I have addressed this issue to some extent when I referred to money that was being spent for other taxpayer items mainly (assumed) military needs that may or may not be necessary. (i.e. A new nuclear sub or aircraft carrier.) Don’t get me wrong I’m not against those things per se but they too must be weighed into the budgetary equation and what we as a nation decide is our hierarchy of priorities.

1) I apologize, I am not sure I don’t understand your point. Yes, I agree that we need to prioritize our budget. While I am sure you and I would disagree on exactly what those prioritize should be; once the budget is set, it is set. That means once the annual budget is approved health care will be allocated x number of dollars. Further, once we are in the budget cycle we don’t cut other items to fund other programs. Therefore, if we do not have enough health care funds to complete 100% of requests there must be rationing. The next year we may increase funding but that does not mean that in that year we will have enough to meet all health care requests. The budget is an educated guess. We who receive health care benefits through this system live and die by that guess.

I’ll only say this in response to your union bashing. Like most of your friends on the Right your ignorance of labor history is appalling but understandable since it was never taught properly in our private and public school system. Naturally, big business and corporations don’t want those facts taught because it would wake people up to the truths that have been swept under the carpet for decades. Are unions totally devoid of problems of course not…is any organization? Almost everything people in this country enjoy and take for granted, as it relates to work place rights, safety, a decent standard of living and many other benefits were the result of organized labor. Ask yourself this question. Why do unions exist in the first place?

1) A few comments on this response. Yes, I generally disagree with unions. Yes, I understand the history of unions. I agree that in the beginning when the railroads where using the Pinkertons to beat workers and stop organization it was a despicable act. Likewise, I certainly agree there was a time and place when workers did need protection to develop civilized wages and benefits. Further, there may be workers today which need help to develop these rights. However, that said, I think unions specifically AFL-CIO, SEIU, etc, are set-up to maintain the power of the unions. What I am truly against is the union boss mentality. I am against that fact that unions tend to be a fund raising arm of the left through members dues. I am also against the mentality that we must unionize people whether or not they want to be unionized. Here in Oak Creek, Woodmans, an employee owned food business, which has no desire to be unionized is constantly picketed because the union wants to get in. Why does it want to get in? Who does it serve? Will it allow Woodmans to keep its lower prices, an advantage over its competitors?

2) I think it is slightly disingenuous for you to suggest that federal union employees are somehow the down trodden of the workforce. Let’s be honest, they receive fair pay, a rich benefit package including pension, sick days, vacation days etc. As I stated, I understand the need to create living wages, but I suggest that federal employees clearly past that test. Why should they be held to a higher privilege and be exempt from the economic realities of todays 10.2% unemployment, with real unemployment at 17.2%. Neither I nor the President suggest they cut jobs, take a pay cut, etc. Just not take a pay increase. Is this really too much to ask? Can they not live in the same economic reality as the rest of us? Further, since there has been no inflation reported why do they need a COLA raise?
3) That was hardly bashing the unions. Pointing out that the unions want more money when everybody else is losing money; that is just a fair point to make.

How is that any different from someone who has private health care coverage and is denied care, that is prescribed by their personal physician, by a DEATH PANEL from a private health care insurer? Why would legal avenues be denied to someone who had an issue with government run health care? People file claims against the government all the time why would this be any different?

1) A few points. Yes, you can sue the federal government, if it lets you, but it is a hard process. One difference, is that the government can write laws which allow them not to be sued.
2) I think it is better to use regulation to create an arbitration process between private entities and their clients, with the governments force to streamline the process.

• it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests