With regards.

I forgot to thank you for your sympathy about my Dad. That was rude of me, I apologize for that and now say, “Thank you.”

Not in favor of the Banking Bailouts, huh? Did you happen to follow what happened in the financial markets after Lehman was allowed to fail? I don’t know whether bailout was the right thing, and I’d have certainly rather seen prospective regulations that kept banks from getting leveraged up 30 to 1 and 35 to 1, but the time for that had passed by Lehman’s failure.

Why don’t you explain to me what impact 10 or 20 Lehmans (which would’ve been the outcome without the AIG bailout b/c of all CDSs secured by MBSs) would’ve had on the world economy?

Of course, it’s kind of funny that after complaining that your clients got bailouts, you’ve turned around in your post and somehow made your clients the heroes of their own huge free market scam by alleging these bailed out banks have had to “lend it out” when in just the last two weeks there have been numerous reports that the banks DIDN’T lend the money, but rather took it and traded with it in the commodities and stock markets (I call it doubling-down). Why do you think gas went right back to $70 or $80 a gallon when the world economic activity drove over a cliff? I’ll tell you why, cause GoldmanSachs money is pushing it there.

Seriously, Mark, here’s a link to just one of the articles that explains where the bulk of the bailout money went and how it was turned into profits for its recipients:

“NEW YORK — The big banks are showing they can still make money, even as Main Street struggles — though not from lending, refinancing homes or other bread-and-butter business.

For now, trading is pretty much the only way banks can make money. And it’s more lucrative because there are fewer competitors, interest rates are near zero and government subsidies have allowed banks to borrow cheaply and invest in assets that offer the highest returns.

I suspect you’re a lawyer, aren’t you? With that suspicion in mind, you may have the last word (since you were clearly going to try to have it anyway). But I respectfully think you’re still missing the forests for the trees when it comes to the causes of the exploding national debt and the weak and getting weaker dollar since a couple trillion over 10 years to care for the sick and uninsured seems like a much better expenditure/investment of public money than giving $12 trillion over 24 months to banks so they can drive up commodity prices (which they have and continue to do) in search of profits that they can create obscene bonuses out of (something that also happened/is happening with the Bailout $$$s).

If you’re really interested in “find(ing) a way to lower costs, increase competition, and provide a way to help the uninsured find and afford coverage on their own” you might look into how France does things, or even the State of Maryland here in the good old USA. But that’s only if you were serious.

My clients are all in the banking industry and Wall Street, and I was absolutely not in favor of the bailouts. I can tell you for a fact that several banks were forced to take money and lend it out, only to then be chastised by the same politicians for taking it.

The goal was to contain control of a large part of the private economy. While businesses seek profits, politicians seek control and the power it brings.

My concern is that there is nothing in this bill that is going to lower costs. The CBO even agrees that it’s going to cause costs to go up. The goal is to force people into a government-run plan and open the door for decades of surcharges and taxes on every product, good, or service that can tangentially be related to higher health care costs. That way, they can tax the middle and lower classes without calling it a tax.

There are many things that can be done to provide coverage for the uninsured without taking over the private sector. For the cost of this monstrosity, you could by all of the uninsured plans for years to come.

My fear is that many people are going to take the bait of the government’s offer of security, only to sacrifice their freedom of choice and the excellence that our system currently offers.

Physicians facing lower government reimbursement rates will flock into private concierge or pay-for-fee practices. The government will then move to prohibit them, because they will be “unfair” to those who can’t afford them.

I would love to find a way to lower costs, increase competition, and provide a way to help the uninsured find and afford coverage on their own. Unfortunately there’s nothing “in it” for Washington in that scenario.

When complaining about rising debt ceilings, you might consider that the financial system bailout of your “superior private businesses” has cost about $11.6 trillion in the last 2 years.

Here’s a handy article that can explain it to you. So, of course, the debt ceiling is being raised.

Do I expect this welfare for bankers will eventually result in hyper-inflation down the road? It’s quite possible. But when it does, remember that it will be the bailout of the financial sector (AIG, GS, Citi, etc) that does it, not some healthcare plan that costs maybe an additional $2 trillion over 10 years . Nor will it be the paltry $800 billion in Stimulus Program money that brings it on. It will be the $11.6 TRILLION WE HAVE RACKED UP IN THE LAST TWO YEARS BAILING OUT THE PRIVATELY RUN FINANCIAL SECTOR BUSINESSES!

One last time and with all due respect, Mark:

You clearly have a valid point about the freeloader/pre-existing condition problem and you have a valid point about the costs to the government of taking more responsibility for healthcare, but these problems are so minor compared to the problems inherent in the current healthcare delivery/payment system and in the current U.S. government debt situation (created by bailouts to private sector financial firms) that you are missing the forest for the trees.

Although I do farm labor for my Dad in Hardin County, but I do it for free because he is ill. So you can’t really call that employment.

Unemployed.

Margaret Thatcher

I never said government is bad, it’s just less efficient and more costly. You can bury the cost in $14Trillion in debt and act like it’s cheaper, but it’s not.