimulate commerce in a million ways both small and large. Replacing our “Mercedes Benz” version of a capitalistic ran healthcare system with the East German “Trabant” socialistic ran pseudo-healthcare system like they have in Europe, does nothing to stimulate any new commerce of any kind–except for coffins and gravediggers!
There are reasons why the upper-classes of “old Europe” fly their butts over here when they need their own health cared for, and they need it NOW and can’t wait 6 months for the bureaucrat in charge of it to say its now their turn on the national healthcare list. If we ever end up in the same sorry mess as Europe, where will YOU fly to to get IMMEDIATE and high quality healthcare like you can get here right now? There are no other Americas for you or I to fly our asses to! This IS the last place on earth for immediate, high quality and (for what you get) affordable healthcare.
At car repair shops they have signs. “We do three kinds of work here, good, cheap and fast. You can take your pick of any two kinds”. It’s the same in healthcare, and in THIS country we have traditionally chosen “Good and Fast”. When a bureaucrat enters the scene you only get one–and you DON’T get to choose. He takes down that sign and hangs up a sign that says “Healthcare CHEAP! Just take your number and wait six months till I call your name”
Remember that old adage; You only get what you pay for. Well, when the government pays for it, you don’t GET the darn thing (at least to any acceptable degree]. And guess what, you’re STILL paying for it thru a thoroughly overtaxed society. It’s the WORST of ALL possible worlds!!
18.
keiron Jackman | January 18, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I appreciate your comment. Sticking with the analogy — the highways that were built when this act was first passed are not the highways of today. We have improved on them, we build them stronger, we have had experience with them, we added protective barriers, better lighting etc. You are right we do have a system in place, a system we can build off of and use as a blueprint and avoid making the mistakes of building a system that has not been built before.
Now concerning your comparison to the European market, why don’t we compare our space program to the Russians. Have they accomplished what we have accomplished? Don’t we do a better job than other countries with a space program? So my point is just because other countries are not efficient it does not mean we cannot be. That is why I say we are Americans. We can do better.
19.
Jose Von Hussein | March 4, 2010 at 10:22 pm
What Interstate Trucker apparently fails to realize – or has been brainwashed by the far right wingnuts – is that many Americans already DO go elsewhere to find more affordable healthcare.
- They drive (and FLY!) to Canada for prescription drugs.
- Far east Asian countries are setting up hospital “tourism” centers so people can actually afford those pesky things like heart surgery and such.
And somehow, I fail to understand why this “trucker” would be so worried about the “high earning German” folks who supposedly “fly here” to get care, when most people IN America ALREADY can’t afford it!
Maybe he’s so rich he doesn’t mind paying the $14,000 a year to get minimal, crappy coverage with a 20,000 deductible for a family of four.
20.
Black-eyed Pete | March 20, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Ah, there it is, Jose. Your true character comes out. The thing that defines who you are – jealousy, class envy. Like all good little socialist-commies, you want to divide us and pit us against each other based on income. Nice try, but your ideology lost a long time ago in the Soviet Union and is currently killing most of Europe.
Your whole goal is not to provide healthcare to the poor. We already have Medicaid for that sort of thing. Your real goal is to get the rich people, isn’t it? How dare they have more than you. We’ll really make sure they have to pay for healthcare for all of those people they’ve been oppressing, making millions off their backs. It will be so sweet. Of course, then there will be no money to start businesses and hire people… but that’s OK. Little Jose will feel so much better. Why don’t you take that garbage back to your own country where it belongs and keep it out of ours. America is different, exceptional – the only place left where a person can rise or fall on their merits. We also happen to be the most generous society on earth, which works much better without government. Adios, Jose.
21.
Doug | January 21, 2010 at 12:20 pm
That’s an interesting analogy and not a bad one. Interstate highways make travel and transportation more efficient. A good health insurance reform would make purchasing health care more efficient and, probably, more productive. It’s hard to even guess whether that will be the outcome of the current bill, but this post is something to think about.
22.
best nitric oxide supplements | February 7, 2010 at 11:15 pm
article makes a good point in todays world
23.
sedazed | February 9, 2010 at 6:27 am
I am glad to see people debating the subject. However, the author presents an opinion piece with no substantiating evident. The highway system was the building of an infrastructure not a service. Just because highways exist, does not mean everyone can afford a car or that we taxpayers should buy them one.
Your idea is that a government take over of health insurance would provide a monumental increase in ancillary markets? Again, this is not an infrastructure. There is one point from your comparison worth mentioning; the fact that the government was more than 450% over budget. Every major Government entity is operating as a money losing business (Look at Medicare, Postal Service, Social Security). All were designed to be self efficient (Revenue neutral). None of them have any incentive or motive to increase efficiency because they all rely soley on taxpayers. Do you wonder why they keep dramatically increasing the budgets and yet states and Fed are broke?
Only a free market capitalistic environment can create efficiency and cost reduction. You may call it greed but the drive for profit is a powerful and useful force. The real problem is due to state regulations having created geographic monopolies for bigger insurance companies. Some states have ridiculous mandates that drive the cost of insurance for that state up dramatically. If the government would lift those regulations prohibiting interstate commerce, then competition would spring up and drive down costs.
This is one of the main ideas the Republican side has been throwing around. If the author had ever lived in a country with nationalized medicine, they would not be romanticizing this approach.
There already exists public programs for people who cannot afford healthcare. One thing I hope people come to think about is this: The push for socialized medicine came from Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the extreme liberals with Pelosi being the main driver. Do you really think that a woman who demanded her own Boeing 757 (200 seater) because she did not like the 12 person aircraft allotted to her predecessors gives a crap about your ability to afford healthcare? It cost more than $300,000 for her to fly out for the “State of the Union” address to talk about economic issues and job loss. The only healthcare reform coming from this administration is an attempt at power consolidation; that is for them to take over 1/6 of our total GDP.
24.
echo 3d | February 9, 2010 at 11:58 am
The blog is really nice one and full of information we appreciate the kind of information you have provided in this post. The information are so useful for all of us and we would like to thank you from the bottom of our heart for this wonderful information.The things you have discussed about in this post which are supposed to be very helpful for us. Because of these wonderful information in this post the blog can be viewed again and again.
25. It’s not in the Constitution! « Keiron Jackman's Blog | February 10, 2010 at 8:17 pm
[...] because they are consistent with Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Health Care: The Road to Washingtonhealth care vote resultsGOP eyes last-ditch effort to derail health care billA Christian Position on [...]
26.
Viagra | February 20, 2010 at 8:17 pm
You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.
27.
BG | March 4, 2010 at 9:25 pm
I enjoyed your blog and the comparison to the highway system. What I like about the current healthcare proposal is it gives us more choice, addresses caps and pre-existing conditions. As an entrepreneur, I have to pay 2x as much on healthcare. For a $500 deductible i pay $700 and I’m healthy. If you experience being laid off, you will probably think twice about the need for healthcare reform because you will pay the price I pay. If you are sick good luck in finding healthcare, because theres no insurance company that would insure you. Reform is necessary and needed even if I’m mandated to pay.
28.
Black-eyed Pete | March 20, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Sucker.
29.
Armand Hufault | March 4, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Your article is incomplete. You ignored the fact that the Healthcare industry is a service industry. Please note that in an economy, you must have revenue generators-manufacturing products. Healthcare is not revenue generating. In our economy, healthcare is an expense not a revenue generator-all medical industry is an expense and the xause of our unaffordable healthcare cost. The healthcare industry must be NON-Profit. Also, we receive no benefit from all the NOn Profit foundations and research groups on our medical bills. The other government programs you mentioned simply generated SMOG, dependency on foreign oils and traffic jams.
What you really need to address is the businessmen and their rape of the American worker.
There isn’t one businesman that earn his/her salary
30.
ChadM | March 19, 2010 at 5:35 pm
You my friend are a [edited for content].the government taxes the insurance industry to get money same with health care and whatever you do for a job if you work..without industry the government makes no money if socialism is your thing go for it but leave America out…
31.
keiron Jackman | March 20, 2010 at 4:27 am
please let’s not get personal, we all have opinions. Even if you think so …isn’t much better when you demonstrate it without saying it
32.
Joe | March 9, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Sir,
I found your blog via the link on David Brooks’ article.
I appreciate your perspective. I am a moderately liberal Democrat who believes that it is important to discuss policy rationally, as you have done. Thank you.
33. Don’t Complain, We Voted For ‘Em « Keiron Jackman's Blog | March 15, 2010 at 1:02 am
[...] Posts It’s not in the Constitution!Health Care: The Road to WashingtonTwo Families, One Issue: The Borrow$ & The MeansAbortion Religion & [...]
34. Hannity Usurps Tea Party Liberty « Keiron Jackman's Blog | March 18, 2010 at 7:59 pm
[...] Posts Two Families, One Issue: The Borrow$ & The MeansHealth Care: The Road to WashingtonDon’t Complain, We Voted For ‘EmIt’s not in the [...]
35.
ChadM | March 19, 2010 at 5:18 pm
So the government that bankrupted social security and medicare can do more for us by taking away what we already paid for(MEDICARE) and starting a new system that’s even more convoluted I DON’T THINK SO..have the people that want to vote for this read the bill, government sponsored abortion should be enough for any self respecting person to see the problem with this bill….
36.
aldytop | May 11, 2010 at 9:52 pm
As a human being should cost a vehicle that has given hundreds of dollars and insurance. There are several companies offering different levels of satisfaction for customers. Some of the best auto insurance companies give guarantees for both operations and the devastating loss of a small vehicle
37. Two Families, One Issue: The Borrow$ & The Means « Keiron Jackman's Blog | May 18, 2010 at 4:58 am
[...] point!! I have never seen a response like that and it follows well with an article I wrote called Road to Washington, you should check it out. But anyways i’ll like to add that I don’t think [...]
38.
Player Profiles | October 30, 2010 at 8:11 am
Maybe you should make changes to the webpage subject title Health Care: The Road to Washington Keiron Jackman's Blog to more better for your blog post you create. I enjoyed the the writing nevertheless.
39.
Robin Woods | November 27, 2010 at 11:17 am
Issa was amazing: he got burned on every argument he made and had no ability to overcome the objections of Bill or the panel…incredible.
40.
лечения в израиле | January 11, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Simply amazing role post many times interesting very helpful