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.

No apologies necessary. Yes it’s important to stay within whatever budgetary limits were agreed at. However, budgets are often exceeded, due to unforeseen circumstances etc, etc, etc…..and yes sometimes budgets are meet or surpassed. I would argue that monies could be reallocated from one part of the budget to meet the needs of another that would be determined……again through some sort of agreed upon priority especially when it comes to a matter of saving someone’s life. Are there circumstances where tax payer’s money is being wasted in order to prolong someone’s life….most definitely….and I think something needs to be addressed regarding that issue. I lost my mother earlier this year to a combination of old age complications and watched her wither away over a 15 day time span because there was nothing else that could be done for her to sustain her life. How much money was spent over that 15 day time span while she was in Hospice care and essentially starved to death…..I don’t know, but I’ll bet it’s a lot of money? How many people are kept on respirators or other means of without any hope of recovery or any real hope of a decent quality of life outcome? I do know that the process my mother went through is absurd and ridiculous, even though it was from one perspective humane in that she didn’t appear to suffer thanks to morphine? Had she been administered liquid nutrients they could have prolonged the process even longer….with further costs. I’m a big proponent of physician assisted end of life options which exist in Oregon and one other State at the present time. Anyway, my argument would be to beyond the budgetary restraints if necessary even if it means borrowing and then making adjustments in the following budget through adjustments, cuts, reduction of waste and or redundancy, and if necessary through raising future monies.

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 Pinkerton’s 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?

In theory, I would argue, unions shouldn’t have to exist. Why do those of you on the RIGHT think that there isn’t any need for unions today? Why is it wrong for workers to want what they think is a fair piece of the economic pie, as it relates to a particular business or industry? It’s funny how this NEVER applies to those at the top of the ladder, who with the assistance of their friends on Wall Street, business boardroom are never questioned. According to a 2005 study done by the EPI, (Economic Policy Institute) the average CEO was paid 821 times as much as a worker earning the federal minimum of $5.15 an hour. Maybe your reply would be……. so what……or…….well they’re running the company and their education, experience etc, etc, etc justifies their wage? Why doesn’t that logic apply to those who help make that company successful? Should hourly workers be paid the same? Of course not nor do they expect to be, but WITHOUT A UNION, what is the recourse for those think they should be paid more for their contributions? The RIGHT WING response is “if you don’t like what then quit and look for a better job”……right? That way we can find someone else to exploit because they too will not have any power to do anything about it either? Of course that’s what business wants and what YOU RIGHT WINGERS help them to propagandize year in and year out. You play right into their hands when they feed you the, (it’s what the “FREE MARKET” determines) that constitutes the wages that are paid to the average hourly worker. Yeah, and that same “FREE MARKET” that also determines the 821 times CEO/hourly wage disparity too…….right? Instead of seek equity you criticize those who have stood up to these inequities by saying they make too much, or get to many benefits, etc, etc, etc but that NEVER APPLIES TO THEOSE AT THE TOP because they’re SPECIAL!!! They deserve the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS THEY RECEIVE even if they’ve LEAD THEIR BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY INTO BACKRUPTCY!!! What are ALL the consequences of businesses moving their work to THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES? The RIGHT WING response id “EVERYONE BENEFITS” because the cost of whatever <u being made in this country is now CHEAPER!!! No doubt that it is but AT WHAT COST to the LOST REVENUES where those jobs used to be, the PRODUCTS & SERVICES that those once decent wages used to buy and support. The LOST REVENUE to the tax base that goes toward paying for ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS that most people expect to continue and on and on an on…….

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.

I’m no expert when it comes to the legal field, but if something is written into the law it can possibly be removed or amended to right what may be wrong…………..”WE THE PEOPLE”!!!

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.

You may be absolutely right, I don’t know whether or not this is true. I’m not a lawyer.

I would like nothing more than to see an affordable “FOR PROFIT” health care industry provide ALL LEVELS OF QUALITY HEALTH CARE to ALL OF OUR CITIZENS. I just don’t see how this is possible nor do I trust that they would deliver on that promise…..and I base that response of what I’ve witnessed thus far. None of the health care issues being addressed today, that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF PEOPLE in our country WITH OR WITHOUT health care are concerned with, have ever been addressed by the “FOR PROFIT HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY” until now, because they are under the gun….so to speak!!! There may be a “FOR PROFIT FREE MARKET HEALTH CARE” solution, but you’ll have to convince a lot of people to believe that before it ever becomes a reality!!!

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