Health Care Reform Protests

[Sanslines]

Time to start a thread on health care reform protests for the upcoming Senate meetings.

Health care protesters disrupt Senate panel

For second week in a row

By Sean Lengell (https://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/sean-lengell/) (Contact (https://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/sean-lengell/contact)) | Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Protesters supporting universal medical coverage for the second week in a row on Tuesday morning disrupted a Senate hearing on health care reform before being thrown out by police.

Minutes after Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus opened a roundtable discussion on how to pay for overhauling the nation's health care system, several demonstrators stood up one by one and shouted their disapproval that lawmakers have refused to consider a government take over of the health insurance system.

"No more blue crosses and double crosses," shouted one demonstrator in reference to health insurance giant Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

"In honor of Florence Nightingale, patients need access to health care," shouted another.

C-SPAN VIDEO: Click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prtYKvO05A8) to see protesters disrupt the hearing.
Police removed five protesters from the hearing room at the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

As Mr. Baucus gaveled the meeting open, about 25 nurses wearing red hospital scrubs attached with signs advocating a so called "single payer" government-run health care system conducted a silent protest. After a few minutes with their backs turned to the chairman, the demonstrators walked out of the room while several in the audience applauded.

Mr. Baucus, a Montana Democrat shepherding President Obama's health care reform priorities through Congress, said that although he disagreed with the protesters tactics, he sympathized with their frustrations.
"Believe me, we hear you," he said. "I will meet with anyone who wants to meet."

The chairman, as well as the Obama administration, have said that replacing the current private health insurance system with a Canadian-style government-run single payer model is not practical or politically feasible. But both support creating a government-run health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.

"We've got to work with what we've got," Mr. Baucus said. "We cannot go to a single payer system, but that's not going to work in this country."

Eight protesters supporting a single payer system were arrested last week at a Baucus-lead health care roundtable workshop.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/12/health-care-protesters-again-disrupt-senate-panel/


http://www.gooznews.com/node/2905

[Boreas]

The chairman, as well as the Obama administration, have said that replacing the current private health insurance system with a Canadian-style government-run single payer model is not practical or politically feasible. But both support creating a government-run health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.

They need to get the information closer to correct. Our health care system is not government run. It is government funded. We have the Canada Health Act which has guidelines and principles on how healthcare is delievered in Canada. The federal governments and provincial governments fund each program. Each province is responsible for delivering healthcare that best suits is constituents. In this province, we have five health authorities than run the healthcare services in each region. Other provinces have similar set ups.

This all sounds complicated, but it really isn't as bad as it sounds. Of course, there are glitches. Aren't there glitches in any system of any kind? Saying that the Canadian healthcare is government run, and that this is what Obama wants, is a good way to stir things up in a country that freaks out over too much government!

[David77]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=amw03.fnFH1g&refer=us

[daviszr1]

Time to start a thread on health care reform protests for the upcoming Senate meetings.

Health care protesters disrupt Senate panel

For second week in a row

By Sean Lengell (https://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/sean-lengell/) (Contact (https://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/sean-lengell/contact)) | Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Protesters supporting universal medical coverage for the second week in a row on Tuesday morning disrupted a Senate hearing on health care reform before being thrown out by police.

Minutes after Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus opened a roundtable discussion on how to pay for overhauling the nation's health care system, several demonstrators stood up one by one and shouted their disapproval that lawmakers have refused to consider a government take over of the health insurance system.

"No more blue crosses and double crosses," shouted one demonstrator in reference to health insurance giant Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

"In honor of Florence Nightingale, patients need access to health care," shouted another.

C-SPAN VIDEO: Click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prtYKvO05A8) to see protesters disrupt the hearing.
Police removed five protesters from the hearing room at the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

As Mr. Baucus gaveled the meeting open, about 25 nurses wearing red hospital scrubs attached with signs advocating a so called "single payer" government-run health care system conducted a silent protest. After a few minutes with their backs turned to the chairman, the demonstrators walked out of the room while several in the audience applauded.

Mr. Baucus, a Montana Democrat shepherding President Obama's health care reform priorities through Congress, said that although he disagreed with the protesters tactics, he sympathized with their frustrations.
"Believe me, we hear you," he said. "I will meet with anyone who wants to meet."

The chairman, as well as the Obama administration, have said that replacing the current private health insurance system with a Canadian-style government-run single payer model is not practical or politically feasible. But both support creating a government-run health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.

"We've got to work with what we've got," Mr. Baucus said. "We cannot go to a single payer system, but that's not going to work in this country."

Eight protesters supporting a single payer system were arrested last week at a Baucus-lead health care roundtable workshop.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/12/health-care-protesters-again-disrupt-senate-panel/


http://www.gooznews.com/node/2905
I know I'm about to get flamed...

Health care is not a right. Access to health care is like access to car dealership. Anyone can walk into a doctor's office. You aren't always going to afford a car. You aren't always going to afford the very latest health care measures. If you want the "latest and greatest" you're going to pay to play.

Case in point is the neverending release of medications. Anyone know the difference between Prilosec and Nexium? That was a seriously slick ad campaign; "the new purple pill." Why does anyone "need" Nexium over the now generic and OTC version of Prilosec?

Why is it my "social responsibility" to pay for someone who doesn't have health insurance. Do I then have the "social responsibility" to be certain that those whom I am helping are doing all they can to help purchase their own insurance? How many uninsured have iPhones, flat screen TV's, DVRs on their expanded digital cable packages, etc? Certainly not everyone who is uninsured, but there are a pile who fall into that category.

Motivation and individual responsibility is the larger portion of this answer.

I'm ready for the flames!

[MoonShadow]

What is all this noise from some of you about health care being a right?

We are not talking about rights. We are talking about a country, a highly industrialized country that does not offer health care coverage for its citizens from cradle to grave. Instead our country has a system that leaves the average joes and janes at the mercy of an industry that is out-of-control, too expensive, and gluts the medical care arena with limitations, restrictions, and a huge bottom line requirement.

I want you to go out, and see what you can afford on a minimum wage job. Do the math? You cannot get a policy worth much of anything which would be affordable. I encourage you to do some research and remember your budget: minimum wage job, you pay rent, utilities, buy groceries, buy gas -- and, you are single, just one person.

As a nation it is all of our responsibility to insure that all citizens are protected. When did we get to the point that we no longer care about our neighbor. Everyone out for themselves. Survive or die mentality. Is this the state our so-call civilized culture has turned into? That we would be insensitive to, so callous about, and inhumane about all citizens having health care from the time they are born to the day they die. How uncivilized can we become?

[Boreas]

What is all this noise from some of you about health care being a right?

We are not talking about rights. We are talking about a country, a highly industrialized country that does not offer health care coverage for its citizens from cradle to grave. Instead our country has a system that leaves the average joes and janes at the mercy of an industry that is out-of-control, too expensive, and gluts the medical care arena with limitations, restrictions, and a huge bottom line requirement.

I want you to go out, and see what you can afford on a minimum wage job. Do the math? You cannot get a policy worth much of anything which would be affordable. I encourage you to do some research and remember your budget: minimum wage job, you pay rent, utilities, buy groceries, buy gas -- and, you are single, just one person.

As a nation it is all of our responsibility to insure that all citizens are protected. When did we get to the point that we no longer care about our neighbor. Everyone out for themselves. Survive or die mentality. Is this the state our so-call civilized culture has turned into? That we would be insensitive to, so callous about, and inhumane about all citizens having health care from the time they are born to the day they die. How uncivilized can we become?

:applause:

I cannot even fathom the notion of how healthcare and cars are the same.

[Naturist Mark]

:applause:

I cannot even fathom the notion of how healthcare and cars are the same.

It's simple - just like you have no right to own a car if you can't afford one, you have no right to be alive if you can't afford it.

See? Perfectly simple to understand.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/promos/healthcare1.jpg

[Sanslines]

It's simple - just like you have no right to own a car if you can't afford one, you have no right to be alive if you can't afford it.

See? Perfectly simple to understand.


That's right. Perhaps there can be one compromise though. Allow the government to create coast to coast 'dying' facilities where people who can not afford treatments can at least go and get it over quickly with government backed and regulated assisted sucide. Such facilities would accomplish so much. We could eliminate those burdomsome individuals who lack health care and at least allow them a quick and painless death then the present system which forces them to take matters into their own hands.

We could also extend this benefit to those who become unemployed and slowely but certainly lose health care coverage due to lack of money.

[Sanslines]

As a nation it is all of our responsibility to insure that all citizens are protected. When did we get to the point that we no longer care about our neighbor. Everyone out for themselves. Survive or die mentality. Is this the state our so-call civilized culture has turned into? That we would be insensitive to, so callous about, and inhumane about all citizens having health care from the time they are born to the day they die. How uncivilized can we become?

That's right ....we don't really care. We say that we do but that's just the politicaly correct thing at work again. Once we get that out of the way, we can go back to looking out for ourselves and fighting for our piece of the pie. This is America afterall...............where it's ALL about the dollar. Remember, you heard it here first.............life is money.......if you have money you live...............if you don't you die..........unemployment is no excuse!

[Sanslines]

I know I'm about to get flamed...

Health care is not a right. Access to health care is like access to car dealership. Anyone can walk into a doctor's office. You aren't always going to afford a car. You aren't always going to afford the very latest health care measures. If you want the "latest and greatest" you're going to pay to play.


No flames just an honest question. Suppose that you were diagnosed with cancer and then laid off from you job (because the company did not want to assume financial responsibility for your high medical expenses). You looked for new employment but could find none because other companies did not want to hire someone with such a liabilty as cancer. You also looked for new insurance but either the cost of insurance was so sky high, or you were denied coverage due to a pre existing condition. What would you do? Would you be willing to die because you could not pay for cancer treatments?

[Boreas]

It's simple - just like you have no right to own a car if you can't afford one, you have no right to be alive if you can't afford it.

See? Perfectly simple to understand.



Oh, I see. Of course the word deserving fits in. Some people are more deserving than others. IF you can afford health care, some deserve a Bentley, and some deserve a beat up old Hyundai Pony.

I thought the US had some sort of thing that said something about huddled masses, and all that. How does that fit in with all this? Also, there is the huge emphasis on freedom. How can everyone have freedom if so many are sick........I bet that word "deserving" comes in somehow too. I am I getting it?

[Navigator]

I thought the US had some sort of thing that said something about huddled masses, and all that. How does that fit in with all this?

Boreas that poem (which is on a plaque at the Statue of Liberty but which sounds a little breathless & overwrought here in the 21st century) talks about huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

It doesn't say anything about huddled masses yearning for free health insurance.:D

Just kidding...as I suspect Mark was in the comment you quoted. Here's the poem.



THE NEW COLOSSUS

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
—Emma Lazarus, 1883

[richo]

Healthcare is everyone's problem.

Wide-scale vaccinations work by something called 'herd immunity': once a significant portion of the population is immune to a disease, the disease can't survive long-term and disappears. Vaccinations in and of themselves don't provide 100% immunity to any individual, but if 95% of the population has 90% immunity, it's as if everyone was immune. Now, the anti-vaccination groups are impacting that at the moment, but the principle of giving all kids vaccinations - whether they can afford the costs or not - is what has helped us wipe out childhood and other diseases that killed millions.

At the other end of the spectrum, adulthood, look at something like the H1N1 pandemic. Most of the places where it spread quickly at first were lower income. Why? Because people who got sick who don't have healthcare or sick days and who are barely paid enough to survive week to week can't afford to take time off or even to go to a doctor. That means that other people who *can* afford healthcare are more likely to get sick, simply because it's out in society more.

Then you have situations where people get *really* sick, when they go to the emergency room for treatment. They won't get turned away, and the bill likely won't get paid - or will bankrupt someone who tries. Society as a whole ends up bearing that cost anyway, which is almost always higher at that point than long-term prevention would have been prior.

A measure of civilization has always been how it treats its infirm. At the moment, the primary issue is a situation in which the people who make the money are running the entire system. That needs to stop, because they've proven that their interest in their short-term profits trumps any other concern. In order to guarantee it stops, you have to - even temporarily - have an option they can't control to hold them in check. That means a public insurance option. We do it already for Congress and certain other federal employees. There's no reason it can't be opened up to the general public.

And if the private insurance companies can change their models, change their pricing, and offer competetive services at competetive prices - great. Then the public option worked, because that's what *should* be happening. If they can't - if they keep pushing the same bloated, overpriced and underperforming options they've had all along - they deserve to go out of business.

One more thing: the "public option" *isn't* free. It's just publicly managed. It would probably be paid into the same way any other health insurance is paid into. The difference is that it's cheap and it's guaranteed even with pre-existing conditions or employers who have too few employees to get a decent deal. It's something the private insurance companies *should* be offering but currently don't have to because they've the entire industry under control.

[MoonShadow]

H

A measure of civilization has always been how it treats its infirm. At the moment, the primary issue is a situation in which the people who make the money are running the entire system. That needs to stop, because they've proven that their interest in their short-term profits trumps any other concern. In order to guarantee it stops, you have to - even temporarily - have an option they can't control to hold them in check. That means a public insurance option. We do it already for Congress and certain other federal employees. There's no reason it can't be opened up to the general public.

And if the private insurance companies can change their models, change their pricing, and offer competetive services at competetive prices - great. Then the public option worked, because that's what *should* be happening. If they can't - if they keep pushing the same bloated, overpriced and underperforming options they've had all along - they deserve to go out of business.

One more thing: the "public option" *isn't* free. It's just publicly managed. It would probably be paid into the same way any other health insurance is paid into. The difference is that it's cheap and it's guaranteed even with pre-existing conditions or employers who have too few employees to get a decent deal. It's something the private insurance companies *should* be offering but currently don't have to because they've the entire industry under control.

Well stated, richo!

Private insurance has got to change. A public option is what is now being considered somewhat in Congress but then we will see what ends up being written with all the squabbling going on. Anyhow, the point is no one is talking about free insurance. The ultimate goal is to insure that all citizens are protected. It is the protections richo stated that indicate how civilized a culture is and more importantly halting infectious diseases from being passed around. Boreas, and we could say that protecting our "huddled masses" from disease via vaccinations and treatment of other diseases that are contagious to another member of our masses?

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, (of disease and illness)
The wretched refuse (the current insurance industry) of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Sans, Mark and Boreas -- doesn't it amaze you someone would compare having health insurance to the buying of an automobile????? I would love to study such individuals' minds and then when they die dissect their brains to see what abnomaly was going on. ;)

[Naturist Mark]

It would be hilarious to listen to politicians, including ALL the Republicans and far too many Democrats explain why a public option is out of the question, if only the consequences weren't so dire.

I've tried to boil their arguments down to the essentials ...

1) Only robust competition can rein in souring healthcare costs *
2) A public option would be mismanaged and too expensive *
3) And it would compete unfairly with the for profit insurers because everyone would choose the public option because it would be less expensive and provide better coverage than private insurance. *
4) And successful competition would be bad for competition ... *


la la la la la la la la



*
1) even though our current competitive system has proven completely impotent thus far.
2) just like Medicare, which spends at least 97% of its funds on actually providing healthcare, compared to the 70% or so that private for profit insurers actually spend on healthcare.
3) apparently they are just joking about #2
4) because REAL competition and options that consumers are actually free to exercise would reduce the obscene profits that pay multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses to top executives (one of whom was actually given a $1.6 Billion (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1481) compensation package).

[Boreas]

Very excellent Mark! :applause:

[daviszr1]

It would be hilarious to listen to politicians, including ALL the Republicans and far too many Democrats explain why a public option is out of the question, if only the consequences weren't so dire.

I've tried to boil their arguments down to the essentials ...

1) Only robust competition can rein in souring healthcare costs *
2) A public option would be mismanaged and too expensive *
3) And it would compete unfairly with the for profit insurers because everyone would choose the public option because it would be less expensive and provide better coverage than private insurance. *
4) And successful competition would be bad for competition ... *


la la la la la la la la



*
1) even though our current competitive system has proven completely impotent thus far.
2) just like Medicare, which spends at least 97% of its funds on actually providing healthcare, compared to the 70% or so that private for profit insurers actually spend on healthcare.
3) apparently they are just joking about #2
4) because REAL competition and options that consumers are actually free to exercise would reduce the obscene profits that pay multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses to top executives (one of whom was actually given a $1.6 Billion (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1481) compensation package).
I'd like to know which politicians you are distilling your arguments from.

I would like to try and keep this discussion on a even keel. Most times the best way to do this is to take the opposite position from your own and argue in favor of it. That way at least you have examined the other's point of view. I feel that we have not done that very well as a country regarding this matter.

I will offer the following for points of thought.

(1) "We wind up paying for it anyway." This is certainly a true statement. But emergency room care IS NOT primary care. The majority of people who "abuse" the medical system use the EMS system as a primary health care system. I'm not arguing as to WHY this do this, just stating that this is the case.

(2) To Sanslines asking about me getting laid off because the company didn't want to pay my medical bills: I'm not certain you fully understand how most insurance pools function in terms of group policies in the workplace. If so, then I do not mean to patronize... this little discussion will be for those who do not. Nearly all businesses who provide health insurance as a benefit do so in the form a group policy. The insurance company provides several tiers of policies, think economy, mid-grade, premo, etc. The business selects which policy level it would like to offer, and then gets a group quote from the insurance company. The price is per person in the group who signs up and typically the prices ramps down with increasing numbers of people in the group (e.g. a company with 150 participating employees will likely have a smaller premium than a company with only 15 participating employees). The cost to the business is split with the employees and that's that.... Bottom line: there is typically very very little incentive for a company to fire an employee because their insurance is costing too much.

Also, there are COBRA policies to provide gap insurance, and there is MediCaid. Also do not forget the the vast majority, if not all, cancer drug companies offer assistance program for patients.

[daviszr1]

Sans, Mark and Boreas -- doesn't it amaze you someone would compare having health insurance to the buying of an automobile????? I would love to study such individuals' minds and then when they die dissect their brains to see what abnomaly was going on. ;)

No need to be rude about it. Ask away. You have not right to demand I pay for your health care. Likewise, by me doing so gives me know right to state that you must exercise 30 minutes a day.

[Naturist Mark]

I'd like to know which politicians you are distilling your arguments from.

Actually I heard most of those points almost verbatum today from a GOP pundit during a broadcast. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS3IWHoaTCI)

Here are just the first three examples of comments from politicians (both parties) I ran across with a quick google:

Joe Lieberman opposes public option in healthcare revamp (http://www.examiner.com/x-11692-New-Haven-County-Independent-Examiner~y2009m6d15-Joe-Lieberman-opposes-public-option-in-healthcare-revamp)

McConnell: Health Care Public Option A "Non-Starter" For GOP (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/14/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5087389.shtml)

House, Senate GOP Rail Against "Public" Health Care Option (http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=979664)

[Sanslines]

Employees getting fired for smoking or being obese (http://businessshrink.biz/psychologyofbusiness/2007/09/27/employees-fired-and-fined-for-smoking-obesity-and-blood-test-results/)

businessshrink.biz — A growing trend with employers is to not hire smokers or employees with unhealthy lifestyles. Some companies are now charging $50 per paycheck if employees smoke. Some companies don't assess fines, they just simply fire the smoker or obese employee. So far the courts are ruling in favor of companies. Employees are trying to fight back.


Next thing you know, companies will start evaluating our DNA to screen out those with a higher genetic predisposition to cancers and other expensive diseases. And then we'll have to impersonate Jude Law just to get a ***** job.

http://digg.com/health/Employees_getting_fired_for_smoking_or_being_obese

[MoonShadow]

This is not surprising to hear. The minute I heard what was happening to smokers, that was the door opening precedent. Now, it is not only smoking but obesity and yes, like you said, Sans, what is next, diabetes? Women in childbearing years?

And what about the health care costs? Well, here are some simple solutions. Smokers pay incredible taxes now to smoke (which is legal) so take those taxes and put them in a health care fund for smoking-related illnesses. The rest of the insurance and medical industry can then have funds available for such illnesses. The same with alcohol related illnesses; use the alcohol taxes to fund any health related illnesses. Instead, these taxes are going for children's health care and education. Huh?!?!?!?!

Companies who fire people due to whether they smoke (which you cannot do on most companies' property now) or not or are overweight have overstepped their rights by invading into people's personal lives. This is wrong!

[nimrod]

Nearly all businesses who provide health insurance as a benefit do so in the form a group policy. The insurance company provides several tiers of policies, think economy, mid-grade, premo, etc. The business selects which policy level it would like to offer, and then gets a group quote from the insurance company. The price is per person in the group who signs up and typically the prices ramps down with increasing numbers of people in the group (e.g. a company with 150 participating employees will likely have a smaller premium than a company with only 15 participating employees). The cost to the business is split with the employees and that's that.

So with that in mind, how little would it be to insure everyone in the U.S. under a group policy?

From what I read of your post I believe that you think it is okay to have your employer and fellow employees to split the bill for your insurance and health care costs and you theirs, but not your fellow American.

[daviszr1]

So with that in mind, how little would it be to insure everyone in the U.S. under a group policy?

From what I read of your post I believe that you think it is okay to have your employer and fellow employees to split the bill for your insurance and health care costs and you theirs, but not your fellow American.
I don't know how much it would cost. Ask your congressman. I don't think anyone knows with the current costs of healthcare escalating at the rate they do!

The cost of the insurance is what it is. My fellow employees are not splitting the cost. Most of the cost reduction from the insurance company to the business comes from two points. First, there are the administration costs which become proportionately less with each additional participant in the program. Second is just plain old capitalism. By offering a lower rate to the company if X+1 persons enroll, there is now an incentive for the company to push for more people to participate.

[MoonShadow]

No need to be rude about it. Ask away. You have not right to demand I pay for your health care. Likewise, by me doing so gives me know right to state that you must exercise 30 minutes a day.

I am not being rude and if you interpret my remark as such, my apologies. I was making a humorous attempt of your comparison. You cannot compare health insurance to the purchase of an automobile. I have a right to demand to have affordable health insurance as does everyone in this country. That is what a public option would be, basically.

Health insurance for all our citizens is not about rights but about what is good for the common good of all. Again, we are not talking about FREE insurance. AFFORDABLE insurance.

Let me ask you this: why are you against everyone having affordable quality health insurance?

Would you rather people die due to lack of decent and quality health care because they are not covered for their illnesses which would require hospitalization and treatment?

[daviszr1]

Let me ask you this: why are you against everyone having affordable quality health insurance?


Moon, My point exactly! I never said that I was!! If one wants to have a debate, then we need to see both sides of the issue. This isn't a one sided deal regardless of your or my opinions.

A factoid to throw out. Approximately 25% of the "uninsured" qualify for some form of health care assistance. Why isn't anyone raising cane about this portion of the population?

[NudeAl]

If this country wants to remain a first world nation we need to establish some form of basic health care for our citizens. It will undoubtedly be unpopular with those who make a living from the insurence racket however it needs to happen. The number one cause of bankruptcy in the US is due to catastrophic medical bills. Do not assume that if you were ever in a situation like that that your coverage would be adequate the vast majority of these policies would expire before you could even begin to recover from your illness. If you did recover you would be so far in debt that it would take you the rest of your life to dig your way out financially. Basic health care and health care reform are one of the most pressing issues facing this country.

[Boreas]

If this country wants to remain a first world nation we need to establish some form of basic health care for our citizens. It will undoubtedly be unpopular with those who make a living from the insurence racket however it needs to happen. The number one cause of bankruptcy in the US is due to catastrophic medical bills. Do not assume that if you were ever in a situation like that that your coverage would be adequate the vast majority of these policies would expire before you could even begin to recover from your illness. If you did recover you would be so far in debt that it would take you the rest of your life to dig your way out financially. Basic health care and health care reform are one of the most pressing issues facing this country.


Well said. It is absolutely shameful that the richest and most powerful country in the world has so many people who cannot get health insurance. In fact, I believe this number is greater than the entire population of Canada.

I am facing the real possibility of surgery on my foot. I am very thankful that I live this side of the Canada/US border. I do not have to worry about medical costs in addition to all the other things I am worrying about with this decision. Oh, I was able to see the orthopaedic surgeon within a reasonable amount of time. I will also be able to have the surgery in a reasonable amount of time after I let him know what I want to do.

[nimrod]

Yesterday I saw how the insurance companies do not have our best interest in mind. My wife has to take meds for various reasons, we usually had to pay $35 for "name brand" meds, when we were at the pharmacy we were told that the price of two of her meds were now $50 for one and $100 for the other. Now I think the pharmacutical industry here in America is over pricing their product any way, but instead of fighting for the best interests of its patrons the insurance company screws us over by making us pay more when they should be working with the phramicutical to have them lower the price of their products.