Health Care reform

[Boreas]

LOL -- yes, for you it would be south! That would make it warmer, maybe?

I grew up in Florida, and then moved to different states for a period of time and landed in Arizona. I like the heat! Truly! I have a good friend who balks that she is too far north and she lives in a mild temperate state, North Carolina! LOL It is about preferences, of course. I am a hot weather lover!

LOL. Well, we love you anyway.

I suppose that means you won't be coming up here to visit in January when the temps are -30C (similar in F) then. :sneaky:

[Boreas]

If you take a step back and analyze his argument, it will explain a lot. His main point is "if I don't need it (anymore), why should I have to pay for it." This rationale is very appropriate and applicable in many situations.

For example, I have no kids in school so why should I pay to build more schools? As pointed out, this is a very selfish attitude. What is not pointed out is that this is very stupid.

He may not personally need maternity care, but his granddaughter may need it. His life will be affected if she dies delivering the baby.

If the needed schools are not built, the current schools will be overcrowded. The amount learned will be less-->the kids will be less prepared for college-->they will be poorer prospects for employment-->and more jobs will be given to the nations that produce better prospects. Fewer jobs here increases unemployment, reduces income taxes, and reduces services such as Medicare. He is affected because he has to pay more for health insurance.

There will also be more drop-outs-->they still need money-->they start a life of crime-->and they mug, rob, and steal. He is affected by being mugged and stolen from. He also must pay for the courts to prosecute them and prisons to house them. His stock value in VISA goes down because they have to give up some profits to pay for the charges on stolen cards they used in their life of crime. Now he has less money to pay for what he wants.

All of this shows how stupid people can be. Most people think that if they don't have to pay for it directly, then they will save money. Like many things in life, you pay for it now or you pay for it later.


Too bad so many people can't see this because they cannot see past their own noses.

We live in community. As such, we have to help each other out. Sometimes that help involves paying into the health care and social services pot. I do not have kids, but happily pay school taxes because if your kids are properly educated, other social problems are reduced. It all helps the community.

[Naturist Mark]

Here's another Genius stirring up fear of Health reform. But things are changing, even in Kansas the wingnuttery can go so far astray that that the audience openly laughs derisively at congressman Tiahrt's lies ...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tsX2HMSvZkY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tsX2HMSvZkY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Kouak]

Too bad so many people can't see this because they cannot see past their own noses.

We live in community. As such, we have to help each other out. Sometimes that help involves paying into the health care and social services pot. I do not have kids, but happily pay school taxes because if your kids are properly educated, other social problems are reduced. It all helps the community.

I think I have seen some statistics that show it costs $30,000 per year to house an inmate. So you can pay for 2 inmates or 1 teacher to reduce class size. I bet the 1 teacher will ultimately reduce the inmate population by more than 2.

Since that guy in the video is older, he might not care because he will not see the return on the investment in the teacher. Now drop the other shoe. Tell him we don't see that he will give us much in return if we pay for his heart attack care. We as a society believe investing in prenatal care will be a better return on our investment so he is on his own. :p He can pay for his heart attack care out of his pocket if he wants to live longer.

[Fitz1980]

Bill Maher on Health Care reform.

And I know what you are thinking; but Bill the profit motive is what sustains capitalism. And our sex drive is what sustains the human species but we don't try to fvck everything. It's OK for some things to remain non-profit just like when it comes to sexual relations some people are off limits; like your cousin or your sister.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SFM_R7pnmpw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SFM_R7pnmpw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-not-everything-i_b_244050.html
Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a "war profiteer" was a bad thing? But now our war zones are dominated by private contractors and mercenaries who work for corporations. There are more private contractors in Iraq than American troops, and we pay them generous salaries to do jobs the troops used to do for themselves *-- like laundry. War is not supposed to turn a profit, but our wars have become boondoggles for weapons manufacturers and connected civilian contractors.

Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too. And for good reason --* who the hell wants to own a prison? By definition you're going to have trouble with the tenants. But now prisons are big business. A company called the Corrections Corporation of America is on the New York Stock Exchange, which is convenient since that's where all the real crime is happening anyway. The CCA and similar corporations actually lobby Congress for stiffer sentencing laws so they can lock more people up and make more money. That's why America has the world;s largest prison population *-- because actually rehabilitating people would have a negative impact on the bottom line.

[Naturist Mark]

I know a young man who graduated from college last year. Good kid. Is now working two jobs (full and a half time), paying off his bills.

Still insured on his parent's healthcare policy. But will be kicked off when he turns 25.

On his own he is uninsurable. He has hemophilia.

He is lucky, he has a rather mild form of hemophilia and does not need continuous prophylactic infusions of "factor" (blood coagulant) - which can cost up to $300,000 per year. But he does need access to a supply of factor in case of serious injury - at 10 to 20 grand per episode.

If he is very lucky, he will find a job with a very large company that has a group health plan with no pre-existing condition exclusions. But no small company is likely to be able to offer him health insurance - even if he was accepted, the insurer would jack up the rates of the entire group to an unaffordable level.

His other option would be to deliberately spend down below the poverty level each year in order to qualify for Medicaid. Easily done if he has more than one episode needing a factor infusion. Of course, If he knows he is unlikely to make it through the year without an epidsode, it makes no sense to work very much - that just wastes more income on the spend down. Likewise, it wouldn't make sense for him to ever buy a house or buy any investments other than protected retirement funds - he'd have to surrender them sooner or later. That is insanity.

The entire idea of insurance is to spread the risk as widely as possible, so that everyone can afford the care they need and continue to be productive members of society. Our current insurance system does not provide real insurance. It is set up as a pre-paid installment system, that skims 30% off the top and limits care of those who need it the most. That has to change. And I won't shed a single tear if that means the current health insurance industry can't "compete".

The Untouchables – Hemophilia and Health Insurance (http://www.sweetaffliction.com/healthinsurance/the-untouchables-a-great-story-about-todays-broken-american-health-insurance-system/)

[missouriboy]

Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too. And for good reason --* who the hell wants to own a prison? By definition you're going to have trouble with the tenants. But now prisons are big business. A company called the Corrections Corporation of America is on the New York Stock Exchange, which is convenient since that's where all the real crime is happening anyway. The CCA and similar corporations actually lobby Congress for stiffer sentencing laws so they can lock more people up and make more money. That's why America has the world;s largest prison population *-- because actually rehabilitating people would have a negative impact on the bottom line.Exactly. It also explains the mandatory, long sentences for extremely minor offenses like marijuana possession, etc., while the incorrigible, violent criminals get out relatively quickly. Passive drug offenders are no threat to anybody, and the profit-motivated corporations want "no trouble with the tenants."

And the concomitant excessive prison population caused by all this is mentioned in the quote. Soon, when it also becomes "criminal" to resist compliance with government healthcare, this situation will be fed further.

[maliakei]

I think I have seen some statistics that show it costs $30,000 per year to house an inmate. So you can pay for 2 inmates or 1 teacher to reduce class size. I bet the 1 teacher will ultimately reduce the inmate population by more than 2.

That's CRAZY spending! No words can describe this nonsense, this is lop-sided spending!

Way back I read an article where folks purposely committed petty crimes so they'd get caught knowing the jails would provide food & shelter. Many were senior citizens who worked hard all their lives, paid taxes, raised families. The more I read about this healthcare crisis the more absurb & maddening it gets..

By the way, I attended a street faire last week and saw 2 people handing out flyers on
"BIG INSURANCE -- SICK OF IT" with this link on healthcare reform: www.HealthCareForAmericaNow.org

One of the people handing out the flyers, a retired RN for over 40 years, mentioned how she religiously paid her healthcare premiums over the years, only going in for regular check-ups & doctor visits, then she was DENIED coverage when she needed an operation. We can only do so much to stay fit & eat healthy then it only takes something unexpected to come along changing Everything in a heartbeat. It can happen to anyone of us..

[maliakei]

It all boils down to $$$ and greed. It's sad when you wonder what our forefathers would be thinking if they were able to see what's happening to America today. All the many people throughout history who fought for our freedom with all their might only to lock up more people because it makes money?!

Some inmates actually serve time improving their education. Don't know anymore about it except for reading the biography of Malcom X using his prison sentence to further his education years ago..


Exactly. It also explains the mandatory, long sentences for extremely minor offenses like marijuana possession, etc., while the incorrigible, violent criminals get out relatively quickly. Passive drug offenders are no threat to anybody, and the profit-motivated corporations want "no trouble with the tenants."

And the concomitant excessive prison population caused by all this is mentioned in the quote. Soon, when it also becomes "criminal" to resist compliance with government healthcare, this situation will be fed further.

RE: Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too. And for good reason --* who the hell wants to own a prison? By definition you're going to have trouble with the tenants. But now prisons are big business. A company called the Corrections Corporation of America is on the New York Stock Exchange, which is convenient since that's where all the real crime is happening anyway. The CCA and similar corporations actually lobby Congress for stiffer sentencing laws so they can lock more people up and make more money. That's why America has the world;s largest prison population *-- because actually rehabilitating people would have a negative impact on the bottom line.

[Sanslines]

Likewise, it wouldn't make sense for him to ever buy a house or buy any investments other than protected retirement funds - he'd have to surrender them sooner or later. That is insanity.


I have been looking into a related issues for a senior citizen. The question is this: If a senior can no longer take care of himself and herself and can not afford to pay for nursing home care, must the senior's home be sold to pay for the nursing care.

The answer depends upon which state the senior lives in. The answer that I have found is that the senior will not be forced to sell the home to pay for nursing care while living. However, in the end, when the senior dies, the state will step in and attempt to reimburse itself monies spent on nursing home care. The monies would come from the deceased senior's estate.

As for this young man purchasing a house, I do not believe that the state can step in and either seize or force the sale of his home in order to pay for his prescription drugs.

[Sanslines]

Cause of death? Lack of insurance (http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/smartspending/archive/2009/09/28/cause-of-death-lack-of-insurance.aspx)

A new Harvard study (http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage) estimates that nearly 45,000 Americans die each year because they don't have health insurance -- and that's after other factors like income and unhealthy behaviors are taken into account.
"Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease," an article by the Cambridge Health Alliance (http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage) reports.

The study says the uninsured have a 40% higher risk of death than people who have private health insurance -- like the insurance you get through your job. Or, to put it another way, a person dies because of a lack of insurance every 12 minutes.

Of course, some people neglect their health. But many, we suspect, don't see a doctor because they're afraid of the cost. Doctor visits and tests can add up to an intimidating amount, even if you're uninsured but have a good income. A CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/deaths.health.insurance/index.html) put a human face on some of these avoidable deaths -- a freelance cameraman, a self-employed mother of two, and a 25-year-old woman who worked in a movie theater.

So we had to wonder: Have you put off visits to the doctor because of financial considerations?

Overall, 15.4% of Americans don't have health insurance. The study breaks it down state by state (http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/excess-deaths-state-by-state.pdf), (.pdf file). For example:

In Texas, where just under 30% of people lacked insurance in 2005, annual deaths attributed to being uninsured was 4,675.
Here in Montana, the percentage of uninsured was 19.4%, and 147 people paid the ultimate price.
In Florida, where 26% were uninsured, the death toll attributed to lack of insurance was 3,925.
Also consider that the number of deaths blamed on lack of insurance is 2.5 times higher than it was in 2002, due to several factors. The study found that:

More people are uninsured. The U.S. Census said 46.3 million people were uninsured last year -- and since then millions of people have lost jobs.
The safety net for the uninsured has larger holes, as nonprofit hospitals and clinics have closed.
The quality of care for those with insurance has improved. "We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease -- but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications," Dr. Andrew Wilper, lead author of the study, said.
"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study, told Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090917). Himmelstein and his wife, study co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, founded Physicians for a National Health Program (http://www.pnhp.org/).



http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/smartspending/archive/2009/09/28/cause-of-death-lack-of-insurance.aspx


NOTE:

Medicare now covers about 40 million seniors, gets high marks for customer satisfaction and whips the private sector on efficiency. Private insurers spend six times as much on administration, proportionally -- mostly to weed out costly customers or fight payment.

[Sanslines]

How To Fix Health Care:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/HomeMortgageSavings/HowToFixHealthCare.aspx

[Naturist Mark]

As for this young man purchasing a house, I do not believe that the state can step in and either seize or force the sale of his home in order to pay for his prescription drugs.

But the "spend down" in order to qualify for Medicaid would preclude being able to make mortgage payments, and in many states owning property with substantial equity would preclude eligibility for Medicaid. If you want to live, you have to be in poverty.

[Naturist Mark]

Mom Goes Blind so her Daughters can See (http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/nearly-blind-womans-world-grows-darker-as-the-medical-bills-pile-higher/1039722)
Nashville Man Put in Jail for Catching a Cold (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090928/NEWS01/909270377/Medical+debts+compound+Nashvillians++pain)

[Sanslines]

But the "spend down" in order to qualify for Medicaid would preclude being able to make mortgage payments, and in many states owning property with substantial equity would preclude eligibility for Medicaid. If you want to live, you have to be in poverty.

I do agree that in order to be eligible for medicaid, many have to spend themselves into poverty. The key word above that you use is 'substantial'. Many who qualify for medicaid also make substantial rent payments which might be more or less equivalent to making mortgage payments. Of course those who pay rent do not build the property equity that a homeowner would.

Here is an eligibility income guidline from New York State:

The chart below shows how much income you can receive in a month and the amount of resources you can retain and still qualify for Medicaid. The income and resource levels depend on the number of your family members who live with you.

<TABLE summary=" "><THEAD><TR><TH colSpan=6>2009 Income & Resource Levels*</TH></TR><TR><TH rowSpan=2></TH><TH colSpan=2>Medicaid Standard for Singles
People, Couples without
Children & Low Income
Families
</TH><TH colSpan=2>Net Income for Families; and Individuals who
are Blind, Disabled or Age 65+
</TH><TH rowSpan=2>Resource
Level
</TH></TR><TR><TH>Annual</TH><TH>Monthly</TH><TH>Annual</TH><TH>Monthly</TH></TR></THEAD><TBODY><TR><TD>1</TD><TD>$8,462</TD><TD>$706</TD><TD>$9200</TD><TD>$767</TD><TD>$13,800</TD></TR><TR><TD>2</TD><TD>$10,563</TD><TD>$881</TD><TD>$13,400</TD><TD>$1,117</TD><TD>$20,100</TD></TR><TR><TD>3</TD><TD>$12,568</TD><TD>$1,048</TD><TD>$15,410</TD><TD>$1,285</TD><TD>$23,115</TD></TR><TR><TD>4</TD><TD>$14,593</TD><TD>$1,217</TD><TD>$17,420</TD><TD>$1,452</TD><TD>$26,130</TD></TR><TR><TD>5</TD><TD>$16,686</TD><TD>$1,391</TD><TD>$19,430</TD><TD>$1,620</TD><TD>$29,145</TD></TR><TR><TD>6</TD><TD>$18,217</TD><TD>$1,519</TD><TD>$21,440</TD><TD>$1,787</TD><TD>$32,160</TD></TR><TR><TD>7</TD><TD>$19,829</TD><TD>$1,653</TD><TD>$23,450</TD><TD>$1,955</TD><TD>$35,175</TD></TR><TR><TD>8</TD><TD>$21,899</TD><TD>$1,825</TD><TD>$25,460</TD><TD>$2,122</TD><TD>$38,190</TD></TR><TR><TD>9</TD><TD>$23,088</TD><TD>$1,924</TD><TD>$27,470</TD><TD>$2,290</TD><TD>$41,205</TD></TR><TR><TD>10</TD><TD>$24,276</TD><TD>$2,023</TD><TD>$29,480</TD><TD>$2,458</TD><TD>$44,220</TD></TR><TR><TD>For each additional person, add:</TD><TD></TD><TD>$95</TD><TD>$2,010</TD><TD>$168</TD><TD>$3,015</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

*Effective April 1, 2009

Income and Resource Levels are subject to yearly adjustments.
You may also own a home, a car, and personal property and still be eligible. The income and resources of legally responsible relatives in the household will also be counted.

Each state has different guidlines.


It is very sad that the broken medical care system is actually creating more poverty.

[MeBNude]

So we had to wonder: Have you put off visits to the doctor because of financial considerations?

Overall, 15.4% of Americans don't have health insurance.

I would be one of those persons. I lost medical insurance a year ago and all sorts of medical/health h*ll broke lose. And then I ended up having close my private practice because of it. And then there are all of the other associated financial issues that came from that time as well. My mother is one of the top managers of the Oregon Health Plan and I couldn't get on it.

Funny, people who don't think the government's money (they believe it to be their money) should be supporting the "lazy welfare moms" and the like - they don't realize that a quick twist of fate can put anyone in an impossible position where you need help, through no fault of your own. That actually applies to the vast majority of people who need government assistance. The stereotypes used by those who disagree with assistance programs is not the face of the people who need a hand up.

It is my face and others like me. The last couple of years certainly opened my eyes.shocked Good news is that I was able to get insurance this month. And it turns out, it could have saved my life. I'll keep you posted.:cheering:

[MoonShadow]

[QUOTE=MeBNude;241744

Funny, people who don't think the government's money (they believe it to be their money) should be supporting the "lazy welfare moms" and the like - they don't realize that a quick twist of fate can put anyone in an impossible position where you need help, through no fault of your own. That actually applies to the vast majority of people who need government assistance. The stereotypes used by those who disagree with assistance programs is not the face of the people who need a hand up.

It is my face and others like me. The last couple of years certainly opened my eyes.[/QUOTE]

How true! I get sick and tired, personally, of those who rant about the "welfare moms and the lazy" when THIS IS NOT, as you said, " the face of the people who need a hand up."

[missouriboy]

Overall, 15.4% of Americans don't have health insurance.FIFTEEN PERCENT! YES, WOW!

I haven't read this whole thread so I don't know if this has appeared before now, but here's a congressman from Michigan who puts that into perspective, so we can consider more viewpoints. It's worth watching, and only 4 minutes long...

Click here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded)

[MoonShadow]

OMG!! More lies from another Congressman against healthcare reform. The government option WILL NOT PUNISH those who have group healthcare coverage for their employees. Amazing, how this man could even sit in front of a microphone in front of people and say what he said.

More partisan resistance. Help us all.

[Fitz1980]

OMG!! More lies from another Congressman against healthcare reform. The government option WILL NOT PUNISH those who have group healthcare coverage for their employees. Amazing, how this man could even sit in front of a microphone in front of people and say what he said.

More partisan resistance. Help us all.

Wait a sec. Just at a casual glance I saw two fallacies.

One was saying that health care reform is "punishing those 85% who have coverage." That's wrong. Right now it's many of those who pay into private healthcare who are being punished. They pay in and than if they need to actually use there coverage the companies will do everything in there power to deny coverage; that's punishing someone for being sick. Not only that but than the hospitals often overcharge the insurance companies to cover the cost of emergency care that they are bound by law to cover, for things that wouldn't have become emergencies if the insurance companies hadn't denied coverage in the first place.

He also had to take a dig at Cap & Trade, which hasn't even passed, saying that the government was responsible for rising energy prices when it was deregulation that was responsible for that.

[maliakei]

I would be one of those persons. I lost medical insurance a year ago and all sorts of medical/health h*ll broke lose. And then I ended up having close my private practice because of it. And then there are all of the other associated financial issues that came from that time as well. My mother is one of the top managers of the Oregon Health Plan and I couldn't get on it.

Funny, people who don't think the government's money (they believe it to be their money) should be supporting the "lazy welfare moms" and the like - they don't realize that a quick twist of fate can put anyone in an impossible position where you need help, through no fault of your own. That actually applies to the vast majority of people who need government assistance. The stereotypes used by those who disagree with assistance programs is not the face of the people who need a hand up.

It is my face and others like me. The last couple of years certainly opened my eyes.shocked Good news is that I was able to get insurance this month. And it turns out, it could have saved my life. I'll keep you posted.:cheering:

Alot of good points here. That's shocking to know you could not get on that health plan, but Glad you got insurance elsewhere.

Yeah, all it takes is that quick twist of fate. I attended my high school reunion over the weekend and learned several classmates had died due to sudden health-related issues. It really puts everything in a whole different light as to how unpredictable, fragile, and precious life is..

I like how you use the words 'hand up' rather than 'hand out'. Good to finally hear some positive news come about. I have been volunteering my time & energy to assist seniors with small tasks (Big to them) -- cooking, cleaning, vacuuming, mending, rides to Dr appts, etc. Thanks for sharing.

[MoonShadow]

Wait a sec. Just at a casual glance I saw two fallacies.

One was saying that health care reform is "punishing those 85% who have coverage." That's wrong. Right now it's many of those who pay into private healthcare who are being punished. They pay in and than if they need to actually use there coverage the companies will do everything in there power to deny coverage; that's punishing someone for being sick. Not only that but than the hospitals often overcharge the insurance companies to cover the cost of emergency care that they are bound by law to cover, for things that wouldn't have become emergencies if the insurance companies hadn't denied coverage in the first place.

He also had to take a dig at Cap & Trade, which hasn't even passed, saying that the government was responsible for rising energy prices when it was deregulation that was responsible for that.

LOL, Fitz --- yes, the poor guy starts off spouting fallacies and that is what I meant by how could he in good standing say what he said ---- unless, of course, his pockets are deeply lined with pharma and insurance monies, right?

Exactly, deregulation in many areas has resulted in rising prices and a continuance of prices rising. Do we never learn from past mistakes?

[maliakei]

". . . loneliness is one of the fastest growing problems we have in our current societal make-up, and not just among the elderly although it is more prevalent.

For me, an ecovillage would work. I enjoy being part of a community."

Loneliness is a Major problem, yet the subject is rarely talked about. I've noticed it's more like a taboo subject. It has to do with much more than wanting company with someone. Many people find it so terribly difficult to deal with, so they experience such deep depression. They just say nothing and don't want to 'burden' anybody by talking about it, my guess.

It helps tremendously to find support groups, getting outdoors, pet therapy, or doing something for others. Some need presription medicine, but I am not totally convinced it helps, rather it becomes too powerful, too addictive causing more damage.

Sadly, some, including 2 family members, committed suicide just to get rid of the pain. Vague notes are left, or nothing at all. Not only does this come unexpectedly, it's a major blow because they can 'appear' perfectly fine. We never realized how wrong this can be. All too many feelings are happening at once -- guilt, sadness, anger. I spent much time trying to remember, like rewinding back time just to figure out what warning signs were missed.. Some hide it too well. It's haunting..

[Sanslines]

The Sad Story Of Health Care Reform - An Op-ed Treatise:

"In the beginning there was an idea: let's guarantee that all Americans have access to affordable, quality health care. The basic concept was simple. The government would act as the sole insurer, processing claims and establishing reimbursement rates to providers, much the same as they have been doing under Medicare for people over 65 for the past 44 years. This would reduce costs by eliminating the profits that the private insurance companies now include in their premiums as well as high advertising, promotional, executive compensation, and administrative expenses that are the hallmarks of the health insurance industry. With those savings in hand, the costs to the patient would be affordable. Doctors would not have to hire and pay staff to fill out endless different kinds of forms from different insurers and argue with insurance companies so even more would be saved. This efficient and effective way is called a "single-payer" system.

But there was a slight problem. For most of the past 8 years, the Republicans were in power. There was a Republican president, and, for most of the that time, the Republicans controlled Congress. Republicans do not like the idea of a single payer system and the Democrats in Congress were unable to advance their plan.

"Just wait until we take control of Congress," the Democrats would admonish "then we will be able to enact single-payer health care reform." Happily, the Democrats did take control of Congress in the November 2006 election. Sadly, they did not elect enough Democrats to the Senate to defeat Republican filibusters.

"All we need is a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a decent majority in the House and we will enact true universal health care legislation," said the Democrats. "Moreover, if we elect a Democratic president, then we will be assured of absolute success!"

Lo and behold, in 2008 the nation not only elected a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate and an increased majority in the House, it also elected a Democratic president, who, although he didn't promiss a single payer system, did vigorously promote a Medicare-like public plan as a major feature of his health care reform proposal. Many Democrats were summarily dissapointed because the new president didn't support single-payer (even though he admitted that it was the only system that would insure nearly universal coverage and bring costs down), but they were willing to compromise with him and develop a plan that included an option that would allow people not covered through work or otherwise to be government insured.

Then some House democrats got cold feet. They were being called socialists and other terrible names. They convinced the Democratic Speaker to weaken the pubic option. When other, more progressive Democrats, got wind of that, they managed to reverse some, but not all, of the weakening amendments. Another compromise by Democrats.

About then we learned that the President had made a deal of his own with the pharmaceutical industry that any new legislation regarding health care reform would not allow the government to negotiate lower drug prices with the companies. This was seen as a compromise, an exchange for the industry's promise to stop passig on unecessary costs to consumers. So far the promiss has not been kept. The new president was also negotiating a compromise deal with insurance companies that would require that would require that millions of young people enroll in private insurance company plans, thereby guaranteeing enormous new profit potentials for the insurance industry.

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, important Democratic senators insisted on trying to negotiate a bill with the Republicans. While these negotiations were going on, some of those Republicans resorted to openly lying about the health care proposals. They claimed (as did a former governor of a very cold northern state) that the Democrats wanted the government to take over health care and set up "death panels" to determine which elderly citizens should live and which should die. These claims were ridiculous and patent lies, but many people believed them, so the Senate Democrats again gave in and offered to eliminate both the public option and the end of life voluntary counseling provisions.

Instead of providing for an option for uninsured people to join a public plan, the Senate Democrats are now working on (surprise, surprise) yet another compromise to substitute "consumer cooperatives." There is absolutely no reason to believe that these cooperatives will have nearly the same economic clout as the federal government, clout that is absolutely needed to really compete with the insurance companies, to establish a fair backup for those without employer-based insurance, and to provide a benchmark for cost and quality standards in the health care realm.

As of today, among continued weakness and infighting among Democrats who are unable to reach a fair consensus, the Senate panel has officially rejected the public option. The Republicans are all gloating how a Democratic majority under a Democratic president is so weak and disorganized that they can not pass a public health care option and continue to negotiate away their health care reform bill. Meanwhile, the Democrats continue with their infighting.

And so, boys and girls, goes the story of how the promiss of health care reform was ruined by a Congressional majority of Democrats led by a Democratic president."

[ki4kxq]

Sanslines, the above story makes it appear as though this has happened in a vacuum. It hasn't. The dems and repubs that are voting against a single payer system, or it's cousin, the public option, are responding to the demands of those who put them in office. The majority of Americans do not want a public option or a single payer system.

New polls (Rasmussen) show that 56% of Americans do not want any of the health care reform bills that are in play at this time. Only 41% of Americans are in favor. These are numbers from repubs, dems, and independents. Please understand that we live in a representative republic, not a dictatorship. DC doesn't get to just ram things down our throats, the legislature is put into place to carry out the wishes of those in their districts.

No amount of hype, endless speeches by the President, or threats change the minds of Americans. The majority of Americans understand that these plans as they stand are a bad deal.

[Sanslines]

Sanslines, the above story makes it appear as though this has happened in a vacuum. It hasn't. The dems and repubs that are voting against a single payer system, or it's cousin, the public option, are responding to the demands of those who put them in office. The majority of Americans do not want a public option or a single payer system.

New polls (Rasmussen) show that 56% of Americans do not want any of the health care reform bills that are in play at this time. Only 41% of Americans are in favor. These are numbers from repubs, dems, and independents. Please understand that we live in a representative republic, not a dictatorship. DC doesn't get to just ram things down our throats, the legislature is put into place to carry out the wishes of those in their districts.

No amount of hype, endless speeches by the President, or threats change the minds of Americans. The majority of Americans understand that these plans as they stand are a bad deal.

A few points for you to consider............First you need to understand just how many Americans do not understand the full truth behind health care reform. Instead of thinking for themselves and obtaining the facts, they believe nonsense such as 'death panels' and react strongly to the word 'socialism' without even understanding what the word really means. Sadly, people are guilible and easily influenced by lying politicians. It is fact that certain Repubs has launched a certain smear campaign of lies that deliberately manipulate, influence and control a certain group of Americans. Case in point: Why would any American who is receiving health care from one of the already existing health care programs (VA, Medicare, Medicaid) protest against any government health care program? This is pure hypocrisy at it's finest and only shows how some don't even understand the programs from which they already receive support.

Second point is that the role of a president is to lead the nation. Sometimes the president has to make tough decisions that are going to be highly unpopular at first but will eventually be shown to be in the best interests of ALL americans. I believe that much of the opposition to health care reform stems from misunderstandings based upon a campaign of deliberate misinformation.

Perhaps you believe that I am wrong. Another possibility is that a majority of Americans just don't give a damn about other Americans for as long as they have their perceived health care coverage when they get sick, then who cares about others. If this is true, then we all need to come out and face this sooner then later.

This whole debate and discussion should focus upon a goal of providing quality health care to ALL Americans without bankrupting them in the process. To accomplish this goal, it will be necessary to make some corporations very unhappy by creating policies and procedures that will drive down costs (ie reduce their profits). Given all of the straight facts, it has been deomonstrated over and over again that ONLY the federal government has the size, power, and authority to accomplish this goal and establish a truly FREE market that is free from the manipulations of health care corporations who will do absolutely anything to increase their profits at the expense of the health of Americans.

Please show me how, over the past 8 years, where the Repubicans have done anything substantial to reduce health care costs and reverse the trend of the ever increasing numbers of uninsured and medical induced bankruptcies.

[Boreas]

This whole debate and discussion should focus upon a goal of providing quality health care to ALL Americans without bankrupting them in the process. To accomplish this goal, it will be necessary to make some corporations very unhappy by creating policies and procedures that will drive down costs (ie reduce their profits). Given all of the straight facts, it has been deomonstrated over and over again that ONLY the federal government has the size, power, and authority to accomplish this goal and establish a truly FREE market that is free from the manipulations of health care corporations who will do absolutely anything to increase their profits at the expense of the health of Americans.

Amen! That is the bottom line.

I would love to hear ki4kxq's response to MeBNude's situation. I think it is described upthread.

[Sanslines]

Now that I have had time to research and present FACTS, here is a factual response to Ki4kqx statement "No amount of hype, endless speeches by the President, or threats change the minds of Americans. The majority of Americans understand that these plans as they stand are a bad deal."

Here are the facts as to just who our beloved representative actually represent:

Senate Finance Committee Public Option Vote and Campaign Contribution Ratios (http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/09/29/senate-finance-committe-public-option-vote-and-campaign-contribution-ratios/)


In the continuing health care debate the public option remains as the key puzzle piece in the Democrats’ health care package. Today, the Senate Finance Committee is debating and voting on amendments to include a public option in their version of health care reform legislation. Both amendments to the bill were defeated in committee.

One of the biggest supporters of the public option is labor, a trusted ally of the Democrats. The public option has been opposed by many in the health sector. A comparison of voting behavior and campaign contributions may provide some more context to today’s committee votes.

The chart below shows Senate Finance Committee members, their contributions from the labor and health sectors from 2005-2010, the ratio of health contributions to labor contributions and their votes on the Rockefeller and Schumer public option amendments.

<TABLE border=0><TBODY><TR><TH>Ratio of Health to Labor Contributions to the Senate Finance Committee (2005-2010) and Public Option Votes</TH></TR></TBODY><TBODY><TR><TD>Name</TD><TD>Party</TD><TD>Labor Contributions (2005-2010)</TD><TD>Health Contributions (2005-2010)</TD><TD>Ratio (Health:Labor)</TD><TD>Rockefeller Amendment</TD><TD>Schumer Amendment</TD></TR><TR><TD>Mike Crapo</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>$2,000</TD><TD>$243,226</TD><TD>121.6:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>N</TD></TR><TR><TD>Jon Kyl</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>$13,000</TD><TD>$1,188,238</TD><TD>91.4:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>N</TD></TR><TR><TD>Chuck Grassley</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>$11,500</TD><TD>$651,627</TD><TD>56.7:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>N</TD></TR><TR><TD>Jim Bunning</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>$2,500</TD><TD>$112,650</TD><TD>45.1:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>N</TD></TR><TR><TD>John Cornyn</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>$27,250</TD><TD>$1,226,469</TD><TD>44.6:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>N</TD></TR><TR><TD>John Ensign</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>$12,000</TD><TD>$521,575</TD><TD>43.5:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>N</TD></TR><TR><TD>Orrin Hatch</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>$31,100</TD><TD>$1,020,334</TD><TD>32.8:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>N</TD></TR><TR><TD>Pat Roberts</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>$12,000</TD><TD>$343,849</TD><TD>28.7:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>N</TD></TR><TR><TD>Blanche Lincoln</TD><TD>D</TD><TD>$36,100</TD><TD>$641,004</TD><TD>17.8:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>N</TD></TR><TR><TD>Mike Enzi</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>$26,500</TD><TD>$423,749</TD><TD>16.0:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>N</TD></TR><TR><TD>Maria Cantwell</TD><TD>D</TD><TD>$22,500</TD><TD>$353,342</TD><TD>15.7:1</TD><TD>Y</TD><TD>Y</TD></TR><TR><TD>Ron Wyden</TD><TD>D</TD><TD>$39,000</TD><TD>$370,175</TD><TD>9.5:1</TD><TD>Y</TD><TD>Y</TD></TR><TR><TD>Max Baucus</TD><TD>D</TD><TD>$207,925</TD><TD>$1,763,799</TD><TD>8.5:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>N</TD></TR><TR><TD>Olympia Snowe</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>$103,750</TD><TD>$367,549</TD><TD>3.5:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>N</TD></TR><TR><TD>Kent Conrad</TD><TD>D</TD><TD>$253,750</TD><TD>$652,178</TD><TD>2.6:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>N</TD></TR><TR><TD>Debbie Stabenow</TD><TD>D</TD><TD>$284,125</TD><TD>$737,243</TD><TD>2.6:1</TD><TD>Y</TD><TD>Y</TD></TR><TR><TD>Bill Nelson</TD><TD>D</TD><TD>$241,890</TD><TD>$613,594</TD><TD>2.5:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>Y</TD></TR><TR><TD>Jay Rockefeller</TD><TD>D</TD><TD>$240,800</TD><TD>$605,400</TD><TD>2.5:1</TD><TD>Y</TD><TD>Y</TD></TR><TR><TD>Chuck Schumer</TD><TD>D</TD><TD>$140,500</TD><TD>$298,650</TD><TD>2.1:1</TD><TD>Y</TD><TD>Y</TD></TR><TR><TD>John Kerry</TD><TD>D</TD><TD>$103,248</TD><TD>$188,558</TD><TD>1.8:1</TD><TD>Y</TD><TD>Y</TD></TR><TR><TD>Jeff Bingaman</TD><TD>D</TD><TD>$229,500</TD><TD>$366,414</TD><TD>1.6:1</TD><TD>Y</TD><TD>Y</TD></TR><TR><TD>Tom Carper</TD><TD>D</TD><TD>$180,010</TD><TD>$287,406</TD><TD>1.6:1</TD><TD>N</TD><TD>Y</TD></TR><TR><TD>Robert Menendez</TD><TD>D</TD><TD>$400,100</TD><TD>$603,343</TD><TD>1.5:1</TD><TD>Y</TD><TD>Y</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
This data could tell us one of two things: (1) Democrats are far more likely to get money from Labor for ideological reasons; (2) The ratio of health to labor contributions effects the way senators will vote on the public option. It could also be both of these.

For senators voting on the Rockefeller amendment, 58% of those with a 10:1 or under ratio of health to labor contributions voted for the amendment. When that ratio is brought down to 3:1 and under, 67% of senators voted for the amendment.

On the Schumer amendment, 75% of those with a 10:1 or under ratio of health to labor contributions voted for the amendment. When that ratio is brought down to 3:1 and under, 89% of senators voted for the amendment.

There is perfect consistency for No votes for both amendments and in both ranges of 10:1 and over and 3:1 and over. Those senators with a 10:1 or over ratio of health to labor contributions voted against both amendments 91% of the time. Senators with a 3:1 or over ratio of health to labor contributions voted against both amendments 86% of the time.

http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/09/29/senate-finance-committe-public-option-vote-and-campaign-contribution-ratios/#comment-111353


Are those who are opposed to a public health care option discretely buying influence from certain government officials in order to destroy any possibility of major health care reform, including the public option? Are our representaives really representing the best wishes of the people that they represent by accepting aid from the health care alliance and rewarding them by voting against a public option?


<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> tweetmeme_style = 'compact'; </SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://tweetmeme.com/i/scripts/button.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
<IFRAME src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/button.js?url=http%3A//www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php%3Fp%3D241901%26posted%3D1&style=normal" frameBorder=0 width=50 scrolling=no height=61></IFRAME>

[NudeAl]

Did anyone else hear Congressman Alan Gracin? He gave an incredibly assertive speach today on the house floor outlining the Republican Health Care Plan number 1. Don't get sick and 2. If you do get sick die quickly. LOL! I thought I would never see the day one of the Dems had the balls to call them out. But he did and that really got the Republicans fired up they demanded an apology sort of along the same lines as when the president had Joe Wilson scream You lie! Never mind all that crap about death panels and pulling the plug on grandma crap they were spouting earlier this year. When he did apologize he made it clear that he was apologizing to the families of the 44,789 Americans who die each year because they have no health care. Illustrating once again that the emphasis needs to be on these Americans and not on the profit margins of the health care industry. Oh boy I love this guy this is where we need to go to get the truth brough t out there and they need to stop putting profits before the health of these Americans.

[Navigator]

The majority of Americans do not want a public option or a single payer system.

New polls (Rasmussen) show that 56% of Americans do not want any of the health care reform bills that are in play at this time. Only 41% of Americans are in favor.

No amount of hype, endless speeches by the President, or threats change the minds of Americans.

Rasmussen slants their polls with wording they know will result in support for wingnut causes. One of the ways to do this is to leave out the fact that Democrats want Americans to have a *choice* between private insurance and a public option.

The polling being done by SurveyUSA is the credible polling on this issue. You've failed to show us the Rasmussen question that resulted in the numbers you're quoting so it's difficult for me to give your numbers any credibility....in fact, your numbers have no credibility.

Unbiased polls show that when people are asked if Americans should have a *choice* between private insurance and a public option, 77% of Americans say YES.

Here's a longer explanation for you:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html

And here's the SurveyUSA poll the article talks about. Note that question #2 is the question about *choice* and the 77% is the total of those who said having the *choice* of a public option is "extremely important" plus those who said it's "quite important".

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693

I agree with your last sentence, quoted above. The vast majority of Americans demand a public option and no amount of right wing propaganda will change their minds.

[ki4kxq]

Amen! That is the bottom line.

I would love to hear ki4kxq's response to MeBNude's situation. I think it is described upthread.

MeBNude didn't give info as to why she lost health insurance. Did she lose her job? Was she just cancelled out of the blue? Without knowing why, it's really hard to comment. I know that buying health insurance for myself, I pay $135 a month. That's not much, but I have a high deductible. I could drop my deductible, and pay about $200 a month. That is for Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Unlike Sanslines though, I give the American people credit. Most of those that are against a public option are very well informed. Most have read the various bills online and can tell you exactly what is in those bills. To say the American people are so stupid they don't understand, is the very mistake that will cost a lot of folks their seats in the Congress and Senate in 2010.

[Naturist Mark]

Unlike Sanslines though, I give the American people credit. Most of those that are against a public option are very well informed. Most have read the various bills online and can tell you exactly what is in those bills. To say the American people are so stupid they don't understand, is the very mistake that will cost a lot of folks their seats in the Congress and Senate in 2010.

Really?

I find that almost no one realizes that the so called "Public options" being considered will have NO tax dollars supporting them, but that private insurance in all 5 bills WILL be supported by tax dollars. Kind of exactly the opposite of what the Media is leading people to believe.

[ki4kxq]

Really?

I find that almost no one realizes that the so called "Public options" being considered will have NO tax dollars supporting them, but that private insurance in all 5 bills WILL be supported by tax dollars. Kind of exactly the opposite of what the Media is leading people to believe.

Most people understand that the numbers being floated around are a fairytale. The fact that President Obama keeps saying that the health care reform that is being debated in various bills is deficit neutral is also a fairytale, even the CBO says so.

The problem is the American people don't want any part of this. They understand what is being proposed, and they don't want it no matter how many times folks try to change the name of the program. The American people again are way smarter than you, Sanslines, and Nancy Pelosi believe.

[ki4kxq]

Most of us have become party neutral. We really don't care what party the legislators belong to, if they continue to vote for these bail outs, tax increases, and public options, we will vote them out. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter.

I would love to see a clean sweep of Congress and Senate in the upcoming elections. Get rid of the whole lot, and sweep and brand new bunch in. Then, inact term limits. One term, period. That will stop the corruption because there will not be any need to build a war chest of iffy contributions.

Corruption is another reason no one wants to give this government more power. They can't handle what they have. Harry Reid just today inserted a sweetheart deal for Nevada in the health care bill. That is how Max Baucus got his vote.

[Naturist Mark]

Most people understand that the numbers being floated around are a fairytale. The fact that President Obama keeps saying that the health care reform that is being debated in various bills is deficit neutral is also a fairytale, even the CBO says so.

The problem is the American people don't want any part of this. They understand what is being proposed, and they don't want it no matter how many times folks try to change the name of the program. The American people again are way smarter than you, Sanslines, and Nancy Pelosi believe.

You "prove" the numbers are wrong by refusing to believe them? .... magical thinking ....

Obama is saying that one of his requirements for the final bill is that it be deficit neutral, that does not mean that every single current proposal is ... just that that is going to be one of his requirements for the final bill.

Almost ALL of the American people do want SOME PART of this. A minority have been scared by doomsayers and outright lies, But the vast majority want substantial reform of the insurance industry, and over two thirds want a non-insurance industry alternative - some form of the so-called "public option". That the American people don't want any part of this is completely and irrefutably untrue (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693).

[Fitz1980]

Did anyone else hear Congressman Alan Gracin? He gave an incredibly assertive speach today on the house floor outlining the Republican Health Care Plan number 1. Don't get sick and 2. If you do get sick die quickly. LOL! I thought I would never see the day one of the Dems had the balls to call them out. But he did and that really got the Republicans fired up they demanded an apology sort of along the same lines as when the president had Joe Wilson scream You lie!

Which isn't even the same situation. Gracin had the floor at the time. He didn't just shout it out when someone else was talking.

[Sanslines]

Unlike Sanslines though, I give the American people credit. Most of those that are against a public option are very well informed. Most have read the various bills online and can tell you exactly what is in those bills. To say the American people are so stupid they don't understand, is the very mistake that will cost a lot of folks their seats in the Congress and Senate in 2010.

It certainly is the politically correct thing to give 'the American people credit'. Perhaps you are running for office? The fact is that if people were to understand the facts of what Obama and his supporters have said over and over again, the issue of 'death panels' would never have become an issue. ALL people would know that this is absurd nonsense and would immediately ignore it. Yet, a sizeable percentage of people did believe in this fairy tail and use their misguided beliefs as a basis to discredit the entire health care reform process. Another fact is that many of those individuals who are screaming 'socialism' at Obama and his supporters and are vehementely opposed to any government involvement in health care don't even seem to understand that if they are receiving benefits from the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, then they already are accepting benefits from a government program.

No doubt you will believe what you wish to believe and will ignore any and all facts that are presented here. This really is the crux of the problem and this problem is not restricted to health care. People obviously will ignore a great deal of factual information no matter how many times and ways that it is presented and will instead believe what they wish to believe. Perhaps you wish to believe that the world is flat and in spite of all credible evidence to the contrary, you will ignore that information and instead keep believing in a flat world.

[Fitz1980]

Of course who cares what doctors think. I'd much rather hear what an insurance bureaucrat thinks.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960

When polled, "nearly three-quarters of physicians supported some form of a public option, either alone or in combination with private insurance options," says Dr. Salomeh Keyhani. She and Dr. Alex Federman, both internists and researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, conducted a random survey, by mail and by phone, of 2,130 doctors. They surveyed them from June right up to early September.

Most doctors — 63 percent — say they favor giving patients a choice that would include both public and private insurance. That's the position of President Obama and of many congressional Democrats. In addition, another 10 percent of doctors say they favor a public option only; they'd like to see a single-payer health care system. Together, the two groups add up to 73 percent.


http://npr.org/news/graphics/2009/09/gr-doctorsurvey-300.gif

[Illinois59]

Most of those that are against a public option are very well informed. Most have read the various bills online and can tell you exactly what is in those bills. To say the American people are so stupid they don't understand, is the very mistake that will cost a lot of folks their seats in the Congress and Senate in 2010.

I disagree that those who are against the public option are well informed. Like the death panel baloney that claims the government will decide who lives or dies. Insurance companies already decide whether or not they will cover needed treatment for a person they insure who is facing a life-threatening medical problem. Tell me, how can you say insurance companies do not have death panels when they can and do refuse coverage of life-saving care? Can anybody offer an answer to this question? I doubt any anti-reform person woud dare publicly support such refusal of coverage by insurance companies.

[MeBNude]

MeBNude didn't give info as to why she lost health insurance. Did she lose her job?

In an expanded ;) nutshell... I owned my own business and was insured through the business... and I was never given an insurance option for less than $200.00 (not even less than double that) as a small business owner. I say I "lost" my insurance because - my health issues made it more difficult for me to continue in business (service business, so no work, no income), so less revenue, cut costs (vacations, Starbucks, no more shoes and clothes (who needs clothes except when at work?!:laugh:), restaurants went first), sold home in terrible market, had life possessions stolen out of storage by former real estate agent. Then it came down to the more difficult cost cutting - keep medical insurance or close business? Well, I had no reasonably priced insurance choices and wanted to try and keep working so I had to give up my medical insurance.

Bad choice? Sure. It's the only time since I was 18 that I have not had medical insurance and it bit me in the *ss. But I was in a business that I couldn't just close the doors, six months later there are still loose ends that I'm still taking care of. So, I had to do what it took to keep the doors open as long as I could. And that included me not being able to carry medical insurance any longer because there was nothing even remotely reasonable around.

Now, don't cry for me Argentina... I'm not looking for sympathy here. I'm just trying to make real for people who say that their opposition to a "public option" is well informed. I question that assertion, but I am not going to argue that here. What I will say, is that when you have no other option, can't get on medicaid or medicare (notwithstanding paying good taxes for almost 30 years), can't find insurance you can afford (unless you have a health history 100% free and clear of all injury, defects and disease), are single with you job/business as your only income source... you are not going to debate the finer details on how healthcare should be provided to you. You simply want to have it available as an option if you want it or need it. No truly civilized country wouldn't have that option for its citizenry.

And she descends from her soap box... yet again.:o

[Boreas]

Thanks for the information MeBNude. It will be interesting to see how ki4 responds to it. Of course, as a self-employed person herself, that would NEVER happen to her. :rolleyes:

[MoonShadow]

I disagree that those who are against the public option are well informed. Like the death panel baloney that claims the government will decide who lives or dies. Insurance companies already decide whether or not they will cover needed treatment for a person they insure who is facing a life-threatening medical problem. Tell me, how can you say insurance companies do not have death panels when they can and do refuse coverage of life-saving care? Can anybody offer an answer to this question? I doubt any anti-reform person woud dare publicly support such refusal of coverage by insurance companies.


Well stated, Illinois!

Most Americans against the public option are not well informed or even informed at all about what the public option offers. Instead, most of these individuals have listened to the lies being spun about the public option. This is NOT being informed.

Since those who have been spreading the propaganda/lies about the public option are the ones who came up with the phrase, death panels, now need to use that phrase for real to the private insurance industry as they actually put into practice death panels and have for some years now.

[maliakei]

Well stated, Illinois!

Most Americans against the public option are not well informed or even informed at all about what the public option offers. Instead, most of these individuals have listened to the lies being spun about the public option. This is NOT being informed.

Since those who have been spreading the propaganda/lies about the public option are the ones who came up with the phrase, death panels, now need to use that phrase for real to the private insurance industry as they actually put into practice death panels and have for some years now.

MoonShadow, Right on again. I hate the confusion and upset all this brings to the American people. Many don't even know what to believe anymore! All we want is to have access to affordable healthcare, and not worry about being denied coverage when we need it the most. What irks me are those who get denied after they've religiously paid into the system for many years. What do you do? Many are too sick to fight.

Of all the 65+ people I know, not once did they complain about Medicare, rather glad to have it. I don't see the problem so many are opposed to socialized healthcare in the US? If folks want to pay into a private insurance system then let them. In other countries that is an option. Health coverage should be a right, not a privledge.

The other problem is lack of doctors, nurses, etc. That's the big problem. It's a worldwide problem, not just in the US. There needs to be ways to bring in students interested in learning medicine but how? The costs of schooling are astronomical.

[MoonShadow]

MoonShadow, Right on again. I hate the confusion and upset all this brings to the American people. Many don't even know what to believe anymore! All we want is to have access to affordable healthcare, and not worry about being denied coverage when we need it the most. What irks me are those who get denied after they've religiously paid into the system for many years. What do you do? Many are too sick to fight.

Of all the 65+ people I know, not once did they complain about Medicare, rather glad to have it. I don't see the problem so many are opposed to socialized healthcare in the US? If folks want to pay into a private insurance system then let them. In other countries that is an option. Health coverage should be a right, not a privledge.

The other problem is lack of doctors, nurses, etc. That's the big problem. It's a worldwide problem, not just in the US. There needs to be ways to bring in students interested in learning medicine but how? The costs of schooling are astronomical.


The very word, socialism, freaks people out as many think communism: the former USSR, Stalin, Moussolini, China, etc. It is not. I don't see anything wrong, personally, with socialized medicine. It works in other countries just fine. But here -- well, again, most who oppose simply are not informed.

Some days I think, just get rid of the entire private insurance industry and let's have what Canada has for healthcare or France, or Denmark. It works for them, why not for us?

[nimrod]

Then, inact term limits. One term, period. That will stop the corruption because there will not be any need to build a war chest of iffy contributions.

There are already term limits inacted, they are called your vote.

[nimrod]

I have been holding off on saying anything about this for awhile because I do not know where to stand.

I know that there should be reform on the insurance and pharma companies, and the hospitals. There is way too much greed in the health care industry and the people that suffer because of it are those who cannot afford the ever increasing cost to see a doctor.

Even from what I have heard about the VA and Medicare, I still have my reservations on health care run by the government. I have been trying to receive social security for almost seven years now, (they say I am not disabled enough, and because I am unable to get it I do not qualify for other benifits) if that is what I can expect from the government after I have already paid into a program that I am trying to recieve help from, then I do not think a government option is viable. I also do not think that I should be forced to buy insurance, which is one of Obamas stipulations for his approval the bill.

I know I do not want more of the same, does not matter what the options are if they are the same thing just different people offering it. Right now I do not have medical insurance because I cannot afford it, I have medical problems that I wish to see a doctor for, and I also need to see a specialist, but cannot afford it because I do not have insurance to help cover the cost of seeing a doctor.

Another reason I have been putting off a reply to this thread is that I do not have ideas has to what should be done, I just know it has to change. There are people in the same situation that I am in, but I do not have an answer as to how to solve the problem except for free health care I know that is all that I can afford.

[Illinois59]

Get rid of the whole lot, and sweep and brand new bunch in. Then, inact term limits. One term, period.


A historian could tell the story of how the Republicans made term limits a part of the "Contract on America" in 1994. When the Republicans gained control of Congress in the November 1994 elections, somehow the term limit part of the "Contract on America" was no longer a part of the "Contract" to be enacted by Congress. Regaining control of Congress and then deciding to not bother about enacting term limits - no connection, nah.

[ki4kxq]

Thanks for the information MeBNude. It will
be interesting to see how ki4 responds to it. Of course, as a self-employed person herself, that would NEVER happen to her. :rolleyes:

Boreas, after reading MeBNude's story, I can sympathize with her. However, again I don't know what kind of pre-existing conditions would keep her from getting reasonably priced health insurance. I went on the internet and found mine in an afternoon and was covered within 2 weeks. I am closing in on 50 and I had some pre-existing conditions. Again, I pay $135 a month.

Not one time have I said that there should be no changes to our system. There should be. However, most Americans understand that when we can't even control the waste, fraud and abuse in the government run systems we have now, they want no part of a government option. The fact that someone would say that we can insure millions more people by cleaning up waste is laughable, and people know it.

Also, there is not enough doctors who will take the patients on a government run plan. Docs are jumping off the medicare and medicaid wagon by leaps and bounds. The problem will escalate if there is a public option. Would someone please answer the question of "What good is a public option if doctor's won't play the game?" Your little health care card will be worthless.

As far as "death panels", that has been gone over so many times it's not funny, but people still keep bringing it up as if people were talking virtual death squads. That tells me, that some on this forum are the ones who are listening to propaganda. People have made the point, and I have as well, that there is not an unlimited amount of money to treat anybody. This applies to insurance companies, medicare, medicaid, or even your own personal checkbook. With any government option, decisions will have to be made as to return on investment when money becomes tight, as it will at some point. The same is true with insurance companies. I have a $5 million lifetime limit on my health insurance. If something happens that I hit that limit, guess what, they have every right to deny me care after that point. At least though, I know where I stand with them. The government may decide to deny me care at some limit that they just pull out of their hat some day because I am too old to need surgery.

Let's fix what needs to be fixed, allowing folks to get reasonable insurance with pre-existing coverage, portability, tort reform so that doctors aren't forced to practice defensive medicine, and coverage across all state lines. Out of 1300 insurance companies, most folks only have access to 5 or 6 in their state. These are things that most everybody can get behind. However, the American people do not want a public option, period.

[ki4kxq]

A historian could tell the story of how the Republicans made term limits a part of the "Contract on America" in 1994. When the Republicans gained control of Congress in the November 1994 elections, somehow the term limit part of the "Contract on America" was no longer a part of the "Contract" to be enacted by Congress. Regaining control of Congress and then deciding to not bother about enacting term limits - no connection, nah.

It's a shame that they didn't. I am more than willing to see everybody swept out. Republican and democrat, liberal, progressive and conservative. Those that I agree with and those I don't. They all need to go so that we can start over.

[maliakei]

The very word, socialism, freaks people out as many think communism: the former USSR, Stalin, Moussolini, China, etc. It is not. I don't see anything wrong, personally, with socialized medicine. It works in other countries just fine. But here -- well, again, most who oppose simply are not informed.

Some days I think, just get rid of the entire private insurance industry and let's have what Canada has for healthcare or France, or Denmark. It works for them, why not for us?

Okay then, call it 'Nationalized Healthcare', but I don't think the name change is going to change the beliefs for those who are opposed.

It already works in different countries. The Big problem is having to fight against powerful insurance companies who only care about Big profit. They could care less about us because they're in the business of making money.

How do you get rid of them? Either policies get cancelled altogether due to job loss or covered members simply quit paying high premiums. More & more policies are getting cancelled simply because the majority of Americans can no longer afford to pay. So without paid premiums the insurance companies can't survive. Everybody loses, unless you happen to be one of the rare few who can afford it.

If the US ever did move towards a system like Canada, UK, etc., then one thing we could expect is less paperwork because it would be a less bureaucratic system.

[Fitz1980]

Boreas, after reading MeBNude's story, I can sympathize with her. However, again I don't know what kind of pre-existing conditions would keep her from getting reasonably priced health insurance. I went on the internet and found mine in an afternoon and was covered within 2 weeks. I am closing in on 50 and I had some pre-existing conditions. Again, I pay $135 a month.


That's because you are healthy. Wait until you (God forbid) end up diagnosed with some expensive health problem and see how long it takes the insurance companies to say "that was an undisclosed pre-existing condition we're not covering anything."


As far as "death panels", that has been gone over so many times it's not funny, but people still keep bringing it up as if people were talking virtual death squads. That tells me, that some on this forum are the ones who are listening to propaganda.

Yes we are listening to the propaganda that's being repeated by the tea-bagger's and fox news each and every day.

[MeBNude]

ki4kxq -

The prices I was quoted had nothing to do with pre-existing conditions - these were prices for group plans with no pre-existing condition clauses. Even the Kaiser quote was over $400.00/month. And every condition that I have pre-existing is well documented and controlled by medication. Until this year, I was not a big insurance risk at all.

[BinCo]

I have a $5 million lifetime limit on my health insurance. If something happens that I hit that limit, guess what, they have every right to deny me care after that point. At least though, I know where I stand with them.

I have a $2m lifetime limit. Guess what? There is no regulation stating that the insurance company can not change the contract that you think you have with them. You might think you have $5m until something major happens, then it can be reduced at the will of the company. You might also find that the $5m can be reached with a serious disease or major injury (like a broken back and resulting paralysis). Then what do you do? You found that insurance on the net for a pretty cheap price, have you used it? Have you had it for a few years and seen what the premiums do?

[Boreas]

Boreas, after reading MeBNude's story, I can sympathize with her. However, again I don't know what kind of pre-existing conditions would keep her from getting reasonably priced health insurance. I went on the internet and found mine in an afternoon and was covered within 2 weeks. I am closing in on 50 and I had some pre-existing conditions. Again, I pay $135 a month.

Not one time have I said that there should be no changes to our system. There should be. However, most Americans understand that when we can't even control the waste, fraud and abuse in the government run systems we have now, they want no part of a government option. The fact that someone would say that we can insure millions more people by cleaning up waste is laughable, and people know it.

Also, there is not enough doctors who will take the patients on a government run plan. Docs are jumping off the medicare and medicaid wagon by leaps and bounds. The problem will escalate if there is a public option. Would someone please answer the question of "What good is a public option if doctor's won't play the game?" Your little health care card will be worthless.

As far as "death panels", that has been gone over so many times it's not funny, but people still keep bringing it up as if people were talking virtual death squads. That tells me, that some on this forum are the ones who are listening to propaganda. People have made the point, and I have as well, that there is not an unlimited amount of money to treat anybody. This applies to insurance companies, medicare, medicaid, or even your own personal checkbook. With any government option, decisions will have to be made as to return on investment when money becomes tight, as it will at some point. The same is true with insurance companies. I have a $5 million lifetime limit on my health insurance. If something happens that I hit that limit, guess what, they have every right to deny me care after that point. At least though, I know where I stand with them. The government may decide to deny me care at some limit that they just pull out of their hat some day because I am too old to need surgery.

Let's fix what needs to be fixed, allowing folks to get reasonable insurance with pre-existing coverage, portability, tort reform so that doctors aren't forced to practice defensive medicine, and coverage across all state lines. Out of 1300 insurance companies, most folks only have access to 5 or 6 in their state. These are things that most everybody can get behind. However, the American people do not want a public option, period.


I agree, it is always better to fix what needs to be fixed and build on existing strengths. Beyond that, I am baffled. I live in a country that has "socialized medicine" and for that, I am extremely grateful. I will never ever understand the paranoia and dogged clinging to ideology that supports private insurance companies. It is ironic that you say there will not be enough doctors to support a public model. In Canada, people argue there will not be enough doctors to support a private model. I know of some doctors who returned to Canada to practice because they just could not do their jobs properly under the "for profit" system.

The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that way too many Americans cannot get insurance, and therefore, cannot acces health care. That is a sin. I frankly do not understand how that is even possible in your country. You boast about being the free-est country in the world, yet you deny people health care. Sinful. Fix what needs to be fixed. Build on what works. Make it so every American can get health care. As I said before, I am extremely grateful to be able to access good health care here in Canada without also having to worry about money. When I have my foot surgery soon, I know that I do not have to pay the surgeon, hospital etc and that my government insurance will cover it. Thank goodness, because I have enough to worry about.

[Boreas]

If the US ever did move towards a system like Canada, UK, etc., then one thing we could expect is less paperwork because it would be a less bureaucratic system.


I hate to burst your bubble. We do have bureaucracy and paperwork in our system too. We do not have insurance wogs telling us how to do our jobs at least. I imagine based on that, we do have less paperwork.

[Sanman]

... I frankly do not understand how that is even possible in your country. You boast about being the free-est country in the world, yet you deny people health care.

We are far from the "free-est country in the world", and in fact, the USA is slipping fairly fast down the track to less and less freedom. Check out these statistics...
http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx


...When I have my foot surgery soon, I know that I do not have to pay the surgeon, hospital etc and that my government insurance will cover it. Thank goodness, because I have enough to worry about.

Oh you're paying for it alright (taxes), and also everyone else is forced into paying some too. This is the problem with government healthcare. It robs from one and gives to another. All government monetary appropriations are this way at heart. Money is stolen from one group of people and given to some other group of people, and all at the whim of majority vote. Nothing is "free".

[Sanslines]

Oh you're paying for it alright (taxes), and also everyone else is forced into paying some too. This is the problem with government healthcare. It robs from one and gives to another. All government monetary appropriations are this way at heart. Money is stolen from one group of people and given to some other group of people, and all at the whim of majority vote. Nothing is "free".


How are hospitals and doctors able to treat those who can not pay? Why they charge more for their procedures. The fact is that in this so called free market system you already are being charged more and more just to cover others without an ability to pay.

[Fitz1980]

In Canada, people argue there will not be enough doctors to support a private model. I know of some doctors who returned to Canada to practice because they just could not do their jobs properly under the "for profit" system.


It's funny here in the US Conservatives use "socialized medicine" as a straw man argument to attack liberals. On another BB I frequent an Australian poster told me that over there liberals use "he wants to give us a for profit medical system like America where you won't be able to afford to visit a doctor" as a straw man attack on conservatives.



Oh you're paying for it alright (taxes), and also everyone else is forced into paying some too. This is the problem with government healthcare. It robs from one and gives to another. All government monetary appropriations are this way at heart. Money is stolen from one group of people and given to some other group of people, and all at the whim of majority vote. Nothing is "free".

I fail to see how taxes are theft. Like it or not we all pay into a system that doesn't benefit everyone equally, but I fail to see how that's theft.

[Boreas]

We are far from the "free-est country in the world", and in fact, the USA is slipping fairly fast down the track to less and less freedom. Check out these statistics...
http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx

I agree. I do not think the US is the "free-est" country in the world. It is just that people seem to boast about that and that is supposedly its reputation.




Oh you're paying for it alright (taxes), and also everyone else is forced into paying some too. This is the problem with government healthcare. It robs from one and gives to another. All government monetary appropriations are this way at heart. Money is stolen from one group of people and given to some other group of people, and all at the whim of majority vote. Nothing is "free".

I am well aware that I am paying for it through my taxes. I do not consider that stealing. It is more about being part of community and contributing to that community. If anyone is stealing, it is your big insurance companies.

[Illinois59]

I fail to see how taxes are theft. Like it or not we all pay into a system that doesn't benefit everyone equally, but I fail to see how that's theft.

We either have to pay for infrastructure and governmental services or do without them. If there are no taxes for road construction and maintenance, we drive on mud trails. Or do we have privatization of all our roads and a toll booth at every corner. No business would ever build and maintain a road for public use and let the public use it without charging the users some sort of fee. Anybody disagree with that? As far as taxes being theft. If they are theft, then end all government activities now. No national defense, no public education, no roads, no police protection, no fire protection, etc.

[MoonShadow]

As far as taxes being theft. If they are theft, then end all government activities now. No national defense, no public education, no roads, no police protection, no fire protection, etc.

Maybe that is what is needed in order for people who are so anti-government to see what kind of world they would really live in. States could not handle replacement of many of the government programs. Taxes would soar! They would have to in order for the states to be able to provide any sort of protection for its residents.

Can you see, just for an example, how the people would handle education at the state levels? We would be back to the old days before there was an Education Department at the federal level where rural communities would suffer from lack of supplies and teachers; where education levels of our children would be worse than it is today. Imagine no police protection and how could the states provide such protection without the help of federal monies? It would be anarchy all over the place. Criminals would be rampant and those who are not criminals due to the laws now on the books would become criminals as it would be easy to just go out and do something illegal as there is no police protection. Imagine arsonists having a field day in your community.

If people think their roads are bad now in their areas, imagine no DOT at the federal level? Imagine with no medicare and medicaid how many elderly would die prematurely, children also as there would be no medicaid for them. Imagine how many millions more would become uninsured from lack of any healthcare coverage provided through federal programs. No food stamps available and what states could provide would be very limited.

Imagine what your property taxes would end up being. Imagine all the fees you would have in addition to what is current now? Sales taxes would soar, food taxes would be implemented everywhere, transportation taxes for all of us would be implemented. States would have to find ways to pull in monies to provide services. What about states with low populations?

Just imagine ... if you can; it should scare the hell out of you and many anti-government supporters might see a different perspective.

[ki4kxq]

I have a $2m lifetime limit. Guess what? There is no regulation stating that the insurance company can not change the contract that you think you have with them. You might think you have $5m until something major happens, then it can be reduced at the will of the company. You might also find that the $5m can be reached with a serious disease or major injury (like a broken back and resulting paralysis). Then what do you do? You found that insurance on the net for a pretty cheap price, have you used it? Have you had it for a few years and seen what the premiums do?

Yes I have used it. I have had a hysterectomy, and seen an orthopedic surgeon plus the numerous visits to the ob/gyn . It's not cheap insurance, it's Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas.

We are working on being self insured for retirement as far as a long term disability. Anyone over 60 should carry long term care insurance so their nest egg doesn't get scrambled.

[MoonShadow]

Stop Denigrating Government: There is No Economy Without It
By NEIL H. BUCHANAN
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The raucous rhetoric (and, one might add, blatant bad faith in far too many cases) that we saw among the anti-health care reform activists this past summer has obscured a fairly consistent core belief on the part President Obama's opponents. Anything that the government touches, the argument goes, it destroys; and thus anything that can be done through "the market" should be set free from the government's clutches.

The argument thus seems to reduce to a simply dichotomy. Is government good or bad? Should we rely on it more or less? Should we expand its reach or starve the beast? This either/or framework is then twisted into an illogical corollary: Anyone who is not against government in all its forms must be in favor of the expansion of government in as many forms as are imaginable. "You're for government or you're against it" becomes "You're for absolutely none of it or you're for nationalizing every industry."

In this column, I argue that such attempts to distort the debate about government's role in the economy fail, because they paint in broad strokes of black and white where only shades of gray are appropriate. Perhaps more importantly, this all-or-nothing mode of thinking also fails on a much more basic point: Having a government is necessary even to have a "free market" in the first place, making the notion of "government versus market" a false and meaningless choice.

We must have a government, and that government will inevitably set rules that will determine who wins and who loses in the economy, as well as what will be produced and who will receive that output and whether the economy shrinks or grows. The government's decisions will inevitably determine whether economic activity adds to environmental degradation or reduces it, harms people and animals or helps them, and expands opportunity or restricts it.

Attacking the government's passage of laws as inappropriately impinging on the market, in other words, misunderstands what markets are and where they come from.

The Death of Nuance: Extreme Descriptions of Non-Extreme Views

One of the remarkable facts about political debate in the U.S. is that there really is no left wing in this country, at least as that term would be understood anywhere else in the world. No Democrat, not even in the lefty-est precincts of the left wing of that party, favors anything close to a government takeover of the economy.

Even the Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats but who calls himself a Socialist, argues essentially for a limited welfare state, rather than for something out of Ronald Reagan's nightmares. The last time a major political figure in this country called for outright nationalization of an industry was when Rep. Morris Udall (D., AZ) ran for President in 1976 and – in the midst of an unprecedented energy crisis -- called for a government takeover of the oil companies. Needless to say, Udall's call was not taken up, and that view would never gain currency in today's political environment.

Even in the area of health care, where single-payer plans and the Public Option have been portrayed as government takeovers of the largest sector of the economy, it is simply an irrefutable fact that nothing that has been proposed would involve the nationalization of health care (as that term has come to be misused). Under single-payer plans in other countries, the government may directly employ doctors and other workers (the United Kingdom's basic approach), or health care may be insured by the government but provided by private parties (as in Canada). The Public Option would involve even less direct government involvement in the health care markets than the Canadian system – and much less than that of the UK -- with the government offering one non-profit health insurance plan to compete against existing private, for-profit plans.

Notwithstanding American liberals' preference that we continue to rely on private markets as the basic mechanism by which our economy should be organized, their refusal to say that government is always bad has been misrepresented as meaning that we believe that the government is always good. I cannot speak for all liberals, of course, but I suggest that it is the truly lonely American liberal who believes that the government can do no wrong.

If anything, the very core of American liberals' attitudes about government is that the government is one among many corruptible institutions in society, staffed by all-too-human people who are themselves anything but angels. The belief in a mixed economy -- with government filling gaps and attempting to solve market failures -- is really a belief that nothing works as well as we would like it to work. The U.S.'s whistleblower laws, sunshine provisions, and the Freedom of Information Act are all testimony to the suspicion that government agencies must be closely supervised, and that the best approach is to have some tensions within and among the institutions in society, rather than blindly trusting any one of them.

President Obama, moreover, sits astride the middle (or, more accurately, to the right of the middle) of a party that includes some mixed-government believers on the left and outright government haters on the right. In light of this stance, the idea – raised by the right during the health care debate -- that he is proposing policies designed to enable a takeover of the economy by The Government is simply not credible.

Where Does the Market Come From? It's the Government, Stupid!

It is possible, of course, that the rhetoric hurled by the right against the President and his party is not to be taken literally. Perhaps this is merely a matter of exaggerating the differences, with those who believe in relatively less government within a mixed economy allowing themselves to engage in a bit of excess, tarring their opponents as Government Lovers for effect.

If that is the intent, however, it is being hidden extremely well. To listen not only to the people shouting and carrying signs, but also to elected government officials on the right, the government is per se the enemy of the economy. Among the more pithy formulations of that argument is the idea that "the government should stop taking your money," as former President George W. Bush frequently and memorably put it.

The problem is that the very notion of "our money" -- the money that we would own in the absence of a government -- is fundamentally incoherent. Professors Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel, two philosophers on the faculty of the New York University School of Law, offered an especially clear explanation of this point in their 2002 book The Myth of Ownership.

Thinking about the nature of a modern economy, Murphy and Nagel noted that virtually everything that we teach in law schools in the area of "private law" – through classes on torts, contracts, property, and so on -- is a manifestation of the government's role in the economy. There can be no ownership of property without a government to arrest someone who tries to take your property away from you. Indeed, the property is only yours, in the first place, because there is a government to which you can turn to validate your ownership rights.

In that fundamental sense, therefore, the economy is already made up of nationalized industries. If a person wants to sell a product, he or she will operate his or her business under the rules that governments have enacted to regulate commerce. Agreements with suppliers and marketers will be governed by contract laws that vary slightly among the states (as they are passed by state governments) but that must adhere to national standards. Moreover, how much waste a business can produce, and how much responsibility it bears for cleaning it up, will be based on various laws that have been passed over the years.

An important implication of the Murphy/Nagel approach, furthermore, is that it is quite possible for governments to change the winners and losers in society with seeming to "meddle in the economy" or "nationalize" a business at all. Imagine that nuisance laws ceased to exist, or that it became easier, under corporate law, for shareholders to challenge management decisions. This would not make the government more "intrusive" in the economy in the usual sense of that term, but the effects on people's lives and fortunes would still be massive.

In addition, there is no "state of nature" baseline from which we can measure the government's degree of intrusion in an economy. There is no imaginable world in which we could have no government and also enjoy anything but the most primitive might-makes-right economy. Thus, the laws that we pass are all simply choices among many that define the economy. Will we have "adverse possession" (the right to take over unused property under certain conditions) as part of our property laws? Will we allow people to sue for injuries, and will we allow them to receive punitive damages in some cases? The answers to such questions can change the entire economy, or large parts of it.

Extending this point, the Murphy/Nagel analysis makes it clear that there is no zero-tax world to which we can meaningfully refer. Even more interestingly, there is similarly no tax-minimizing world to which we can refer, because we cannot say that a government that has, say, courts of equity separate from courts of law is any more "natural" or basic than a government that sets up an economy with the two combined -- or that opts for a civil law system, rather than a common law system. Each of those systems would require different numbers and types of government institutions and employees, requiring different levels of taxes. And none of those levels is per se the correct level of taxes.

Who Owns What, and How Do They Know They Own It?

The provocative conclusion of this analysis is that people cannot be said to "own" what they earn before taxes, because those taxes support a government that is essential to their very ability to own anything at all. This does not, however, mean that it is the government that owns what people earn, either. In fact, the key point is that there is no "it" when we talk about what we would own in the absence of government. Government is necessary if we are even to have a modern economy. So is private initiative. Imagining one without the other is a meaningless exercise.

We should, therefore, stop denigrating government as if it were the enemy of progress and prosperity. It is not possible to have a capitalist economy that is not a government-run economy in a truly basic sense. Those who propose to change the way the institutions of government interact in the economy are not "pro-government" or "anti-government." Rather, we are simply aware that people's creativity can be turned into commercial prosperity only with a set of rules created and enforced by governments. The job is not to increase or decrease government's role in the economy, but to improve it.

Neil H. Buchanan, J.D. Ph. D. (economics), is a Visiting Scholar at Cornell Law School, an Associate Professor at The George Washington University Law School, and a former economics professor.

[Sanslines]

Anyone over 60 should carry long term care insurance so their nest egg doesn't get scrambled.

Yes, and given that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the working poor can not afford such insurance, we should give up trying to solicit your support for sensible health care reform and just increase your taxes to pay for their heatlh care.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Out of 1300 insurance companies, most folks only have access to 5 or 6 in their state.

You math is severly wrong. 6 companies multiplied by 50 states equals 300 or 1,000 short of you estimation. To average out 1,300 companies among the 50 states, there would be between 24-25 companies per state.

If even this generality is severly skewed, what else is?

[MoonShadow]

AAJ Names Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America

The American Association of Justice (AAJ) has named the ten worst insurance companies in America based on claim denials, premium increases and refusing insurance to those who need it most. So, who’s on the list? Some of the names – and what they did to make the list – might surprise you.
How the report was conducted

According to the AAJ’s recent report entitled, The Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America – How They Raise Premiums, Deny Claims and Refuse Insurance to Those Who Need It Most, researchers investigated thousands of court documents, as well as records from the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and state insurance departments. They also looked at news reports and testimony from the insurers’ former agents and adjusters. The report provides conclusions about the insurance industry as a whole, lists the ten worst insurers and explains why they made the list. To view the report, go to: http://www.justice.org/docs/TenWorstInsuranceCompanies.pdf.

Conclusions about the industry

The AAJ came to the following conclusions about the insurance industry as a whole:

Companies consistently put profits over policyholders. The report concludes that many insurance companies may “talk the talk”, but don’t “walk the walk.” They may advertise that your “in good hands”, are “like a good neighbor” or “provide the strength to be there”, but fall short when it comes to actually serving their customers.
Companies continually deny, delay and defend. Insurance companies make more money when they pay out fewer claims. Obvious? Yes. Ethical? No. The industry as a whole routinely denies, delays and defends claims – all in the name of the “bottom line.”
Profits and salaries are skyrocketing. The property/casualty and life insurance industries average $30B in profits every year. In fact, the U.S. insurance industry as a whole receives premiums of over $1 trillion (with a “T”) every year and has assets of $3.8 trillion.
The Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of the ten insurers in the report averaged an annual salary of nearly $9 million in 2007.

Who made the list?

These ten companies were named the worst insurers in America for denying claims, raising premiums, refusing insurance to those who need it most and many other reasons:

Allstate
Unum
AIG
State Farm
Conseco
WellPoint
Farmers
United Health
Torchmark
Liberty Mutual
To learn more about what each of the above insurers did to earn a place on the list, click on the names above.

Insurance companies play by their own rules

It’s no secret that insurance companies often play by their own rules – especially when those rules specifically save the company money. A video has been posted on YouTube entitled “Insurance Company Rules.” It takes a satirical look at what would happen if the general public also used those rules. The video was a collaborative effort between Health Care for America Now (HCAN) and the Public Service Administration (PSA).

[MoonShadow]

Top 10 Worst Insurance Companies in the United States
Jeff RasanskyAttorney
(July 16, 2009 2:16 PM

The American Association for Justice (AAJ) has recently published a lengthy report detailing America's ten worst insurance companies. The majority of these companies are household names, each of which advertises as the best company and most customer friendly. The report provides damaging evidence to the contrary, that each company employs different tactics trying to take advantage of their policyholders. These companies are ruthless and will stop at nothing in their pursuit of profits, usually employing the slogan of profits over policyholders.

Several of these insurance companies, including Allstate, State Farm and Torchmark, employed the consulting firm McKinsey & Company. This consulting firm was hired to help the company raise their bottom line. Once employed, McKinsey helped each company establish a 'three D approach' for handling customers: delay, deny and defend. Insurance companies were taught to deny the claim, delay the payment and do anything to defend against the lawsuit. This approach taught insurance companies the value in using their litigation team to defend against lawsuits brought upon because of not paying claims.

Profits over policyholders is a slogan used by many of these insurance companies as an approach in handling their business. Basically, insurance companies should do anything possible to gain profits, even at the expense of their policyholders. Many of these companies identified their company goal as earning the maximum amount of return for their shareholders as possible.

Another tactic that many of these insurance companies employ is abandoning of their policyholders. Companies have identified policyholders in hurricane prone areas, Louisiana and Florida, to be more risky policies than others. Companies have become very stingy in their claim payments to policies in these regions evidenced by Hurricane Katrina.

One unfortunate lasting image of Hurricane Katrina involves State Farm and their deceptive ways in avoiding paying claims. An example involves the Nguyen family who lost their home in Hurricane Katrina and whose claim was denied by State Farm. State Farms own engineers surveyed their damages and concluded the damage was caused by wind. Eye witnesses shared their account that another house was literally picked up and thrown into the Nguyens home.

State Farm hired other engineers to come to a different conclusion, that the damage was caused by flooding, allowing them to deny the claim. Bob Cochran, a CEO of an engineering firm employed by State Farm to assess Hurricane Katrina damage, was told to alter reports that State Farm did not agree with. This led to ethical issues from Cochran's employees regarding State Farm's position.

We cannot overstate the importance of understanding each policy provision with regards to an insurance company. Many insurance companies trick their policyholders by adding complicated portions to their policies which confuse policyholders. Consultation with an attorney before signing anything not completely understood is highly advisable.

After reading this report, I am shocked by the practice of leading companies in the insurance industry. I want a company that is reliable and will handle my claim with honesty and speed. None of these insurance companies listed will do that. This report should alert consumers to the danger of working with insurance companies. Policyholders should be very cautious and understand exactly what they are covered for and not covered for.

[maliakei]

I hate to burst your bubble. We do have bureaucracy and paperwork in our system too. We do not have insurance wogs telling us how to do our jobs at least. I imagine based on that, we do have less paperwork.

Bubble? I meant just that -- a much less bureaucratic system means less paperwork. I realize there will still be some paperwork involved.

If an employee has a Flexible Spending Account through their workplace, this lets the person set aside part of their earnings to pay for certain kinds of medical expenses to help to reduce payroll tax.

It's alot of work keeping track of everything because some things aren't covered, i.e. dependent care. It takes careful recordkeeping and separating it all each year to avoid being taxed on the things which ARE covered. Nobody wants to waste time dealing with insurance companies, figuring out exact %'s for what's covered or not covered.

Doctors just want to practice, not fiddle with all that paperwork. Try busting the bubble on the insurance middleman & Big execs. See how they like it. They have GREAT healthplans.

[LamontCranston]

If an employee has a Flexible Spending Account through their workplace, this lets the person set aside part of their earnings to pay for certain kinds of medical expenses to help to reduce payroll tax.

It's alot of work keeping track of everything because some things aren't covered, i.e. dependent care. It takes careful recordkeeping and separating it all each year to avoid being taxed on the things which ARE covered. Nobody wants to waste time dealing with insurance companies, figuring out exact %'s for what's covered or not covered. We had a Flexible Spending Account for day care when our daughters were young. I didn't like the record-keeping but the tax break was cool... until my employer insisted on a license number for our day care provider before reimbursing me MY money. It's MY decision who I use, NOT theirs. The details of the transaction are actually none of my employer's concern.

We haven't used the Spending Accounts since then. I think my employer is in business to produce products and services and pay me for a skill. What I do outside their building is not relevant to them. They need to know how well I do my job. Anything beyond that is intrusive and unwelcome.

Same goes for State and Federal government. I abide the laws and pay my taxes when due. Anything else they want to know about me or keep track of is intrusive and unwelcome.

I'd love to enroll in a health plan outside my employer's span of control. Actually, instead of writing about something beyond my control to either influence or change, what I should do is get to work accumulating enough wealth (I figure $5 million over the next 15 years is a worthy goal) so that I can pay for my own health care and retirement.

What are we calling the new gov't public option health care plan?
Red White and Blue Care?
Freedom Wellness Care?
Confederate States Insurance Plan?
Mediwell?

[Boreas]

Bubble? I meant just that -- a much less bureaucratic system means less paperwork. I realize there will still be some paperwork involved.

If an employee has a Flexible Spending Account through their workplace, this lets the person set aside part of their earnings to pay for certain kinds of medical expenses to help to reduce payroll tax.

It's alot of work keeping track of everything because some things aren't covered, i.e. dependent care. It takes careful recordkeeping and separating it all each year to avoid being taxed on the things which ARE covered. Nobody wants to waste time dealing with insurance companies, figuring out exact %'s for what's covered or not covered.

Doctors just want to practice, not fiddle with all that paperwork. Try busting the bubble on the insurance middleman & Big execs. See how they like it. They have GREAT healthplans.

I wasn't questioning you. I was only saying that we also have paperwork, and acknowledging your system would have more. I guess sadly, that any system has bureaucracy and paper.

I totally agree that no one, patients or health care professionals, wants to fiddle with cumbersome paperwork. I believe I mentioned that I know of a couple of doctors who have returned to Canada to practice from the States, because it is easier for them to practice on that level anyway.

[gmoney]

America's worst government run health care system is medicaid. The Baucus bill will shove up to a total of 25% of the population into the Medicaid program within 10 years.

The more we inspect Max Baucus’s health-care bill, the worse it looks. Today’s howler: One reason it allegedly “pays for itself” over 10 years is because it would break all 50 state budgets by permanently expanding Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor. The reason this saves money is Medicaid's price controls are even tighter than Medicare's. Forty percent of U.S. physicians won't accept Medicaid.

Democrats want to use Medicaid to cover everyone up to at least 133% of the federal poverty level, or about $30,000 for a family of four. Starting in 2014, Mr. Baucus plans to spend $287 billion through 2019—or about one-third of ObamaCare’s total spending—to add some 11 million new people to the Medicaid rolls.
Governors are angry at Senator Baucus for the method he uses to make his version of health care reform pay for itself over 10 years. Some of the cost is shifted to state budgets.

About 59 million people are on Medicaid today—which means that a decade from now about a quarter of the total population would be on a program originally sold as help for low-income women, children and the disabled. State budgets would explode—by $37 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office—because they would no longer be allowed to set eligibility in line with their own decisions about taxes and spending. This is the mother—and father and crazy uncle—of unfunded mandates.
The National Governors Association is furious about Mr. Baucus's Medicaid expansion, and rightly so, given that governors and their legislatures will get stuck with the bill while losing the leeway to manage or reform their budget-busters. NGA President Jim Douglas of Vermont recently said at the National Press Club that the Baucus plan poses a "tremendous financial liability" and doesn't "respect that no one size fits all at the state level." He added: "Unlike the federal government, states can't print money."

Why is Medicaid America's worst government run health program? The reimbursement rates are even lower than Medicare. Forty percent of U.S. doctors won't take Medicaid and drugs are usually not covered.

As for the poor uninsured, they'll be shunted off into what Democratic backbencher Ron Wyden calls a "caste system." While some people will be eligible for subsidized private health insurance, everyone in the lowest income bracket will be forced into Medicaid, the country's worst insurance program by a long shot. States try to control spending by restricting access to prescription drugs and specialists. About 40% of U.S. physicians won't accept Medicaid at all.

[Navigator]

In this video, Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL) takes on Wolf and a gang of "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals" on "The Situation Room" yesterday, Oct 1st.

Grayson is the Representative who characterized the Republican Health Care Plan as: "Don't Get Sick. If You Do Get Sick...Die Quickly."

...not to insult "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals"....Grayson is referring to Republicans.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DTrDF0Gszck&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DTrDF0Gszck&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[maliakei]

We had a Flexible Spending Account for day care when our daughters were young. I didn't like the record-keeping but the tax break was cool... until my employer insisted on a license number for our day care provider before reimbursing me MY money. It's MY decision who I use, NOT theirs. The details of the transaction are actually none of my employer's concern.

We haven't used the Spending Accounts since then. I think my employer is in business to produce products and services and pay me for a skill. What I do outside their building is not relevant to them. They need to know how well I do my job. Anything beyond that is intrusive and unwelcome.

Same goes for State and Federal government. I abide the laws and pay my taxes when due. Anything else they want to know about me or keep track of is intrusive and unwelcome.

I'd love to enroll in a health plan outside my employer's span of control. Actually, instead of writing about something beyond my control to either influence or change, what I should do is get to work accumulating enough wealth (I figure $5 million over the next 15 years is a worthy goal) so that I can pay for my own health care and retirement.

What are we calling the new gov't public option health care plan?
Red White and Blue Care?
Freedom Wellness Care?
Confederate States Insurance Plan?
Mediwell?

It works after figuring out how much to allocate, but rules change too often making it tougher so it's back to doing the math. There's too much to keep track of.

Exactly. None of their business! One debate concerning healthcare & workplace is to separate the two. Like I mentioned in another post, it costs employers more $ to insure older workers. Notice 40+ employees are losing their jobs? It's age discrimination, even if they're perfectly healthy, but it's next to impossible to prove it.

An extra $5 mil would be nice. Deposit a small fraction of it into a secure FDIC online savings account, live comfortably on the interest, and still keep the principal.

Whatever you call it, it needs to work. US healthcare can't keep going on like this.

[Fitz1980]

Alan Grayson FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!

I'd never heard of the guy until now but it's so nice to see a democrat with Cojones; since so many of them are namby-pamby wimps who keep backing down to the opposition's demands when they're holding all of the aces.

And what he did is nothing like Joe Wilson because Wilson yelled that when someone else had the floor. Grayson had the floor and if he offended some folks than tough titties. If anyone wants an appology from him than I want an apology from Palin for saying "Obama wants to kill my baby" and from everyone who has said Democrats are "socialist" or "marxist."

[maliakei]

Here in the US, there's never been any problem getting an appointment for my pet, whether it be routine or critical healthcare. I found these articles interesting:

The Wall Street Journal Europe published an article exploring the difference in health care received by domesticated animals and humans. (see “Man Vs. Mutt: Who Gets the Better Treatment?” in WSJ Europe, August 8, 2009) -- see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574334282143887974.html

The editorialist, Theodore Dalrymple (pen name for outspoken British physician and NHS critic, Dr. Anthony Daniels) argued that dogs and other human pets in his country receive much better routine and critical healthcare than humans: their treatment is “much more pleasant than British humans have to endure.”

read more: http://www.blogcatalog.com/search.frame.php?term=man+vs.+mutt&id=3f733584e827d83f07e829f95bc224bf

[Kouak]

Here in the US, there's never been any problem getting an appointment for my pet, whether it be routine or critical healthcare. I found these articles interesting:

The Wall Street Journal Europe published an article exploring the difference in health care received by domesticated animals and humans. (see “Man Vs. Mutt: Who Gets the Better Treatment?” in WSJ Europe, August 8, 2009) -- see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574334282143887974.html

The editorialist, Theodore Dalrymple (pen name for outspoken British physician and NHS critic, Dr. Anthony Daniels) argued that dogs and other human pets in his country receive much better routine and critical healthcare than humans: their treatment is “much more pleasant than British humans have to endure.”

read more: http://www.blogcatalog.com/search.frame.php?term=man+vs.+mutt&id=3f733584e827d83f07e829f95bc224bf

The mutt vs man comparison brings up another observation I have had. We realize when our mutt has had a good long life and then gets cancer, we can forgo the painful surgery and chemotherapy just to keep Rover around for a few more months. We tend to want Rover to enjoy his final months giving him palliative care rather than let him live a little longer but with a dismal quality of life.

On the other hand, we have a hard time letting go of our friends and family. We become selfish and want them to "do everything they can" to prolong their lives even if they are miserable. Sometimes we need just do what is best for them.

[Naturist Mark]

Curious that the Wall Street Journal, owned by News Corp - which runs Fox News - should publish a story that holds up the private veterinary system in Britain as superior to the government run human health care system, while at the same time using Fox News to disseminate the crackpot ideas that so-called "ObamaCare" will include eugenics, forced sterilizations and euthanasia - all three of which are hallmarks of veterinary healthcare.

[Sanslines]

Curious that the Wall Street Journal, owned by News Corp - which runs Fox News - should publish a story that holds up the private veterinary system in Britain as superior to the government run human health care system, while at the same time using Fox News to disseminate the crackpot ideas that so-called "ObamaCare" will include eugenics, forced sterilizations and euthanasia - all three of which are hallmarks of veterinary healthcare.


The analogy between animal and human care speaks voumes about those who can discuss such issues. Animals have no voice, are unable to sue for botched operarations, and rely upon the mercy of man for their benefit and welfare. They are very vulnerable to the whims of man.

There are actually two groups of people in this country. There are those who don't value animal life and are the types that abuse, torture, neglect, and kill animals. Then there is the group that that are defenders of animals and understand that when love and kindness are given to animals, animals return that love many times over.

Those who work with animals in animal rescues and shelters can make a fair assesment of what kind of background an animal has come from. Those animals that were abused are generally shy, skittish, and don't trust humans.

As far as forced sterilizations are concerned, we MUST spay and neuter. In this country alone, we KILL over 4 MILLION dogs and cats each year. Yet, in spite of this fact, stupid rednecks won't neuter their male dog because "that's taking fido's manhood away"!

It's to bad that we can't even reach a general consensus about limiting animal population growth and most certanly will never even discuss limiting human population growth. Afterall, the Bible says that we are to bear fruit and multiply and we will do so until we cause the extinction of life on this planet. No doubt we will then blame God for our own misguided and ignorant actions rather then accepting responsibility and understanding that we are in control of our destiny on this planet to a very large extent.

[gmoney]

Alan Grayson FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!

I'd never heard of the guy until now but it's so nice to see a democrat with Cojones; since so many of them are namby-pamby wimps who keep backing down to the opposition's demands when they're holding all of the aces.

And what he did is nothing like Joe Wilson because Wilson yelled that when someone else had the floor. Grayson had the floor and if he offended some folks than tough titties. If anyone wants an appology from him than I want an apology from Palin for saying "Obama wants to kill my baby" and from everyone who has said Democrats are "socialist" or "marxist."

LOL he sounds like an idiot. He wouldn't get many votes at all.You want an 8 month politician as president? It's bad enough Obama got elected with his little experience at doing anything. It's a shame anyone would support someone like him as president. He clearly is not level headed nor is he "for" the country as a whole. He "knows" nothing. I doubt he "read" the bill he accuses Palin of not reading. Has any politician "read" the bill in full?

[Fitz1980]

LOL he sounds like an idiot. He wouldn't get many votes at all.You want an 8 month politician as president? It's bad enough Obama got elected with his little experience at doing anything. It's a shame anyone would support someone like him as president. He clearly is not level headed nor is he "for" the country as a whole. He "knows" nothing. I doubt he "read" the bill he accuses Palin of not reading. Has any politician "read" the bill in full?

I was being hyperbolic; my point is that Obama's biggest problem is being too nice and wanting to compromise with people who will only see that as a weakness to be exploited.

[MoonShadow]

I was being hyperbolic; my point is that Obama's biggest problem is being too nice and wanting to compromise with people who will only see that as a weakness to be exploited.


I agree! It is time that Obama forget the republicans' input. He isn't going to get it. He has enough of his own party to move items through. He would be wise to get moving on these.

[MeBNude]

I agree! It is time that Obama forget the republicans' input. He isn't going to get it. He has enough of his own party to move items through. He would be wise to get moving on these.

Moonshadow, as much as I hate to agree with you... I do. I truly admired his determination to get beyond partisan politics and bring everyone to the table, to build coalitions for the support of shared values and goals. But, that has been like :wall:

He was working on the assumption that the republicans in Congress were more interested in the well being of their constituencies than petty politics. But their blind refusal to cooperate on any front has shown that assumption not to be true.

So, yes, now it is time for Obama to serve his country by moving forward with his agenda. The delays caused by the Republicans in Congress are disgraceful. "Cooperation" is not a dirty word, people!!! I know, I'm mostly preaching to the choir here.

[Illinois59]

The delays caused by the Republicans in Congress are disgraceful.

The Democrats should really frame the issue as a matter of life and death for Americans. For many Americans, it is exactly that.

[ki4kxq]

Moonshadow, as much as I hate to agree with you... I do. I truly admired his determination to get beyond partisan politics and bring everyone to the table, to build coalitions for the support of shared values and goals. But, that has been like :wall:

He was working on the assumption that the republicans in Congress were more interested in the well being of their constituencies than petty politics. But their blind refusal to cooperate on any front has shown that assumption not to be true.

So, yes, now it is time for Obama to serve his country by moving forward with his agenda. The delays caused by the Republicans in Congress are disgraceful. "Cooperation" is not a dirty word, people!!! I know, I'm mostly preaching to the choir here.

Here is the problem. A good number of Dems in the house and senate come from conservative districts. They know that if they vote a bill in with a public option or anything like it, they will not be there when the next elections are done. Again, the majority (and it grows everyday) does not want a public option. The dems will ram this thing through at their peril.

By the way, it is not petty politics when you are listening to the people that put you in office. That is what the republicans and smart dems are doing when they vote no on anything but sensible reforms.

[Sanslines]

The Democrats should really frame the issue as a matter of life and death for Americans. For many Americans, it is exactly that.

Good point! It really is a matter of life and death although unless a person is personally affected by such a tragedy, I just do not think that they can understand or really relate.

[Sanslines]

Here is the problem. A good number of Dems in the house and senate come from conservative districts. They know that if they vote a bill in with a public option or anything like it, they will not be there when the next elections are done. Again, the majority (and it grows everyday) does not want a public option. The dems will ram this thing through at their peril.

By the way, it is not petty politics when you are listening to the people that put you in office. That is what the republicans and smart dems are doing when they vote no on anything but sensible reforms.

I repeat for the umteenth time.......the Repubs have consistenly ignored the growing problem of the uninsured. They have demonstrated over and over that they just do not care about those without insurance or health care reform. They have offered no real plan - just a few bandaid half arsed solutions in order to claim that they did something about health care reform.

[gmoney]

He was working on the assumption that the republicans in Congress were more interested in the well being of their constituencies than petty politics. But their blind refusal to cooperate on any front has shown that assumption not to be true.

So, yes, now it is time for Obama to serve his country by moving forward with his agenda. The delays caused by the Republicans in Congress are disgraceful. "Cooperation" is not a dirty word, people!!! I know, I'm mostly preaching to the choir here.

Again the point is being missed. The majority of this country does not support Obama's agenda. the fringe left does and that is NOT AMERICA. America is more to the center. When will the far left that says "Obama just needs to do what we want" realize that one point?

[Naturist Mark]

<blockquote>Dad’s Life or Yours? You Choose (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/opinion/04kristof.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print)

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

So what would you do if your mom or dad, or perhaps your sister or brother, needed a kidney donation and you were the one best positioned to donate?

Most of us would worry a little and then step forward. But not so fast. Because of our dysfunctional health insurance system, a disgrace that nearly half of all members of Congress seem determined to cling to, stepping up to save a loved one can ruin your own chance of ever getting health insurance.

That wrenching trade-off is another reminder of the moral bankruptcy of our existing insurance system. It’s one more reason to pass robust reform this year.

Over the last week I’ve been speaking to David Waddington, a 58-year-old wine retailer in Dallas, along with his wife and two sons. I’d love to know what the opponents of health reform think families like this should do.

Mr. Waddington has polycystic kidney disease, or PKD, a genetic disorder that leads to kidney failure. First he lost one kidney, and then the other. A year ago, he was on dialysis and desperately needed a new kidney. Doctors explained that the best match — the one least likely to be rejected — would perhaps come from Travis or Michael, his two sons, then ages 29 and 27.

Travis and Michael each had a 50 percent chance of inheriting PKD. And if pre-donation testing revealed that one of them had the disorder, that brother might never be able to get health insurance. As a result, their doctors had advised not getting tested. After all, new research suggests that lack of insurance increases a working-age person’s risk of dying in any given year by 40 percent.

“At the time David needed a transplant, the people closest to him couldn’t even offer a lifesaving donation — for insurance reasons,” said Mr. Waddington’s wife, Susan.

Travis, who is living in New York and working toward a math doctorate, is anguished at having to weigh insurance obstacles against the chance to save his dad.

“Can you put a price on your father’s life?” he asked. “My brother and I talked it over privately, and agreed that we should both go ahead and get tested anyway. It seemed like the only course of action. We presented our plan to our parents, and of course Mom immediately shot it down, with Dad firmly behind her.

“We had to respect their right to want to protect us. But it was enraging to be in that situation, and to be completely impotent to do anything to help. I told myself a number of times that we would reconsider the issue of testing if Dad’s dialysis stopped working before he got a transplant.”

David Waddington finally got that transplant when a kidney from a deceased donor became available. But our insurance system has had other excruciating consequences for the Waddingtons. Though PKD has no cure as such, there are experimental medications that may delay kidney problems. To get access to the medications, a patient must be tested — and since Travis and Michael Waddington don’t dare get tested, they don’t have access to these medications.

“The only way to do it is to lie about your name during testing, to use a fictitious name,” Susan Waddington said. “That was the advice we got from a major person in the field. We didn’t do that.”

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, passed last year, should eventually help people get access to health insurance even if they have a genetic predisposition to a disease. But insurance companies will still be free to discriminate against people who show symptoms of those diseases.

That’s what’s happening now with Michael. For years, he and Travis were afraid to mention to physicians their 50 percent chance of inheriting PKD, but recently Michael began suffering pains and went to the emergency room. After examining him and ordering tests, the doctor asked him, “Have you ever heard of PKD?”

“I felt the jig was up, and I could disclose my knowledge,” Michael said, so he told the doctor about his father.

The broader problem is this: Our broken system leads Americans to spend 16 percent of our national income on health care, twice as much as in parts of Europe, yet with maternal mortality rates and child mortality rates twice those of the best-performing countries. Lack of insurance is linked to nearly 45,000 unnecessary deaths a year, according to a peer-reviewed study to be published in the December issue of The American Journal of Public Health.

None of this seems to move members of Congress who oppose health reform. They have first-rate health care for themselves and so perhaps don’t appreciate how their posturing forces people like the Waddingtons into impossible situations. Let’s hope they find it in their hearts to overhaul an existing insurance system that is the disgrace of the industrialized world.

I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/ontheground">On the Ground</a>. Please also join me on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/kristof">Facebook</a>, watch my <a href="http://www.youtube.com/nicholaskristof">YouTube videos</a> and follow me on <a href="http://twitter.com/nytimeskristof">Twitter</a></blockquote>

[Kouak]

Remember that the congress people have their own insurance for life. If their insurance was stopped right now and they had to live without any (and could not use any of their millions to pay for healthcare), I bet they would come up with a great plan...soon. :rolleyes:

[Naturist Mark]

Here is the problem. A good number of Dems in the house and senate come from conservative districts. They know that if they vote a bill in with a public option or anything like it, they will not be there when the next elections are done.

That is how a lot of people see it, including a lot of those Democrats.

But they are wrong.

If the choice is between a real Republican, and a fake Republican, the voters will choose the real Republican every time. When Democrats get elected in "conservative" districts it isn't because voters were fooled into thinking they are Republicans.

Those conservaDems who choose to side with the Republican refuseniks purely out of fear of voter backlash, will find that their voters no longer have any need of them.

Those Democrats in "tossup" districts, those in most peril, need to differentiate themselves from the opposition, not imitate it.

[gmoney]

Those Democrats in "tossup" districts, those in most peril, need to differentiate themselves from the opposition, not imitate it.

Point being all are playing a game on our time with our money. In politics there is no winner, both truly want nothing done, they just want the ball passed around til next election...

[Maurice Bernstein, M.D.]

Do you think that in "naturistic" terms, the politicians should "bare" their true feelings and motivations for their public expressions? It seems pitiful that with such an important issue as fixing the healthcare system, politicians should be looking ahead to their reelections and the political consequences of their vote.
Even as congressmen and women, they are all, at some time, going to be a patient and expect to be treated with the best in medical care and also the most economical. If not for their own medical benefit, they should think about their responsibilites to the public they represent and not their ability to be re-elected. They should, as in naturism, throw off their garment of self-interest and bask in the sunshine of providing something of value in healthcare to all the people. ..Maurice.

[Sanslines]

The American Dental Crisis: Unaffordable Dental Care

http://www.slate.com/id/2229630/?GT1=38001

[gmoney]

The American Dental Crisis: Unaffordable Dental Care

http://www.slate.com/id/2229630/?GT1=38001

That lady choose the expensive route. There's way lower alternatives. Don't mislead us by making her claim.

url]http://www.freemedicalcamps.com/[/url]

[gmoney]

Federally-funded health centers care for you, even if you have no health insurance. You pay what you can afford, based on your income. Health centers provide
•checkups when you're well
•treatment when you're sick
•complete care when you're pregnant
•immunizations and checkups for your children
•dental care and prescription drugs for your family
•mental health and substance abuse care if you need it

[url]http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/[/url


Please don't act like there is nothing out there now...

[nimrod]

That lady choose the expensive route. There's way lower alternatives. Don't mislead us by making her claim.

I must have missed something when I read the story, or you saw something that was not there. How did she choose the expensive route? From what I read the lower cost alternatives were not available because of the extent of what she needed done.

[MoonShadow]

That lady choose the expensive route. There's way lower alternatives. Don't mislead us by making her claim.

url]http://www.freemedicalcamps.com/[/url]


Really? And just what are the "way lower alternatives."?

Base on her history, she chose the route to save her teeth and her smile. Dentristy is very expensive when one has a history of poor oral hygiene for a number of years.

This article is not misleading.

[MoonShadow]

Federally-funded health centers care for you, even if you have no health insurance. You pay what you can afford, based on your income. Health centers provide
•checkups when you're well
•treatment when you're sick
•complete care when you're pregnant
•immunizations and checkups for your children
•dental care and prescription drugs for your family
•mental health and substance abuse care if you need it

[url]http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/[/url


Please don't act like there is nothing out there now...

There are SOME services "out there" but not nearly enough to cover those who need basic healthcare and many of these "out there" services are not on a consistent basis as most are health care clinics set up at various times of the year.

[gmoney]

I must have missed something when I read the story, or you saw something that was not there. How did she choose the expensive route? From what I read the lower cost alternatives were not available because of the extent of what she needed done.

No one has to spend $50,000 on dental work.

Look up dentures and see how much they cost.

[MeBNude]

No one has to spend $50,000 on dental work.

Look up dentures and see how much they cost..

Maybe where you live, Gmoney. But again, as Nimrod said, the article didn't show proof that there were alternatives for this person. Life is not simply black and white

Thank goodness. I like seeing in color.

[MoonShadow]

No one has to spend $50,000 on dental work.

Look up dentures and see how much they cost.

Everyone I know who has dentures do not like them and wish they had spent the monies to get their teeth done. Why do you think someone should get dentures when their teeth can be saved?

[Sanslines]

Everyone I know who has dentures do not like them and wish they had spent the monies to get their teeth done. Why do you think someone should get dentures when their teeth can be saved?

A $45,000 dental bill can be created very easily if there is extensive dental work that needs to be done over a period of years. She most probably also had to have periodontal surgeries to repair her gums and jawbone reconstructive surgeries to repair bone loss and decay. All of this would be necessary before implants or dentures can be used. She most certainly was not a candidate for only a cheap set of dentures.

Most free dental clinics do nothing more then pull bad teeth. They do not perfomr reconstructive procedures such as crowns or implants. Such involved procedures require insurance or self pay.

There is a very serious dental health care problem. Dental school is very expensive and most dental students are encouraged to go after the money after graduation. Such money is generally found in cosmetic procedures ie lumineers, teeth bleaching and whitening, etc. Money is generally not made in the basic dental reconstructive procedures such as fillings, etc.

As a consequence of where the money is, there is a HUGE problem with an ever growing number of people who can not afford basic dental care. Drinking large amounts of soda cause dental decay in children and much of this decay continues until the teeth are no longer repairable. This is the so called "Mountain Dew Mouth" problem.

[maliakei]

As a consequence of where the money is, there is a HUGE problem with an ever growing number of people who can not afford basic dental care. Drinking large amounts of soda cause dental decay in children and much of this decay continues until the teeth are no longer repairable. This is the so called "Mountain Dew Mouth" problem.

Mountain Dew is loaded with sugar & caffeine. It's a major problem in the Appalachia region where children (& babies) drink too much soda. I watched a documentary on this back in Feb'09, hosted by Diane Sawyer, where organizations try to reach out to help educate families on proper brushing and diet.

One organization is 'Kids First Dental', a mobile dental van, owned by Dr. Edwin Smith, currently provides school-based dental services to children in 16 eastern Kentucky counties. Tel: 606-546-7410 see: http://www.kidsfirstdental.org/

[Sanslines]

Mountain Dew is loaded with sugar & caffeine. It's a major problem in the Appalachia region where children (& babies) drink too much soda. I watched a documentary on this back in Feb'09, hosted by Diane Sawyer, where organizations try to reach out to help educate families on proper brushing and diet.

One organization is 'Kids First Dental', a mobile dental van, owned by Dr. Edwin Smith, currently provides school-based dental services to children in 16 eastern Kentucky counties. Tel: 606-546-7410 see: http://www.kidsfirstdental.org/

I have seen kids (8 years old) in the dental clinic who already need 3 or 4 crowns! Soda, in general, is very destructive to dental enamel. It is acidic and slowely but surely erodes the enamel and causes serious tooth decay. Hence why I avoid drinking soda and stick with low fat milk and water.

[maliakei]

I have seen kids (8 years old) in the dental clinic who already need 3 or 4 crowns! Soda, in general, is very destructive to dental enamel. It is acidic and slowely but surely erodes the enamel and causes serious tooth decay. Hence why I avoid drinking soda and stick with low fat milk and water.


Sadly that is true. What's even more sad are baby bottles filled with Mountain Dew rather then milk. That's where the bad habits develop. Growing up, we drank milk. I rarely see kids nowadays drinking milk, rather a soda with their meal. I grew up in a very poor family, but thankfully was taught to brush & floss, otherwise be reminded of the consequences! To this day I RARELY drink soda. Don't care for it either, except for a once-in-a-while treat like a rootbeer float!

P.S. We need to continue educating children the importance of dental care. Yes it's expensive, but it is even more worse to wait, and pay the price later..

[Naturist Mark]

Fox News anchor talks sense about public option, presses Republican Senator to be truthful.

<object width="500" height="407"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailykostv.com/flv/player.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002215/vxml.php?500"></param><embed src="http://www.dailykostv.com/flv/player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="407" flashvars="config=http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002215/vxml.php?500"></embed></object>

[Kouak]

Hence why I avoid drinking soda and stick with low fat milk and water.


Growing up, we drank milk. I rarely see kids nowadays drinking milk, rather a soda with their meal.

Not that I have any proof, but I do have a theory on the lactose intolerance that I hear everyone having.

When we are babies, we drank our mother's milk. We could process the lactose sugar in the milk by making the enzyme lactase which breaks it down--no problems. "Out in the wild," we would eventually be weaned off of the milk. We would not need to keep our ability to make lactase and eventually lose it.

This would not have been a problem in adult life since we would rarely eat an animal that was lactating. The little bit of milk would not cause us much trouble.

Today I have noticed that my friends and family that have "become" lactose intolerant have significantly reduced or eliminated their milk intake since their childhood. They substituted iced tea or soda for milk. They, like those "out in the wild," no longer have a need to make lactase so they have lost the ability to digest lactose.

Those of us who have kept drinking milk (several glasses) every day do not have a problem with lactose intolerance. It is as if the body begins life producing lactase and seems to continue this forever until it thinks you have been weaned. We can fake our body out by drinking cow's milk. I really enjoy drinking my milk with cookies and having ice cream without the worry of "paying" for it later. MMMOOOO!

How about you? If you are lactose intolerant, did you stop drinking milk? When? Regret that decision?

[gmoney]

.

Maybe where you live, Gmoney. But again, as Nimrod said, the article didn't show proof that there were alternatives for this person. Life is not simply black and white

Thank goodness. I like seeing in color.

That is just her story. nothing factual about any of it.
I'm sure some believe every word!

[Naturist Mark]

How about you? If you are lactose intolerant, did you stop drinking milk? When? Regret that decision?

I am. I was never a huge consumer of milk, but did drink it fairly regularly until my mid twenties when I began to notice cause and effect. I am still surprised now and then with 'hidden' lactose in foods that I didn't realize contained milk.

Fortunately for me, I can eat almost any cheese. Most cultured milk products are lactose free. I couldn't live without cheese.

[David77]

How about you? If you are lactose intolerant, did you stop drinking milk? When? Regret that decision?

I am lactose intolerant but have not stopped drinking milk, as I buy the "lactose free" milk at the supermarket.

[Kouak]

Fortunately for me, I can eat almost any cheese. Most cultured milk products are lactose free. I couldn't live without cheese.

I have heard that the aging process for cheese breaks down the lactose. This is why you can eat cheese.

[MeBNude]

That is just her story. nothing factual about any of it.
I'm sure some believe every word!

Well. now, I get you gmoney... (and really I don't when I say this, but I'm looking for the logical conclusions you have found for yours3lf), you have made your judgements, admitting above that you don't have the facts. It's not that they don't exist... you are just not aware of them.

Facts are funny things... makes us all talk on an equal playing field... no pretences accepted.

[MeBNude]

And, I must edit myself again. Must log off for being too emotional... taking all this all a wee bit too personal.

[Naturist Mark]

I have heard that the aging process for cheese breaks down the lactose. This is why you can eat cheese.

It is the culturing that does it. The microorganisms that are introduced in the cheese making process consume the lactose. Same for yogurt - unless it is a 'yogurt product' that has extra milk added after the cultured yogurt is pasteurized - like some frozen yogurts.

[Lord Drakkus]

Fox News anchor talks sense about public option, presses Republican Senator to be truthful.

"We ought to be able to take care of all these abusive lawsuits that are out there."
<object width="500" height="407">


<embed src="http://www.dailykostv.com/flv/player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="config=http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002215/vxml.php?500" width="500" height="407"></object>

I know I've mostly stayed out of this debate, but I definitely agree with this statement. All the so-called "frivolous lawsuits" that people are filing against doctors these days are definitely adding to the cost of health-care. Doctors have to pay huge amounts annually (ie. $100,000 for General Surgeons, $277,000 for an Ob-Gyn in Miami) in order to help protect themselves from them. Even with the insurance, doctors will often have to pay some money out of pocket since the insurance won't cover the full amount of the lawsuit.

Many of these lawsuits are absolutely ridiculous, and show more of a lack of personal responsibility on behalf of the patient than an actual failing of the doctors themselves. For example, the classic case of the patient diagnosed with cancer and told they have 6 months to live. Some time later, the doctor finds out that the results were incorrect due to the tests being contaminated in some way. The doctor then tells the patient about the mistake, that they're actually going to live, and the patient sues the doctor for malpractice!

Look a bit deeper. Did the patient get a second opinion? Nope. Did the doctor actually have any fault in the matter? Nope. So, how is the doctor himself culpable? He's not. I will admit, the doctor can go to court and prove that he was not actually the one at fault, but it's still a waste of his time, and money. Not to mention the fact that his malpractice insurance rates will probably go up. If the patient had used a little personal responsibility and gotten a second opinion (usually covered by most insurance plans, and if not it should be), then the whole escapade could have been averted in the first place.

So, in other words, what I'm trying to say is that I definitely think there should be a push for more personal responsibility with regards to health care, AND; more protections for the doctors that practice medicine. I didn't even mention the lawsuits that are based on practices that were once accepted as safe by the AMA and WHO... Those are completely ridiculous.

[Sanman]

I fail to see how taxes are theft. Like it or not we all pay into a system that doesn't benefit everyone equally, but I fail to see how that's theft.

This video will explain how such taxes are theft... and also explain my personal belief in the liberty philosophy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uqha0Mq-ck

[MeBNude]

All the so-called "frivolous lawsuits" that people are filing against doctors these days are definitely adding to the cost of health-care.

LD, I agree with you completely. Bull sh*t law suits are a waste of energy & time. I say this as a recovering lawyer/litigator :) I'm on to a new career where I don't have to argue for a living.

But I chime in here, just to remind... not all lawsuits are frivolous. That decision happens in the screening process.

[Sanslines]

Costs:

While a basic implant is typically $1,250. to $3,000., depending on your circumstances additional costs for things such as in the case of a posterior mandible, bone regeneration, sinus elevation, and wide diameter or narrow diameter implants quickly escalate to as much as $15,000 to $30,000. for the complete procedure for the upper or lower jaw.

The price of a dental crown procedure can vary by region, dentist, type of crown and other factors. To give an estimated range, the average cost of a dental crown can range from $600 to $3,100 per tooth.

The price of a dental crown procedure can easily surpass a dental insurance policy’s annual maximum. In addition, some dental insurance policies won’t cover dental crowns at all and others have extensive waiting periods of 6 to 18 months.

The cost of braces can vary widely, depending on a number of factors. The experience of the orthodontist you choose, the area of the country where you live, the degree of correction needed for your teeth, and other important considerations will help determine the final cost. However, on average, patients should expect braces to cost between $4,000 and $10,000.




If extensive dental work is needed, then running up a $45,000 bill is very realistic.

[Naturist Mark]

There should be consequences for truly frivolous lawsuits - and often there are. But not just for any lawsuit that loses. Often a judge won't let a case go to court if it is without merit, and that is as it should be.

But that is quite aside from the question of medical tort reform. I think we all agree that meritless malpractice suits should not be filed. But medical tort reform has an established record in the United States - it has been passed in two thirds of the country - 38 states - and has utterly failed to reduce malpractice insurance rates. But what HAS happened is that those who had cases with merit - those who were harmed by actual and culpable negligence (or worse) have had their compensation reduced. If tort reform doesn't reduce insurance rates or high medical costs, and punishes exactly those who don't deserve it, what is its purpose?

I wrote about this in an earlier post,

Tort reform does harm those patients and their families who were genuine victims of malpractice. The assumption that most cases are frivolous or groundless is dead wrong. In fact our courts are very good at throwing out frivolous cases, those that make it to court make it for good reason.

The proven method of reducing the cost of Malpractice is to reduce avoidable medical error. I mentioned earlier that Anesthesiology (http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/memag/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=253678) was a field like OB/GYN that was hit unusually hard by Malpractice suits and sky high insurance premiums. That is no longer the case. Tort reform did not turn it around. It was achieved by a deliberate effort to identify the common causes of anesthesia error and establish new procedures to prevent them.

Rather than tort reform, the best route to lowering malpractice insurance costs is to systematically route out avoidable medical error. This is a proven strategy that works.

[Sanslines]

Rather than tort reform, the best route to lowering malpractice insurance costs is to systematically route out avoidable medical error. This is a proven strategy that works.

I saw on a tv report the other day how Medicare is losing BILLIONS to FRAUD. It seems that there are many individuals who consistently overcharge medicare for items such as scooters, wheelchairs, crutches, 'special' medical shoes, etc. There are also those who charge Medicare for items and precedures that have never been performed.

If we truly want to lower the cost of health care, then more people better wake up and take an interest in protecting Medicare. Medicare is not a bottomless pit of money that 'others' pay into!

[Fitz1980]

Many of these lawsuits are absolutely ridiculous, and show more of a lack of personal responsibility on behalf of the patient than an actual failing of the doctors themselves. For example, the classic case of the patient diagnosed with cancer and told they have 6 months to live. Some time later, the doctor finds out that the results were incorrect due to the tests being contaminated in some way. The doctor then tells the patient about the mistake, that they're actually going to live, and the patient sues the doctor for malpractice!

I'm somewhat confused. What does the plot line of an episode of the sitcom "Scrubs" have to do with anything?

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s2CoVj3LYuQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s2CoVj3LYuQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SQmyCAzdZsk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SQmyCAzdZsk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Closest thing I've found to it is some guy who was "considering suing the hospital" in a case that he would surely lose. Oh and he's in the UK so what does this have to do with the USA again?
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSL0727013220070507


This video will explain how such taxes are theft... and also explain my personal belief in the liberty philosophy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uqha0Mq-ck


I'm still not entirely clear on how taxes are theft. It's a neat video with some cool music but all it does it explain some abstract political philosophy that seems rather naive even on paper, much like communism, just in the other direction.

[gmoney]

This is too funny to me not to post...
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/D3KDmEvNmJ0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/D3KDmEvNmJ0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[Naturist Mark]

I demand protection from criminals and foreign invaders
I demand courts to enforce the contracts that my business needs to operate
I demand a supply of educated job applicants to choose as employees
I demand decent roads so that I can ship my products to customers
I demand a safe banking system to handle my finances
I demand affordable clean water and sewers
I demand affordable power
I demand air that doesn't hurt my lungs

And I demand that I not be forced to pay for any of my demands - because that's theft!

[Lord Drakkus]

I'm somewhat confused. What does the plot line of an episode of the sitcom "Scrubs" have to do with anything?

Closest thing I've found to it is some guy who was "considering suing the hospital" in a case that he would surely lose. Oh and he's in the UK so what does this have to do with the USA again?
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSL0727013220070507

Sorry Fitz, I didn't say it actually happened. It's just something that people can understand as an obvious example of a frivolous lawsuit. I use that as an example a lot, and I've known others personally who've mentioned it. I was completely unaware that it was the plotline of a scrubs episode when I wrote it.

Oh, and just because it can't be found on the internet definitely doesn't mean that it never happened.

[Illinois59]

Question - how many of you actually know someone who was awarded any amount of money as a result of a malpractice case? Also, how often in a malpractice case is there some major screw-up like amputating the wrong limb or leaving surgical tools inside the patient? The myth that everyone is winning lawsuits over trivial problems might be good to stir up the wingnuts but you also have reality to deal with.

[gmoney]

Is Obama smarter than a 5th Grader?

I bet that was not the answer she was looking for
I bet that was not the answer she was looking for

By the way on CNN's site they removed the interview part and just show the song

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vvANJbu96aw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vvANJbu96aw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Naturist Mark]

http://www.thismodernworld.com/arc/2009/TMW2009-08-19colorlowresopy.jpg (http://www.thismodernworld.com/)

[Sanman]

I'm still not entirely clear on how taxes are theft. It's a neat video with some cool music but all it does it explain some abstract political philosophy that seems rather naive even on paper, much like communism, just in the other direction.

Yes, it is a video describing the philosophy of liberty. It's meant to be high level overview, not deep detailed.

[Sanman]

1. I demand protection from criminals and foreign invaders
2. I demand courts to enforce the contracts that my business needs to operate
3. I demand a supply of educated job applicants to choose as employees
4. I demand decent roads so that I can ship my products to customers
5. I demand a safe banking system to handle my finances
6. I demand affordable clean water and sewers
7. I demand affordable power
8. I demand air that doesn't hurt my lungs

9. And I demand that I not be forced to pay for any of my demands - because that's theft!

1. Hire private security agency if you need that level of protection, and for foreign invaders, the armed forces of our country can handle that (and they can be financed the same way they were for the first couple hundred years without the income tax)

2. Courts already do that (unless the court is corrupt too). And court costs can be paid by the party who committed the fraud.

3. If you are referring to government school graduates (public high schools) then "good luck"... statistics continually show homeschooled and private schooled students by far outperform government school graduates. We don't need public schools, and therefore no tax money necessary for it. (Also, go do a youtube search for John Stossel's "Stupid in America" for more on this subject.)

4. If you use the roads, you pay for them... one convenient way is through the legitimate gasoline tax. If you don't agree with the tax, then you don't have to pay it by choosing not to use gas.

5. A free market bank can easily do this, and could even pay you a dividend on the money you have invested in the bank.

6. A free market water service company can handle this just fine, and much more efficiently and cheaper than a city water department, and you can have a voice in your water quality by demanding they not pump in toxic chemicals like flouride (FYI, the flouride they use is NOT "medical grade" and comes from waste discharge of chemical processing plants). Also, read this book for free online for a greater understanding how an economy works and how a service like water supply can be handled by a free market solution... http://www.takelifeback.com/hegawid/

7. There are many more-efficient recent inventions for providing electricity than the antiquated power grid system we currently use. A free market wouldn't have government controlling power and therefore let electrical generator companies provide their equipment to the public.

8. If someone is poluting your air, then you have legal recourse to sue.

9. You do not have a right to take services and products from others without paying for it. As the example above with the gasoline tax, it is an avoidable tax, and therefore fair and legitimate. An example of an anti-liberty tax is the income tax because it is unavoidable. But the absolute worst tax of all is the inflation tax caused by the Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air.

[MoonShadow]

Criminy, Sanman, you cannot be serious with some of your listings.

Just how many people do you know can afford to hire a security firm to protect them?

How many people do you know who can afford private schooling? And how many people do you know can stay home to "home school"?

A free-market bank? It won't work! Banking began initially as a free market enterprise. When banks crashed or were extensively robbed, customers lost their monies as there was no insurance protections.

Help us all if we had free market water services. When bottom lines are important, businesses for the most part will find ways to make it more and more profitable at the expense of the customers' well-being. History has told this story over and over. The same for electricity.

It takes more than an individual to sue an entity polluting your air (or your water, or your soil). Look into the background of our free-market businesses prior to the formation of the EPA and see what was being put into our waterways, soil, and air. Yep, the free market was looking after the health and welfare of masses.

[Fitz1980]

1. Hire private security agency if you need that level of protection, and for foreign invaders, the armed forces of our country can handle that (and they can be financed the same way they were for the first couple hundred years without the income tax)


You can't be serious. Back in those days they US congress could raise an Army and Maintain a Navy" because that was all you needed. Conscript some guys, drill them with muskets and send them off to the battlefield. In this day and age the battlefield is a bit more technologically complex and governments get overthrown in less time than it takes to raise said army, much less teach them how to operate planes, tanks and satellite imagery.



2. Courts already do that (unless the court is corrupt too). And court costs can be paid by the party who committed the fraud.


The courts are even corrupt and unfair in our current system, though it doesn't stop people from crying about criminals gaming the system.




3. If you are referring to government school graduates (public high schools) then "good luck"... statistics continually show homeschooled and private schooled students by far outperform government school graduates. We don't need public schools, and therefore no tax money necessary for it. (Also, go do a youtube search for John Stossel's "Stupid in America" for more on this subject.)


It's trendy among conservatives and libertarians to bag on public schools simply because they don't have the option of turning anyone away. Private schools have higher test scores because they only accept the smarter kids. Plus you have inner city schools that are little more than prisons to house the kids until them are old enough to be turned loose. Those do not represent a fair view of public schools. Plenty of smart, educated people have graduated from public schools.

QUICK SHOW OF HANDS (Americans only) WHO GRADUATED FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL?

I did.



4. If you use the roads, you pay for them... one convenient way is through the legitimate gasoline tax. If you don't agree with the tax, then you don't have to pay it by choosing not to use gas.


The interstate highway system is a great achievement of our nation and it never could have happened without a centralized Federal program.




5. A free market bank can easily do this, and could even pay you a dividend on the money you have invested in the bank.


See Moonshadow's post above.





6. A free market water service company can handle this just fine, and much more efficiently and cheaper than a city water department, and you can have a voice in your water quality by demanding they not pump in toxic chemicals like flouride (FYI, the flouride they use is NOT "medical grade" and comes from waste discharge of chemical processing plants). Also, read this book for free online for a greater understanding how an economy works and how a service like water supply can be handled by a free market solution... http://www.takelifeback.com/hegawid/


Yea because deregulation of the gas markets worked so well. Except for the fact that it lead to people's rates rising and some folks at Enron causing the energy crisis in California, which in turn contributed to the budget crisis.

Oh and are you aware that pulling out fluoride conspiracy theories are akin to saying "what about building 7" when talking about 9/11? They are tin foil hat nonsense.



7. There are many more-efficient recent inventions for providing electricity than the antiquated power grid system we currently use. A free market wouldn't have government controlling power and therefore let electrical generator companies provide their equipment to the public.


And how would that even work? Would you have several sets of poles along any given street and you pick the one that you like?




8. If someone is poluting your air, then you have legal recourse to sue.

Yes because suing a big corporation with deep pockets is such an easy thing to do and they never drag it out for 10 years. Our culture is already incredibly litigious, do you really want to make it more so? Or do you even think that it would be useful at all? I mean we're already litigious (with lots of regulations) and companies still poison the air and water, they still release unsafe things and the medical establishment still lets people die because settling out of court with X number of victims families is cheaper than providing good healthcare to Y number of people who have paid into your system.

BTW what is the Libertarian position on tort reform? I know that wingnuts feel it will solve most healthcare reform issues. But if you deregulate an industry and put caps on damages that anyone can sue for it will obviously lead to more abuses since if killing a few people with some bad-medicine and paying off their families is cheaper than providing good care than more people will die and the establishment won't care as long as they are saving more than they are paying out.



9. You do not have a right to take services and products from others without paying for it. As the example above with the gasoline tax, it is an avoidable tax, and therefore fair and legitimate. An example of an anti-liberty tax is the income tax because it is unavoidable. But the absolute worst tax of all is the inflation tax caused by the Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air.

While people may have issues with how much income tax is collected or how it's spent but I'd say that the government does pay for it in giving us infrastructure and protection from foreign invaders.

And the above only seems to illustrate my problem with the libertarian philosophy. It's like communism in the sense that it looks good on paper but it fails to account for real world problems with man's essential nature.

It seems to be based on some Hollywood version of how things were 150 years ago, "when men were men, ect" ignoring the fact that the USA of that era would have been considered a 3rd world nation by our current standards. Much of what libertarians want does exist today in the 3rd world and I don't see a line of people leaving the USA to move to Mexico.

[MoonShadow]

While people may have issues with how much income tax is collected or how it's spent but I'd say that the government does pay for it in giving us infrastructure and protection from foreign invaders.

And the above only seems to illustrate my problem with the libertarian philosophy. It's like communism in the sense that it looks good on paper but it fails to account for real world problems with man's essential nature.

It seems to be based on some Hollywood version of how things were 150 years ago, "when men were men, ect" ignoring the fact that the USA of that era would have been considered a 3rd world nation by our current standards. Much of what libertarians want does exist today in the 3rd world and I don't see a line of people leaving the USA to move to Mexico.

Well stated, Fitz! Libertarianism cannot work in our country (or any country). Those who think it will are thinking a fantasy world.

Look at our current health care insurance industry. They have free range but are they doing anything regarding reform so that all citizens can be covered from cradle to grave? Of course not! Bottom lines drive them not the well-being or welfare of the masses. Imagine this type of free market range with all the other "regulated" entities. Can't you see what a mess we would have? One of epic proportions!

[Sanslines]

Well stated, Fitz! Libertarianism cannot work in our country (or any country). Those who think it will are thinking a fantasy world.

Look at our current health care insurance industry. They have free range but are they doing anything regarding reform so that all citizens can be covered from cradle to grave? Of course not! Bottom lines drive them not the well-being or welfare of the masses. Imagine this type of free market range with all the other "regulated" entities. Can't you see what a mess we would have? One of epic proportions!

Libertarianism creates a world where only the strong and the corporate sized entities survive. Everyone else gets screwed.

[Fitz1980]

Libertarianism creates a world where only the strong and the corporate sized entities survive. Everyone else gets screwed.

Didn't we already have that back in the feudalism days?

Or in the "Gilded Age" of the robber barons?

[Sanman]

Just how many people do you know can afford to hire a security firm to protect them?

Do you need a security team? My response included the condition of whether or not you actually needed that. Are the public police departments going to prevent someone from breaking in your home? And if someone does break in, what are the police going to do about it? Take your statement and put it in a file, and maybe if you're lucky, they'll happen to stumble accross the theif in the act at some other location and be able to arrest him there.


How many people do you know who can afford private schooling? And how many people do you know can stay home to "home school"?
Are you serious? How much is public school costing you now? Oh how quickly the collectivists like you forget that it's your taxes that are paying for the government schools. In many schools, the price is well over $10,000 per student PER YEAR being spent now! And what's to show for it? Stupid high school graduates. Please watch John Stossell's "Stupid In America" to get an eye-opener on this fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw



A free-market bank? It won't work! Banking began initially as a free market enterprise. When banks crashed or were extensively robbed, customers lost their monies as there was no insurance protections.

Help us all if we had free market water services. When bottom lines are important, businesses for the most part will find ways to make it more and more profitable at the expense of the customers' well-being. History has told this story over and over. The same for electricity.
As others have already said, "The customer signs your paycheck"!!! If a free market water or electricity provider gives sucky service, then they'll loose customers to competition. It is in any capitalists best interest to provide their customers a high quality product.


It takes more than an individual to sue an entity polluting your air (or your water, or your soil). Look into the background of our free-market businesses prior to the formation of the EPA and see what was being put into our waterways, soil, and air. Yep, the free market was looking after the health and welfare of masses.
Yep, look what polutants are purposely being put into the public water now! Government water is poisoning us with flouride and other harmful chemicals. Again, the customer signs your paycheck. A private water company will provide the customer with a quality product. I offer PROOF by all the variety of bottled water currenty available. Why do people pay over 10x more for bottled water than public water supply? And no, any individual person can sue a corporation.

[Sanman]

It's trendy among conservatives and libertarians to bag on public schools simply because they don't have the option of turning anyone away. Private schools have higher test scores because they only accept the smarter kids. Plus you have inner city schools that are little more than prisons to house the kids until them are old enough to be turned loose. Those do not represent a fair view of public schools. Plenty of smart, educated people have graduated from public schools.
Your argument here is still invalid. Again, go watch John Stossell's "Stupid In America". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
There is proof of many schools doing excellent with less money and without the inner city "prison school" problem, thriving well in the inner city.


The interstate highway system is a great achievement of our nation and it never could have happened without a centralized Federal program.
The world wide web internet system could have never happened without a centeralized Federal program.... oh, wait, it DID happen without government! Uh oh, looks like your argument failed. Only now, government wants to take over the internet and start censoring and filtering and controlling what when where and how you use the internet.


Yea because deregulation of the gas markets worked so well. Except for the fact that it lead to people's rates rising and some folks at Enron causing the energy crisis in California, which in turn contributed to the budget crisis.
Yep, another example of fraud taking place and the government allowing it to continue until it all collapsed. In a free market system, Enron would have been convicted of fraud long before it got out of hand and caused such a problem.



Oh and are you aware that pulling out fluoride conspiracy theories are akin to saying "what about building 7" when talking about 9/11? They are tin foil hat nonsense.
Flouride conspiracy? It's no conspiracy. Everyone knows a lot of cities flouridate their water, and it is a proven fact that flourosis is a real and problematic disease. And what about building 7? Why did the reporter on live TV announce building 7 had collapsed when it could be seen in the camera view directly behind her!!! Anyone who believes that the government report of 911 is 100% true has their head in the sand. Now, there's a lot of wacky 911 theories out there too, but the real truth lies somewhere in between.


And how would that even work? Would you have several sets of poles along any given street and you pick the one that you like?
The electrical grid system we have now is century old technology. There are much more efficient ways of supplying electricity than the ubiquitous grid. Do some research on alternative energy.



While people may have issues with how much income tax is collected or how it's spent but I'd say that the government does pay for it in giving us infrastructure and protection from foreign invaders.
The income tax provides for NO services at all, It is solely for the purpose of regulating the money supply. To understand money supply, please go watch "Money as Debt II" (Watch the first "Money as Debt" too if you haven't seen it yet). Money as Debt II, Promises Unleashed -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_doYllBk5No


And the above only seems to illustrate my problem with the libertarian philosophy. It's like communism in the sense that it looks good on paper but it fails to account for real world problems with man's essential nature.
You still do not know what libertarian philosophy is.

[Sanman]

Look at our current health care insurance industry. They have free range but are they doing anything regarding reform so that all citizens can be covered from cradle to grave? Of course not! Bottom lines drive them not the well-being or welfare of the masses. Imagine this type of free market range with all the other "regulated" entities. Can't you see what a mess we would have? One of epic proportions!
Please! This is NOT libertarianism. This is a perfect example of Fascism. The insurance companies do NOT have "free range". Far from it! They are heavily regulated by government, and not only that, but insurance company lobbyists get the government to make laws that benefit the ins. companies while screwing the public!

[Sanman]

Didn't we already have that back in the feudalism days?

Or in the "Gilded Age" of the robber barons?


The Truth About the "Robber Barons"
(1/4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmHRcp_heA
(2/4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1luzPVmsNw
(3/4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMLA3nxTNcM
(4/4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYwO5fVXV90

A "cure" worse than the "disease": The Coercive Monopoly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0DUUjFntbQ

[Fitz1980]

There is proof of many schools doing excellent with less money and without the inner city "prison school" problem, thriving well in the inner city.


I don't doubt that they are. Charter schools and other programs have been a great boon for kids who are smart but can't afford some straight-up private schools & if I had kids and lived in a bad school district I'd send my kids to one if I couldn't afford private school. But they also mean that any kid who's worth a damn now leaves under performing schools and those schools become prisons for gang-bangers, Jesus-freaks & half wits. The charter schools don't have to take the criminals & retards so they will always look better in the overview. But what would you propose to do in a libertarian society?



The world wide web internet system could have never happened without a centeralized Federal program.... oh, wait, it DID happen without government! Uh oh, looks like your argument failed. Only now, government wants to take over the internet and start censoring and filtering and controlling what when where and how you use the internet.


Except for the fact that it didn't. The internet came about as a result of tax payer funded research by both the military and the National Science Foundation.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
The origins of the Internet reach back to the 1960s when the United States funded research projects of its military agencies to build robust, fault-tolerant and distributed computer networks. This research and a period of civilian funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation spawned worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies and led to the commercialization of an international network in the mid 1990s, and resulted in the following popularization of countless applications in virtually every aspect of modern human life. As of 2009, an estimated quarter of Earth's population uses the services of the Internet.

BTW were you a product of public, private or home schooling?



Flouride conspiracy? It's no conspiracy. Everyone knows a lot of cities flouridate their water, and it is a proven fact that flourosis is a real and problematic disease. And what about building 7? Why did the reporter on live TV announce building 7 had collapsed when it could be seen in the camera view directly behind her!!! Anyone who believes that the government report of 911 is 100% true has their head in the sand. Now, there's a lot of wacky 911 theories out there too, but the real truth lies somewhere in between.


Regarding Fluoride in the water; it's contributed to dental health in this country and only a small group of fringe loons believe that it's poisoning us.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
National and international health agencies and dental associations throughout the world have endorsed water fluoridation's safety and effectiveness.[3][69] These organizations include the World Health Organization,[8][70] the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,[2] the U.S. Surgeon General,[71] the American Public Health Association,[72] the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry,[73] and the national dental associations of Australia,[74] Canada,[75] and the U.S.[76]

As for Building 7; if you want to talk 9/11 conspiracy theories we can set up a thread and do just that. There are plenty of left & right-wing nuts who will join you in throwing them out there. As for your story about a reporter announcing building 7 had collapsed when it was in camera behind her; I'd like to see a cite for that. Truth is that the way that conspiracy theories stick in the national consciousness is because of it's "scatter-gun" effect where millions of, often contradictory, theories are out there and most believers have one or two pet ones. When they pull one out folks who don't buy into it have a hard time defending against any one of a million bits of BS out there. Best I can find BTW is that some reporters said "we're being told that building 7 has either collapsed or is in the process of collapsing" meaning that the rescue workers or whoever told everyone 'get the hell away from building 7, it's going to go too.'

Out of curiosity where do you stand on vaccinations?



The electrical grid system we have now is century old technology. There are much more efficient ways of supplying electricity than the ubiquitous grid. Do some research on alternative energy.

I'm all for alternative energy sources but what does that have to do with the power grid? And I know that the power grid is outdated because critics of big government (TM) thought that our tax money would be better spent cutting Paris Hilton's taxes than upgrading it.

[Sanslines]

Please! This is NOT libertarianism. This is a perfect example of Fascism. The insurance companies do NOT have "free range". Far from it! They are heavily regulated by government, and not only that, but insurance company lobbyists get the government to make laws that benefit the ins. companies while screwing the public!

Free range does indeed exist and the extent of such free range depends on which state a person resides in. As an example, New York has many consumer protections whereas Pennsylvania does not. In Pa, you are really at the mercy of the insurance companies and what crumbs that they want to toss at you.

[Sanslines]

“Freedom Isn’t Free” — Neither Is Health Care

http://www.laprogressive.com/2009/07/29/freedom-isnt-free-neither-is-health-care/

[Naturist Mark]

“Freedom Isn’t Free” — Neither Is Health Care

http://www.laprogressive.com/2009/07/29/freedom-isnt-free-neither-is-health-care/

Nice article.

Next time someone complains about the cost of health care reform ... suggest that we scrap it all and replace it with a very simple plan that won't cost the taxpayers a single penny: Medicare Part E - that's "E" for Everyone. IF YOU WANT IT, you can buy into medicare instead of a private insurance program.

It isn't free, you pay for it, we'll have the actuaries figure out exactly what it costs on average (just like we already do for seniors who use Medicare Advantage plans), and then we charge you that amount plus a little extra, maybe 10% more. We'll use that extra to lower the price for lower income people - but remember, those with the lowest incomes already have free health care under Medicaid - we only need to help out those in between.

This is something we could put into effect next year. It is shovel ready, the programs already exist, the bureaucracy is in place, and it won't cost taxpayers a single penny.

[Naturist Mark]

Amazing how much the lies and misinformation have deceived the public, yet they still favor health care reform including a strong public option by two to one. ARE YOU LISTENING CONGRESS?

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2009/10/Capture37.JPG

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/us/politics/25poll.html?_r=2)

[Sanman]

...The charter schools don't have to take the criminals & retards so they will always look better in the overview. But what would you propose to do in a libertarian society?

Get rid of all government schools and therefore no more school tax, then with all that saved money let everyone pay for their own schooling, whether that be homeschool or private school, or small group of local families doing cooperative homeschooling, or charity schools for low-income and/or single parent homes. As for any criminal problems, let them be held accountable for their criminal actions and face justice.


Except for the fact that it didn't. The internet came about as a result of tax payer funded research by both the military and the National Science Foundation.
It was still developed by scientists, not government buearocrats. But if you don't like that example, what about electronics standards? An RJ45 connector has specific dimensions and wiring configuration that was industry developed, and agreed to by all manufacturers. The government did not create the wiring color codes, or VHS format, or DVD format, or A/D converter bit sampling rates, etc. yet these are all things multiple manufactuers adheer to as an accepted standard.


BTW were you a product of public, private or home schooling?
I graduated from a government high school.


Regarding Fluoride in the water; it's contributed to dental health in this country and only a small group of fringe loons believe that it's poisoning us.
You are very wrong on this, it is far from a small group, and it is a fact that flouride IS a dangerous chemical and harmful to health. Do you even know where they get the fluoride used in city water treatment plants? It's certainly not "medical grade" fluoride. http://www.fluoridedebate.com/



As for Building 7; if you want to talk 9/11 conspiracy theories we can set up a thread and do just that. There are plenty of left & right-wing nuts who will join you in throwing them out there. As for your story about a reporter announcing building 7 had collapsed when it was in camera behind her; I'd like to see a cite for that. Truth is that the way that conspiracy theories stick in the national consciousness is because of it's "scatter-gun" effect where millions of, often contradictory, theories are out there and most believers have one or two pet ones. When they pull one out folks who don't buy into it have a hard time defending against any one of a million bits of BS out there. Best I can find BTW is that some reporters said "we're being told that building 7 has either collapsed or is in the process of collapsing" meaning that the rescue workers or whoever told everyone 'get the hell away from building 7, it's going to go too.'
Many here are judgemental and prejudiced against certain srouces, but have you ever actually read or watched the reports that you so quickly dismiss as "conspiracy theory"? Have you ever actually watched with your own eyes these videos below, and judged the content for yourself?
"The Road to Tyranny" (deals mostly with the OK city bombing)
"Painful Deceptions"
"Loose Change" (newest video, general overview including 911)

[quote]Out of curiosity where do you stand on vaccinations?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT7oTQyJjZ0



I'm all for alternative energy sources but what does that have to do with the power grid? And I know that the power grid is outdated because critics of big government (TM) thought that our tax money would be better spent cutting Paris Hilton's taxes than upgrading it.
Do research on Nikola Tesla, supressed technology, and micro-power generation.

[Sanman]

Nice article.

Next time someone complains about the cost of health care reform ... suggest that we scrap it all and replace it with a very simple plan that won't cost the taxpayers a single penny: Medicare Part E - that's "E" for Everyone. IF YOU WANT IT, you can buy into medicare instead of a private insurance program.

It isn't free, you pay for it, we'll have the actuaries figure out exactly what it costs on average (just like we already do for seniors who use Medicare Advantage plans), and then we charge you that amount plus a little extra, maybe 10% more. We'll use that extra to lower the price for lower income people - but remember, those with the lowest incomes already have free health care under Medicaid - we only need to help out those in between.

This is something we could put into effect next year. It is shovel ready, the programs already exist, the bureaucracy is in place, and it won't cost taxpayers a single penny.

I actually agree with this approach.... as an intermediate step to eventually get to a free-market solution. This could easily be paid for by reducing our overseas spending and bring the troops home. The reason why I would support such a program is because so many of the population is already dependant on governmetn assistance, that it would take decades to slowly wean the population off of the welfare state.

While I would like to see a true liberty philosophy solution, I know that an abrupt change would cause hemmoraging withdrawl symptoms in society, but still we should steadily strive to a less-government involved economy, healthcare syetem, etc.

[Fitz1980]

I've watched "Loose Change," and I've seen plenty of stuff that debunks it. It's a slickly put together video that, like most conspiracy material is really good at taking misunderstandings, out of context clips, innuendos & some outright lies and weaving a tapestry of some grand conspiracy out of them. Here's just a sampling of the debunking of "Loose Change."

It's from a blog called "screwloosechange"

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qkh0Mx3bLDU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qkh0Mx3bLDU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CurcASPW51M&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CurcASPW51M&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Oh and I'm not quick to dismiss "conspiracy theories" in fact I used to be really into them when I was in High School. But than a funny thing happened. I kept reading more and more about my favorite subjects, UFO conspiracies, the JFK assassination and other "the government's out to get us" theories and I discovered that if you stray from outside of the echo chamber of conspiracy film & literature there's usually much more mundane explanations for what's going on.

[Naturist Mark]

I actually agree with this approach.... as an intermediate step to eventually get to a free-market solution. This could easily be paid for by reducing our overseas spending and bring the troops home. The reason why I would support such a program is because so many of the population is already dependant on governmetn assistance, that it would take decades to slowly wean the population off of the welfare state.

You misunderstand. The "Medicare Part E" proposal would not have to be paid for by any cuts anywhere, or any tax increases. It would be fully funded by the premiums of those who sign up for it - with no publicly funded tax subsidies like the private insurance companies will be getting.

[EZ Nude]

This is something we could put into effect next year. It is shovel ready, the programs already exist, the bureaucracy is in place, and it won't cost taxpayers a single penny.

I have believed this from the beginning, but all I hear is, this would destroy the health insurance industry, which is one sixth of our economy and it would collapse our economy. Can that be true?

[Naturist Mark]

I have believed this from the beginning, but all I hear is, this would destroy the health insurance industry, which is one sixth of our economy and it would collapse our economy. Can that be true?

LOL, the Health Care Industry is one sixth of our economy. NOT the Health Insurance Industry.

The Health Insurance Industry doesn't provide a single penny's worth of care. It doesn't give you a single aspirin, it doesn't take a single X-Ray, it doesn't put on a single band-aid, it doesn't perform a single operation or give a single immunization. All it does is stand between the people who buy health care and those who provide it. They are nothing more than middlemen hired to handle the money.

There is good reason to have someone stand in between - in order to spread the risk and to make sure everyone is included. But the Health Insurance Industry no longer really does that. So unless it returns to that function, it has no reason to exist. Government programs like Medicare and VA Health have proven that they are as good or better. Everyone should have the choice to go with those if they wish. The private programs that are unable to compete don't deserve to exist.

[Kouak]

Betcha it would be fixed quickly if Congress would be required to only use their salaries to purchase healthcare. They can pay "at time of service" or by purchasing insurance. They will NOT be allowed to use their personal fortunes. To make things fair, if their congressional salary is 10 times the poverty level, they will have to pay 10 times the average national cost of insurance or 10 times the amount charged for an operation. For example, if the national cost of insurance is $5000 per year, they will have to pay $50,000 per year. This will make them realize how much insurance costs people at poverty level.

Wonder if they will "cheat" and use their personal wealth anyway when they get sick. Right now they get free healthcare and could use their own money anyway. Not much incentive to help anyone else.

[sdcal]

The Health Insurance Industry doesn't provide a single penny's worth of care. It doesn't give you a single aspirin, it doesn't take a single X-Ray, it doesn't put on a single band-aid, it doesn't perform a single operation or give a single immunization. All it does is stand between the people who buy health care and those who provide it. They are nothing more than middlemen hired to handle the money.

There is good reason to have someone stand in between - in order to spread the risk and to make sure everyone is included. But the Health Insurance Industry no longer really does that. So unless it returns to that function, it has no reason to exist. Government programs like Medicare and VA Health have proven that they are as good or better. Everyone should have the choice to go with those if they wish. The private programs that are unable to compete don't deserve to exist.

Amen Mark. I still wonder why we would need or want a private option, which has cost us billions and not given us decent healthcare.

[Sanman]

I've watched "Loose Change," and I've seen plenty of stuff that debunks it. It's a slickly put together video that, like most conspiracy material is really good at taking misunderstandings, out of context clips, innuendos & some outright lies and weaving a tapestry of some grand conspiracy out of them. Here's just a sampling of the debunking of "Loose Change."

It's from a blog called "screwloosechange"

I said before that the truth is probably somewhere in between. I watched the vids you posted and read some at the link, but their "debunking" is very weak. I noticed a lot of claims and they had links to their sources, but when I went to the sources, the information there was often simply missing or extremely lacking in supporting their claims. I'm not fully convinced by either side to have 100% answers, but one thing for sure is that theres more going on than what the news tells us. One particularly interesting fact is the nano-thermite found in the rubble.

[Sanman]

Amen Mark. I still wonder why we would need or want a private option, which has cost us billions and not given us decent healthcare.

If private insurance companies aren't paying up, then they are in violation of contract, and the government should force their adhearance to the contracts instead of issuing in a public option. The reason why insurance companies get away with it is because the politicians have been "bought off" and so aren't going to do anything to spite the hand that feeds them. I think getting to the root of the problem would be a better solution, something along the lines of preventing bribery of politicians.

[Sanslines]

If private insurance companies aren't paying up, then they are in violation of contract, and the government should force their adhearance to the contracts instead of issuing in a public option. The reason why insurance companies get away with it is because the politicians have been "bought off" and so aren't going to do anything to spite the hand that feeds them. I think getting to the root of the problem would be a better solution, something along the lines of preventing bribery of politicians.

Private insurance companies exist to make profit - plain ans simple. As such, private insurance companines will always endlessly search for legal loopholes to avoid paying out monies. There is absolutely no way that the government could ever pass enough laws to cover each and every scenario that exists to allow insurance companies to reneg on their assumed responsibilities. I use the word assumed because the real responsibilities that insurance companies have are to their shareholders and to Wall Street. In all reality, the insured are not part of their responsibilities.

The solution to the problem is to bypass the private insurance companies entirely. Offer a public plan and then demand that the public plan establish policies and procedures to force down costs. A simple measure to drastically lower costs is to put up pharmaceuticals for worlwide competitive price bid. Doing so would break the stranglehold that the domestic pharmaceutical companies have on pharma prices.

People need to understand that big business is never going to look out for the welfare of the people. Only a truely representative federal government has the size and power to do so.

[Bob S.]

Sans: "Private insurance companies exist to make profit - plain ans simple. As such, private insurance companines will always endlessly search for legal loopholes to avoid paying out monies."

Yes. They do exist to make a profit. That is not a bad thing. Allow the insurance companies to do business across state lines, businesses should give their employees a list of plans from different insurance companies so that the individual employee can decide which is best for them (I believe this is about what the members of Congress receive). The competition would be good for the insurance companies. If a person doesn't like how their company is treating them, they should then be able to drop out and change insurance plans or companies at any time.

Public option is not about fair competition. The govt can not compete fairly when they make all the rules. They can easily price all competition out of business.

Bob S.

[Sanslines]

Sans: "Private insurance companies exist to make profit - plain ans simple. As such, private insurance companines will always endlessly search for legal loopholes to avoid paying out monies."

Yes. They do exist to make a profit. That is not a bad thing. Allow the insurance companies to do business across state lines, businesses should give their employees a list of plans from different insurance companies so that the individual employee can decide which is best for them (I believe this is about what the members of Congress receive). The competition would be good for the insurance companies. If a person doesn't like how their company is treating them, they should then be able to drop out and change insurance plans or companies at any time.

Public option is not about fair competition. The govt can not compete fairly when they make all the rules. They can easily price all competition out of business.

Bob S.

The government is not driven by a profit motive and therefore does not need to deny anyone coverage. The insurance companies have an abismal record of taking care of sick people. Why? Simply because sick people are an expense to insurance companies and insurance companies will do anything to reduce their expenses.

It is absolutely the worst thing in the world to expect a sick person who needs to recover from their illness to have to find the strength to start fighting with insurance companies at a time when they are least able to do so.

[Naturist Mark]

Sans: Allow the insurance companies to do business across state lines,

This is PR BS from the insurance companies. The CAN and DO operate across state lines. What they are really trying to do is become exempt from state regulators. Isn't that a great idea? They want us to believe that all of the problems we have now with insurance companies would just disappear if they could only avoid regulation. Bull****

[Naturist Mark]

WWRJD?

http://i.imgur.com/oJ0Fx.jpg

[Fitz1980]

Yes. They do exist to make a profit. That is not a bad thing. Allow the insurance companies to do business across state lines, businesses should give their employees a list of plans from different insurance companies so that the individual employee can decide which is best for them (I believe this is about what the members of Congress receive).

Doesn't that already happen? Aren't the same 4 insurance giants the only ones that people in most states have access to?

[Sanman]

Y'all still don't get it. A free-market solution works best. The insurance companies have a bad rep now because of all the legal loopholes for which THEY lobied! If there was no government protection of these insurance companies, then the sucky ones who don't pay up would go out of business. It is in the insurance company's best interest to have satisfied customers! Without customers, there are no profits for shareholders in the first place.

A government option would drive out competition, and therefore prices would skyrocket. There would be no incentive for providing a quality product either, just like we saw with communist Russia. Why would the social worker behind the desk care whether your insurance claim gets paid? What are the places with the longest lines and most frustrated "customers"? Post office, DMV (drivers license), anything that is run by the government! In every movie, TV show, even cartoons, the drivers license waiting lines are always shown as a JOKE!

[Sanman]

I mentioned this video before too, but no one commented... perhaps no one has watched it yet?

Painful Deceptions
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480&ei=kUPdSpfoE6igqgLZsaziAQ&q=painful+deceptions&hl=en#

[Naturist Mark]

A government option would drive out competition, and therefore prices would skyrocket. There would be no incentive for providing a quality product either, just like we saw with communist Russia. Why would the social worker behind the desk care whether your insurance claim gets paid? What are the places with the longest lines and most frustrated "customers"? Post office, DMV (drivers license), anything that is run by the government! In every movie, TV show, even cartoons, the drivers license waiting lines are always shown as a JOKE!

Hmmm ... Actually under "communist Russia" health care wasn't all that bad, indeed they were renowned for their innovative cancer treatments with better outcomes than the US (at the time). But it all went to hell when they privatized everything during the post communist "shock treatment" reforms after the fall of the Soviet Union.

But why Russia as the exemplar of a government option? Why not a modern western democracy like France - which has better health care than the US (the best in the world in fact) with better outcomes, longer lifespans, lower infant mortality rates etc.

Why not compare to the government run programs we already have in the US? Like military TRI-CARE - which has the highest patient satisfaction rate of any healthcare system in the US? Or VA healthcare which has the best record on outcomes and among the lowest costs? Or even Medicare?

I mean ... when looking for a good model for reform, shouldn't you look at the best performing systems instead of worst case strawmen?

[Fitz1980]

Y'all still don't get it. A free-market solution works best. The insurance companies have a bad rep now because of all the legal loopholes for which THEY lobied! If there was no government protection of these insurance companies, then the sucky ones who don't pay up would go out of business. It is in the insurance company's best interest to have satisfied customers! Without customers, there are no profits for shareholders in the first place.

A government option would drive out competition, and therefore prices would skyrocket. There would be no incentive for providing a quality product either, just like we saw with communist Russia. Why would the social worker behind the desk care whether your insurance claim gets paid?

Communist Russia didn't have a free market because they were communist. What's that have to do with a public option? I've mentioned public and private schools and you threw in some snarky comments about public schools being a joke despite having graduated from one yourself. How about public universities? The fact that we have private and public ones has cause both to improve and is why the American University system is the best in the world. And if a public option was crap than why would anybody use it? That's the point that you people don't get. You argue that a public option would be crap service but it would also be so popular that it would drive out private options. Like the university system, the school system and the post office. The fact that you have the US Postal Service and UPS and FedEx has caused all three to do better because they compete with each other.


What are the places with the longest lines and most frustrated "customers"? Post office, DMV (drivers license), anything that is run by the government! In every movie, TV show, even cartoons, the drivers license waiting lines are always shown as a JOKE!

So someone getting activated about having to wait in line at the DMV is more frustrating than loosing a family member because the insurance company refused to cover treatment or to even cover them in the first place?


I mentioned this video before too, but no one commented... perhaps no one has watched it yet?

Painful Deceptions
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480&ei=kUPdSpfoE6igqgLZsaziAQ&q=painful+deceptions&hl=en#

I watched the first 1:45 minutes and in that time they told at least one verifiable lie about the "pull it" quote and I got bored and cut it off.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

[Fitz1980]

But why Russia as the exemplar of a government option? Why not a modern western democracy like France - which has better health care than the US (the best in the world in fact) with better outcomes, longer lifespans, lower infant mortality rates etc.

Hey some wing-nut around here recently told me that if I wanted a public option (which he had previously compared to European Socialism) I should move to North Korea. This would be funny if it weren't for the fact that it is literally killing people.

[nimrod]

Interesting poll from ABC World News claims that there is a 40% to 40% split on the approval of health care reform as it is presented now, but a 57% approval for a puplic option.

[Lord Drakkus]

Interesting poll from ABC World News claims that there is a 40% to 40% split on the approval of health care reform as it is presented now, but a 57% approval for a puplic option.

How was the poll performed and what were the questions on it? I've learned to question the validity of any poll performed by a news organization. Even if it does support my own opinion.

[NudeAl]

In a new study conducted by Harvard University and the Cambridge Health Alliance 45,000 Americans are dying, each year, because we don't have insurance. That is the price we are paying now.

Even if you have health care coverage the insurence companies make their money by insureing lots of healthy people and then deny claims to those with chronic conditions and then term these conditions as pre-existing.

If we fail to get a public option now we will not see one in our lifetime.

[Boreas]

In a new study conducted by Harvard University and the Cambridge Health Alliance 45,000 Americans are dying, each year, because we don't have insurance. That is the price we are paying now.

Even if you have health care coverage the insurence companies make their money by insureing lots of healthy people and then deny claims to those with chronic conditions and then term these conditions as pre-existing.


And that is shameful for a country as powerful as the US.


If we fail to get a public option now we will not see one in our lifetime.

Amen.

[Naturist Mark]

If we fail to get a public option now we will not see one in our lifetime.

Oh yes we will. Because there will a ton of vengeance by the voters falling on those who blocked it.

If it fails, not a single Blue Dog Democrat will get their party's nomination in the next election (yes, we are already organizing to take the nomination away from them). And quite a few in the "other" party will suddenly find their safe districts are no longer safe. There WILL be consequences.

[Sanman]

...Why not a modern western democracy like France - which has better health care than the US (the best in the world in fact) with better outcomes, longer lifespans, lower infant mortality rates etc.
Because the USA does NOT have a free market system, so it would be improper to compare it to France.

However, in the past when there was less governmetn involvement, the USA was innovating all the latest stuff in healthcare, and the other countries simply got the benefits of our hard work.

[Sanman]

...I've mentioned public and private schools and you threw in some snarky comments about public schools being a joke despite having graduated from one yourself.
Graduated in spite of one that is.


How about public universities? The fact that we have private and public ones has cause both to improve and is why the American University system is the best in the world. And if a public option was crap than why would anybody use it? That's the point that you people don't get. You argue that a public option would be crap service but it would also be so popular that it would drive out private options.
The public universities are NOT fully funded by taxpayer money like gradeschool levels. One still has to pay tuition and books and other fees, and thus causes a significant incentive for quality.


Like the university system, the school system and the post office. The fact that you have the US Postal Service and UPS and FedEx has caused all three to do better because they compete with each other.
The post office still survives because they have an unfair advantage by government mandate that only the postal service can deliver "mail". UPS and FedEx deliver "packages" and "parcels", and the post office also receives additional support from tax money. How about level the playing field and we'll see just how long the post office stays in business.


So someone getting activated about having to wait in line at the DMV is more frustrating than loosing a family member because the insurance company refused to cover treatment or to even cover them in the first place?
Like I've said time and time before, an insurance company refusing to pay is comitting fraud, and should be dealt with. And if an insurance company gets a reputation for this, they won't last long because no customer will want to do business with them. Unfortunatley, current laws protect insurance companies and allows them to get away with all kinds of crap, and those laws got on the books from them bribing dirty politicians.


I watched the first 1:45 minutes and in that time they told at least one verifiable lie about the "pull it" quote and I got bored and cut it off.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
So, you want me to read your debunking sites and yet you not have to watch the video I posted? Isn't this a bit unreasonable? In any case, I read the debunking site, and their arguments are very weak and often a complete misrepresentation of the facts. They claim that the fires were a lot worse than the "truthers" claim, yet where is the scientific evidence to support this "debunk"? And the stupidest thing I read on that site saying that "pull" refers to the firemen... "pull it" means pulling out the firemen? Being called an "it" is insulting at best. If they really meant to pull out the firemen from the building, he would have said "pull'em out" or something similar, not "it". I think you should go finish watching the film before you start making judgements about it.

[Fitz1980]

The public universities are NOT fully funded by taxpayer money like gradeschool levels. One still has to pay tuition and books and other fees, and thus causes a significant incentive for quality.

And a public option could be run under the same principles.



So, you want me to read your debunking sites and yet you not have to watch the video I posted? Isn't this a bit unreasonable? In any case, I read the debunking site, and their arguments are very weak and often a complete misrepresentation of the facts. They claim that the fires were a lot worse than the "truthers" claim, yet where is the scientific evidence to support this "debunk"? And the stupidest thing I read on that site saying that "pull" refers to the firemen... "pull it" means pulling out the firemen? Being called an "it" is insulting at best. If they really meant to pull out the firemen from the building, he would have said "pull'em out" or something similar, not "it". I think you should go finish watching the film before you start making judgements about it.

Funny it's most conspiracy video/literature that's exactly what you describe, weak misrepresentations of the facts. In fact your video has a lie ever earlier than 1:45 into it. It claims that building 7 fell straight down into it's own footprints like a controlled demolition.

http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/barclay.jpg

What a nice neat little pile, notice parts of building 7 on the white building in the back of the first shot. Notice debris covering Barclay Street.

[nimrod]

How was the poll performed and what were the questions on it? I've learned to question the validity of any poll performed by a news organization. Even if it does support my own opinion.

You will have to look it up for yourself I have no idea and that is why I said claims.

[Naturist Mark]

Rape is a "pre-existing condition" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html) preventing woman from getting insurance.

<blockquote>Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month's worth of anti-AIDS medicine.

Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable.

Turner had let the men buy her drinks at a bar in Fort Lauderdale. The next thing she knew, she said, she was lying on a roadside with cuts and bruises that indicated she had been raped. She never developed an HIV infection. But months later, when she lost her health insurance and sought new coverage, she ran into a problem.

Turner, 45, who used to be a health insurance underwriter herself, said the insurance companies examined her health records. Even after she explained the assault, the insurers would not sell her a policy because the HIV medication raised too many health questions. They told her they might reconsider in three or more years if she could prove that she was still AIDS-free.l</blockquote>

Tell me again why we HAVE to ensure that a public option won't make private insurers compete too much? Why is it MANDATORY that we ensure them large profit margins?

Hell, I want to know why they even have a right to exist, they don't provide any health care, they are just the money handlers, and the VA and Medicare are proven to be better money handlers than they are.

[Kouak]

Rape is a "pre-existing condition" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html) preventing woman from getting insurance.

<blockquote>Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month's worth of anti-AIDS medicine.

Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable.

Turner had let the men buy her drinks at a bar in Fort Lauderdale. The next thing she knew, she said, she was lying on a roadside with cuts and bruises that indicated she had been raped. She never developed an HIV infection. But months later, when she lost her health insurance and sought new coverage, she ran into a problem.

Turner, 45, who used to be a health insurance underwriter herself, said the insurance companies examined her health records. Even after she explained the assault, the insurers would not sell her a policy because the HIV medication raised too many health questions. They told her they might reconsider in three or more years if she could prove that she was still AIDS-free.l</blockquote>

Tell me again why we HAVE to ensure that a public option won't make private insurers compete too much? Why is it MANDATORY that we ensure them large profit margins?

Hell, I want to know why they even have a right to exist, they don't provide any health care, they are just the money handlers, and the VA and Medicare are proven to be better money handlers than they are.

Now this is just wrong! I hope that insurance executives haven't been raped, or had their spouses or daughters raped, but it might make them a little more compassionate.

[Sanman]

And a public option could be run under the same principles.



Funny it's most conspiracy video/literature that's exactly what you describe, weak misrepresentations of the facts. In fact your video has a lie ever earlier than 1:45 into it. It claims that building 7 fell straight down into it's own footprints like a controlled demolition.

http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/barclay.jpg

What a nice neat little pile, notice parts of building 7 on the white building in the back of the first shot. Notice debris covering Barclay Street.

Watch any number of the videos of the building actually coming down... AT FREEFALL RATE. Any demolition expert will tell you that only a building using explosives to bring it down can fall at the rate of gravity. If it was simply compacting under it's own weight, it would slow down at least a little as each floor hit.

[Sanman]

Tell me again why we HAVE to ensure that a public option won't make private insurers compete too much? Why is it MANDATORY that we ensure them large profit margins?

Hell, I want to know why they even have a right to exist, they don't provide any health care, they are just the money handlers, and the VA and Medicare are proven to be better money handlers than they are.

Obviously insurance companies don't have to exist, however, they do provide a legitimate service... that is, the old traditional type of insurance does, not today's "healthcare management". Traditional insurance is what it's real purpose is; to provide financial support for catastrophic medical expenses. It is NOT for the purpose of funding care for every little cough and sniffle. And again, insurance companies that defraud the public deserve sanctioning or other legal action against them. The example you gave of the rape victim is a good example why insurance coverage shouldn't be tied to your employer in the first place. Employer associated healthcare came about because of unfair tax laws in the first place. Had the government kept its place, we'd never of had this problem.

In any case, the two main issues with a "public option" is that it won't be optional (they'll tax us for it, even if partially or mostly funded by "subscribers") and it will have an unfair advantage by passing legislation favoring it while being detrimental to private companies.

[Naturist Mark]

Obviously insurance companies don't have to exist, however, they do provide a legitimate service... that is, the old traditional type of insurance does, not today's "healthcare management". ...

In any case, the two main issues with a "public option" is that it won't be optional (they'll tax us for it, even if partially or mostly funded by "subscribers") and it will have an unfair advantage by passing legislation favoring it while being detrimental to private companies.

Well, I was agreeing with you at the beginning. Then you chase your tail around to arguing that a public option is "unfair" to insurance companies.

Nonsense.

Let's get some things straight.

The ONLY new taxdollars being spent on any of the variations of healthcare reform passed by the various committees go to insurance companies to subsidize low income enrollee's - NONE of them use tax dollars for a public option. Only insurance companies will be getting tax dollars.

Yet somehow, even with the insurance companies getting taxpayer subsidies, and the so-called "public option" having to rely entirely on the premiums paid by enrollees, it amounts to "unfair competition" - because the unsubsidized public option would be so efficient - even without subsidies - and so low cost - even without subsidies - that no one will want to buy private insurance that has taxpayer subsidies.

Let's see if I can sum up my position ...

If taxpayer subsidized private insurance companies cannot compete with a publicly managed unsubsidized program, they don't deserve to exist. Sounds more than "fair" to me.

If you can't even agree with that statement, you are really arguing that we owe the private insurance companies big profits, regardless of their performance.

[Fitz1980]

Watch any number of the videos of the building actually coming down... AT FREEFALL RATE. Any demolition expert will tell you that only a building using explosives to bring it down can fall at the rate of gravity. If it was simply compacting under it's own weight, it would slow down at least a little as each floor hit.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.



http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

http://www.debunking911.com/Collapse3.jpg





<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qLShZOvxVe4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qLShZOvxVe4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Fitz1980]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TgqqSHr0wVA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TgqqSHr0wVA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Senator Al Franken talking to a Hudson Institute member who made the absurd claim that bankruptcies for medial treatment would increase under "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE (tm)"

[Navigator]

AHIP is the powerful insurance lobby that spends 5 million dollars a week trying to kill health care reform. "Billionaires for Wealthcare" is a grassroots network looking to stop them - with song...

This is a video of "Billionaires for Wealthcare" crashing an AHIP conference today. Note that, at first, some of the audience appears to think the singing compliments are real. The tune is from the song "Tomorrow" from the play "Annie".


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GMuZWSvlIMY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GMuZWSvlIMY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Sanman]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.





<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qLShZOvxVe4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qLShZOvxVe4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I was talking about building 7, not the twin towers. I never said the twin towers were at freefall. However, not at freefall neither proves or disproves a controlled demolition, as controlled demolitions don't always go at freefall speed either. However, only a controlled demolition could go at freefall.

[Bob S.]

Just a time out from your friendly neighborhood moderator:

This is health care, not 9/11. Please take all 9/11 discussions into a new thread if you must.

Bob S.
moderator

[Fitz1980]

I was talking about building 7, not the twin towers. I never said the twin towers were at freefall. However, not at freefall neither proves or disproves a controlled demolition, as controlled demolitions don't always go at freefall speed either. However, only a controlled demolition could go at freefall.

Discussion moved to here:

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=244405#post244405

[Naturist Mark]

<div><iframe src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/33486747#33486747" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" height="339" width="425"></iframe><p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11px; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(153, 153, 153); margin-top: 5px; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>The Health Care Reform Bill is slowly falling together. The big insurance companies are getting almost everything they want. Public financing to subsidize them, a requirement for the uninsured to buy insurance or pay a fine, and guaranteed profits. Looks like they lose on the public option -except that it will not be available for the vast majority, only to the uninsured - and only if your state decides not to "opt-out". So it won't really be "competition". If you like the insurance your employer offers - you can keep it, and if you don't like the insurance your employer offers - you have to keep it anyway. So much for "options".

A few congressmen will be offering amendments to make the public option a true option for everyone - introducing actual competition. Others will be offering a bill allowing individual states the right to offer a single payer plan in their state - the proven method for providing the best care at the lowest cost.<span style="font-weight: bold;"> Use the the chart below to understand how your congressional representative makes their decisions</span> (from the <a href="http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/article-health-care-industry-giving-big-bucks-to-congress">Center for Responsive Politics</a>).

Every member of Congress and the total contributions they have received from the Health Care industry from 1989 through June 2009.

<iframe width="440" height="400" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" src="http://sheet.zoho.com/publish/bluemark/contributions-2"> </iframe>

<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.opensecrets.org"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 125px; height: 44px;" src="http://www.opensecrets.org/img/myos/opensecrets_databy250x88.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a>

[ki4kxq]

<div><iframe src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/33486747#33486747" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" height="339" width="425"></iframe><p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11px; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(153, 153, 153); margin-top: 5px; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>The Health Care Reform Bill is slowly falling together. The big insurance companies are getting almost everything they want. Public financing to subsidize them, a requirement for the uninsured to buy insurance or pay a fine, and guaranteed profits. Looks like they lose on the public option -except that it will not be available for the vast majority, only to the uninsured - and only if your state decides not to "opt-out". So it won't really be "competition". If you like the insurance your employer offers - you can keep it, and if you don't like the insurance your employer offers - you have to keep it anyway. So much for "options".

A few congressmen will be offering amendments to make the public option a true option for everyone - introducing actual competition. Others will be offering a bill allowing individual states the right to offer a single payer plan in their state - the proven method for providing the best care at the lowest cost.<span style="font-weight: bold;"> Use the the chart below to understand how your congressional representative makes their decisions</span> (from the <a href="http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/article-health-care-industry-giving-big-bucks-to-congress">Center for Responsive Politics</a>).

Every member of Congress and the total contributions they have received from the Health Care industry from 1989 through June 2009.

<iframe width="440" height="400" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" src="http://sheet.zoho.com/publish/bluemark/contributions-2"> </iframe>

<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.opensecrets.org"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 125px; height: 44px;" src="http://www.opensecrets.org/img/myos/opensecrets_databy250x88.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a>

Are you kidding? The health care bill has now lost a lot of it's support because of this stupid public option. Olympia Snowe has said that she will not vote for a bill with a public option. Joe Lieberman says now that not only will he note vote for a bill with a public option, he may go as far as joining the republicans on a fillibuster of the bill. Some other moderate Senators are saying that a public option means a no vote for them as well.

On the other side, liberals who want an all out public option are saying that giving states the option to "opt out" is a no vote for them. By the way, the "opt out" isn't an opt out at all. States can only opt out if the feds allow them to. Nancy Pelosi upon realizing that the public is against a public option, now wants to rename this thing the "consumers choice" option. A pig renamed something else is still a pig and still stinks.

The majority of Americans want no part of a public option. All polls except for the Washington Post poll show this. That is why we now find out that their poll used twice as many dems as republicans. The only way they can get the numbers they want is to stack the deck.

[Naturist Mark]

Are you kidding? The health care bill has now lost a lot of it's support because of this stupid public option.

According to the CBO the "public option" lowers costs by 100 billion dollars. It doesn't require any tax dollars. And nearly 75% of the public think it is a necessary part of health care reform. Of course most of them are assuming a "real" public option that is an actual option.

It has only "lost support" among people who receive millions of dollars from health insurance companies.

[MoonShadow]

The lies that have been perpetrated by the insurance industry using the media as their puppet such as bubba stations like Fox News espousing misinformation and untruths have worked, it seems. Those who do not want a public option are condemning the uninsured without any options for health care coverage.

It is a sad day when so many want to refuse so many others the opportunity to affordable healthcare. The current system is impossible for the low wage earners who are a huge number of our population to obtain healthcare coverage.

What has happened to the people of this country? What has happened to their compassion for others?

[Fitz1980]

The lies that have been perpetrated by the insurance industry using the media as their puppet such as bubba stations like Fox News espousing misinformation and untruths have worked, it seems. Those who do not want a public option are condemning the uninsured without any options for health care coverage.

It is a sad day when so many want to refuse so many others the opportunity to affordable healthcare. The current system is impossible for the low wage earners who are a huge number of our population to obtain healthcare coverage.

What has happened to the people of this country? What has happened to their compassion for others?

Well most of them have been brainwashed by the corporate media and right-wing smear machine. You've got Faux News telling them that any such program would be socialism, which is communism, which is Marxism, which somehow is also fascism. You've got CNN running polls and stories asking if letting the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire was fair to the rich; you know because they suffer so much in this country.

You've got folks screaming "get your government hands off my medicare."

I think that Obama & the Democrats may have missed their chance. The Republicans came out of the gate whining that the Dems were moving too fast and "cramming stuff down our throat" so the Dems stalled, put things off and allowed those idiotic town hall meetings where the media only covered the wingnuts shouting "SOCIALISM" (tm).

They should have taken a lesson from Reagen and Bush. Those guys had terrible ideas but they knew how to get things done; bad things to be sure but they got them done. Reagen crammed his war on the middle class, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation down our throats before the liberals even had a chance to mount an effective opposition. Bush crammed his Iraq invasion down our throats by distorting evidence of WMDs. The Republicans introduced a resolution to cede all congressional oversight in the President's decision of to invade or not to invade and even many Democrats voted for it because it was the eve of the 2002 elections and they feared being called "soft on terrorism" (TM). By the time the opposition even had time to line up against Iraq, deregulation or tax cuts for the wealthy they had to fight against the notion of "it's already done; why do you liberals want to change things with you social experiments."

[nimrod]

Interesting poll from ABC World News claims that there is a 40% to 40% split on the approval of health care reform as it is presented now, but a 57% approval for a puplic option.


The majority of Americans want no part of a public option. All polls except for the Washington Post poll show this. That is why we now find out that their poll used twice as many dems as republicans. The only way they can get the numbers they want is to stack the deck.

Thought I would bring this post up since you did not see it and seem to be confused about the polls and majorities. Now things in the bill have changed since I first posted so the first numbers might be off now, but that would not change the approval of the puplic option.

[Bob S.]

We are hearing a lot about the obscene profits made by Health Care Insurance Companies. Le's take a look at three of them: Wellpoint, Humana, and Aetna.

Last year, Wellpoint had a total revenue of over $61 billion and a total profit after taxes of about $2.5 billion. That amounts to about a 4% profit.

Last year, Humana had a total revenue of almost $29 billion and a total profit after taxes of $647 million. That amounts to about a 2% profit.

Last year, Aetna had a total revenue of almost $31 billion and a total profit after taxes of nearly 1.9 billion. That amounts to about a 4% profit.

Huge profits, huh?

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

Huge profits, huh?

Republican adviser faces health care's costly bite (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110102121.html)

Doug Holtz-Eakin, John McCain's principal campaign adviser on healthcare policy and former chief economist for George Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, has been unemployed since the end of last year's campaign. He has been paying $1000 a month to to continue the health insurance that was provided to him by the McCain Campaign under COBRA. But that is running out soon. He is 51 years old, healthy, but has a pre-existing condition - so he is not able to find any affordable private insurance.

Fortunately, even though unemployed, he is a wealthy man. Unlike the vast majority of Americans in his position.

Every American should have the option to buy into an affordable public program, if they want to, that will accept everyone. Paid for by enrollees - not taxes. We know how to do it: Medicare, Tri-Care, VA Health - all high quality programs, more popular with their enrollees than private insurance is, and far less expensive. This is NOT what the current House and Senate bills are offering. But they should.

[Boreas]

Mark, I think it is crazy that your system is as it is. You live in the so called free-est country in the world, yet you cannot access affordable health care. Not being able to get injuries fixed (as per our discussion in the arthritis thread) is nuts two years after the injury. They say that our "socialized medicine" has long waits. Sheesh.

I cannot even imagine paying $1000 per month for insurance. I assume that is for one person. We pay $96 per month for the pair of us, and I think that is a family rate. Of course, it is subsidized by our taxes, but that is okay. We are not as paranoid about such things on this side of the border.

I had surgery on my foot last week, and did not have to pay out of pocket for it. Of course, I have been paying into the system for years, so have paid for it. On top of that, a police officer (RCMP) gave me a ride (about an hour) to the hospital. Imagine that. (go to the arthritis thread for further details on the police officer part)

[Boreas]

It was nice to hear that the US is one step closer to proper health care for ALL of its citizens. I realize this process still has more steps in its journey. I also realize this option is not perfect. It is however, a good start.

Here is some Canadian perspective: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/07/us-health-care.html

[flnudist]

You're joking right???????? Why should the hard working citizen's pay part of a 1.2 trillion dollar package for all the S#1T heads to stupid or lazy to work. :mad: That's ridiculous, I live in FL and have spoke with several Canucks and they don't speak very highly of your health system. All Dems think the answer to everything is more taxes and more spending on stupid crap instead of looking at a real solution to the problems. If it's such a great plan why is it that the news state that 96% of the U.S. are only going to be using it? Whay isn't the POTUS and Congress going to use it. That's like being a Dodge car dealer and telling everyone how great they are and owning Ford. WTF

[Hairgod]

Finally...some one asked him the question!

Yesterday on "abc-tv" (better known as the all barrack channel)

during the "network special on health care".... Obama was asked:



"mr. President will you and your family give up your current health care program
and join the new 'universal health care program' that the rest of us will be on ????"
(bet you already know the answer)

there was a stoney silence as obama ignored the question and chose not to answer it !!!

In addition, a number of senators were asked the same question and their response was."we will think about it."

and they did. It was announced today on the news that the "kennedy health care bill" was written into the new health care reform initiative ensuring that that congress will be 100% exempt !


So, this great new health care plan that is good for you and i... Is not good enough for obama, his family or congress...??

We (the american public) need to stop this proposed debacle asap !!!! This is totally wrong !!!!!

Personally, i can only accept a universal health care overhaul that extends to everyone... Not just us lowly citizens... While the washington "elite" keep right on with their gold-plated health care coverages.

[westie]

I live in The United States of America a Democratic society. Congress and the White House are trying to change this country to a Socialist society.
Following is a few quotes I strongly believe in.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. --- Thomas Jefferson
No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.--- Mark Twain (1866)
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free.
--- P. J. O'Rourke
“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money”---Margaret Thatcher

KEEP YOUR CHANGE AND I WILL KEEP MY FREEDOM

[Mosquito_Bait]

It was nice to hear that the US is one step closer to proper health care for ALL of its citizens. I realize this process still has more steps in its journey. I also realize this option is not perfect. It is however, a good start.

...

Thank you! I think you can see from the attitudes expressed in some of the previous posts why this has been such a long and difficult fight.

[baregreg]

You're joking right???????? Why should the hard working citizen's pay part of a 1.2 trillion dollar package for all the S#1T heads to stupid or lazy to work. :mad:
What a bunch of bull that statement is. There are many hard working people that don't receive health care through their work. Have you priced health insurance lately? Who pays for your health insurance?

You can't lump everyone together.

[Bob S.]

Sorry Boreas, I felt like merging the threads as well as changing this from Health Care reform--my opinions to just Health Care reform. We only need one health care thread.

Bob S.
moderator

[Bob S.]

I am curious, Boreas, why you call universal health care closer to freedom? It is about removal of the freedom to choose your own health care options.

The US has over 1,700 health care plans. How does the US Govt add to the overall better choice? Obama has stated this is about choice an competition, yet he and the Dems do not want to tear down barriers to actually make the marketplace more competitive such as interstate health care options.

It also criminalizes the people's right not to have health insurance. This is much different than auto insurance, by the way, in that driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Just like you need to have a driver's license in order to drive a car, so do you have to have auto insurance. Citizenship is a right to anyone who either was born on US property or went through the appropriate venues to becoming a citizen. Forcing a citizen to buy something just because they are a citizen or are living in the country is not freedom.

The pric e tag is already $1.2 trillion over 10 years, but that doesn't take into account the fact that the US Govt's monopolistic competition (they make the rules and are competing against the same market) will drive many companies out of business. There will then be less competitionand the govt will be supporting more and more people on the same amount of tax increases. It is unsustainable.

Reforms that should happen:

Laws should make it illegal to make it clear that if you are covered, your insurance company cannot drop you without an agreement by both parties and 12 months notification.

Pre-existing conditions should be covered, but the prices will necessarily be more. I have a few pre-existing conditions and expect that I should pay more for a policy than a healthy person. That to me is fair as I am going to be using more of their coverage. It is just like the sin taxes on such things as cigarettes. People pay more in taxes for things that are bad for them to raise moey for their eventual downturn in health, or at least that is the theory.

It should be easy for all health care companies to compete across state lines. More competition, better values you will get.

Health care should be portable and all health care payments should be pre-tax, including health care that one gets from a private company apart from work. The premiums paid should never be allowed to be taxed.

Bob S.

[Boreas]

Sorry Boreas, I felt like merging the threads as well as changing this from Health Care reform--my opinions to just Health Care reform. We only need one health care thread.

Bob S.
moderator

That's okay Bob. This is probably a better spot for it......the first responses were rather abrasive and could have set the tone for a thread. It was not my intent to start a fight.

[Boreas]

Bob, I do have a problem with the government forcing people to do certain things. It does seem that your government involvement is different from ours in health care, at least as this is laid out. Our government funds the health care and the provinces run it, mostly at arms length. We have the Canada Health Act that has guidelines for health care. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/cha-lcs/overview-apercu-eng.php There are five major principles to the act. 1.Public Aministration, 2. Comprehensiveness, 3. Universality, 4. Portability and 5. Accessibility. These are described in the link I provided. Of course, with any government act, it is far more wordy than that. So, as a Canadian, I know that I will get health care if I need it. Yes, we have wait times. Those are improving greatly. Most regular health needs are covered. Some that aren't would fall under cosmetic surgery, or non-essential. I live in BC. If I visit Newfoundland and get sick, I will be able to get care without having to worry about fees and such.

I believe universal health care is closer to freedom because a person cannot be free if they cannot get their health needs met. We have posters in this forum who have not been able to access very necessary medical proecedures because their insurance does not cover them. I have spoken to people who cannot get chemotherapy for a treatable cancer because their insurance will not cover it. There are people who will not get checked out when the issue is small, and then end up with bigger health problems as a result. The most mind boggling thing to me is that the number of Americans who are not covered or are inadequately covered by insurance comparable to or greater than the entire population of Canada. And that is apparently okay to some. I fail to understand that.

If citizens are to be truly free, they need to have the structure to live healthy and free lives. That is not saying that the government spoon feeds them, or that it is anywhere near a socialist regime. It means that the net is there, and people can access the services. Too many people cannot even access the services in the US and that is supposed to be okay. Also, when people are not as healthy as they could be, they are more of a drain on the system. If you value the so called American dream where people can succeed wth hard work, you cannot at the same time have measures in place that keep people down. Not being able to access appropriate health care can keep some people out of the free market.

I had foot surgery on oct 28th. I had access to two good surgeons in my area, even though this is a somewhat remote, out of the way area. If for some reason I did not like them, I could have gone to Edmonton or Vancouver for the surgery. Because my insurance is subsidised through my taxes, I only pay about $100 for the two of us per month. That is probably a family rate. I do not have to pay anything additional for the surgery. My surgeon is excellent, and did a great job, as far as I can tell so far. I am grateful that I did not have to worry about whether I was covered on top of everything else I had to worry about in the process of deciding to proceed with surgery. When my husband took some sort of allergic reaction that necessitated a trip to Emerg, we did not have to worry about bills for the services he received.

While I know that the bill as presented for health care down there right now is far from perfect, it is a step in the right direction. It does not need to be an indication that the US is becoming socialist. In fact that idea is so laughable......as if that would ever happen.

[Boreas]

You're joking right???????? Why should the hard working citizen's pay part of a 1.2 trillion dollar package for all the S#1T heads to stupid or lazy to work. :mad: That's ridiculous, I live in FL and have spoke with several Canucks and they don't speak very highly of your health system. All Dems think the answer to everything is more taxes and more spending on stupid crap instead of looking at a real solution to the problems. If it's such a great plan why is it that the news state that 96% of the U.S. are only going to be using it? Whay isn't the POTUS and Congress going to use it. That's like being a Dodge car dealer and telling everyone how great they are and owning Ford. WTF

Your sample size of Canadians that you use to judge the Canadian system is not very scientific. You will be talking to people who are more affluent and likely worship at the altar of the "Free Market". I suspect you are a follower of Fox News. That is hardly "Fair and Balanced", or whatever they call themselves. Instead of throwing insults, why don't you enlighten us with potential solutions.

[NudeAl]

Yeah I was watching C-span and was very happy to see it pass. About time this country caught up with the rest of western civilization. They even had on Republican vote for it though I was pissed to see that 39 Dems voted against it WTF? Now on to the senate that is going to make this look like a cake walk. Strategy delay, delay, delay, then it will be election season and nothing will get done. Oh well some things never change.

[Naturist Mark]

I am not very happy with how "reform" has turned out. We should have kept it simple and just expanded Medicare to everyone, with an option to allow anyone to switch to any other plan they want.

Instead we are going to get a system where if you like the insurance your company provides - you can keep it. If you don't like it - you still have to keep it. The vast majority of us - over 90% - will not have any choices.

So we have a ridiculously complex system of mandates, penalties and affordability tax credits, and available only to a tiny percentage of the self-employed and employees of a few small businesses there will be a health care exchange system - the only place competition will actually occur - but they will very carefully keep most of us out of it. We'll get a system designed to benefit the insurance companies by giving them subsidies and to almost completely remove any consumer choice or competition. The only good thing I have to say about it is that it will extend insurance to the majority of those who today are caught between not being poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, nor lucky enough to have an employer provided plan. The crippled "public option" will be available to almost no one and is designed to be too expensive, even though we know how to make it effective and low cost - that can't be allowed because that would make it better than private insurance.

This plan will do almost nothing to control expanding costs - costs that continue to expand at double digit rates even as the rest of the economy is experiencing deflation. Real competition could have exerted a downward pressure on medical costs.

The cost of this plan is far higher than it would have been with real choice built in and a robust - but optional - public option available to everyone would have been, but it is still much much much less than the cost of doing nothing - remember, doing nothing will require us to find an additional $5.7 Trillion tax dollars over the next 10 years in addition to what we are already paying in tax dollars each year.

My hope is that when the Senate passes its bill and the two bills go to reconciliation, they decide to throw them both out and substitute a better plan. But I don't have too much hope since both parties and the Administration are owned by Wall Street and the insurance companies and no plan will be allowed to go forward that doesn't reward them.

[MoonShadow]

I am curious, Boreas, why you call universal health care closer to freedom? It is about removal of the freedom to choose your own health care options.

The US has over 1,700 health care plans. How does the US Govt add to the overall better choice? Obama has stated this is about choice an competition, yet he and the Dems do not want to tear down barriers to actually make the marketplace more competitive such as interstate health care options.




I was going to stay away from this topic, but when I read certain statements, well, here I am. :)

Initially, health care reform was about:

Having a government option means AFFORDABLE health care. The purpose of the government option healthcare coverage is to provide the millions of uninsured healthcare at an affordable price. The current health insurance industry DOES NOT provide that.

the healthcare debate is NOT ABOUT FREEDOMS. It is about CHOICES and having a choice to afford healthcare coverage.

However, I am going with what Mark posted. What currently passed through the House and is now being debated in the Senate IS NOT offering the millions of the uninsured an affordable option. What happen? Why now do we have a government option being shredded into a waste-of-anyone's time to pass it period?!? And yes, Mark, I think you hit the nail on the head with your statement, "But I don't have too much hope since both parties and the Administration are owned by Wall Street and the insurance companies and no plan will be allowed to go forward that doesn't reward them."

It is a shame! If we don't have healthcare reform now, millions of us will never have healthcare coverage because you can be damn sure the healthcare industry as it is structured now isn't going to do anything!!

[ki4kxq]

The passing in the House was a sham. The one Republican was from New Orleans, and pretty much had to vote yes as that is the wishes of his particular constituency.

As for the Senate, a bill with a public option will not be passed. That has been made clear. Also, as the time moves closer to the midterm elections, more and more Democrats will defect.

Our country does not need this multi trillion dollar expenditure that will not do anything to bring down health care costs. This bill was not about health care anyway, but just another try at making more and more folks dependent on the government and at their mercy. No Thanks!!

Again, 85% of Americans are happy with the health care options they have. Instead of fixing things for the unhappy 15%, the government tried to turn the whole system upside down, destroying the system that 85% are happy with. They have been stopped so far, hopefully, they will never get this thing through and will be forced to go back to common sense free market reforms.

[MoonShadow]

Again, 85% of Americans are happy with the health care options they have. Instead of fixing things for the unhappy 15%, the government tried to turn the whole system upside down, destroying the system that 85% are happy with. They have been stopped so far, hopefully, they will never get this thing through and will be forced to go back to common sense free market reforms.

Really? Happy with the current status quo? Yet, millions are without affordable healthcare coverage. So what about those not able to afford the current premiums with the current health care insurance industry?

What free market reforms are you referring to?

[nimrod]

Again, 85% of Americans are happy with the health care options they have. Instead of fixing things for the unhappy 15%, the government tried to turn the whole system upside down, destroying the system that 85% are happy with. They have been stopped so far, hopefully, they will never get this thing through and will be forced to go back to common sense free market reforms.

99% of all statistics are wrong, 73% of people do not believe in statistical data, 42% of women have breasts. See I can make up statistics too.:p

[Kouak]

99% of all statistics are wrong, 73% of people do not believe in statistical data, 42% of women have breasts. See I can make up statistics too.:p

You made those up??? :laugh: They look 100% accurate to me. BTW: You forgot this statistic: Half of all men have butts.

[Boreas]

LOL. I love the rebuttals to the statistics! Good job.

I would also love to hear some realistic "free market" reforms that benefit the ordinary citizen. As far as I am concerned, that is as utopian and realistic as all those other theories put forth by academics in ivory towers. The "free market" is a myth.

[Naturist Mark]

You're joking right???????? Why should the hard working citizen's pay part of a 1.2 trillion dollar package for all the S#1T heads to stupid or lazy to work. :mad: F

You are aware, are you not, that all those who are to(o) stupid or lazy to work already get free healthcare through Medicaid.

The people without insurance are those with jobs where their employer doesn't offer a plan, or an affordable enough plan, or the self-employed who can't buy affordable personal insurance because they or a family member have a pre-exisiting condition - like my nephew who has hemophilia.

So let's clarify, are the s**theads those who already have insurance through Medicaid - and are not affected by the health care reform bill, or the hard working people who DO have jobs and pay taxes but don't have employer provided insurance? Is my nephew a s**thead for being of such poor moral character that he "caught" hemophilia?

Oh, and buy the way - it's 700 billion, not 1.2 trillion dollars. And it will actually reduce the deficit because of offsetting savings. Not that I'm all that thrilled about it - I'd rather just let everybody choose to buy into Medicare if they want - easy, simple, and zero tax cost.

[Naturist Mark]

LOL. I love the rebuttals to the statistics! Good job.

I would also love to hear some realistic "free market" reforms that benefit the ordinary citizen. As far as I am concerned, that is as utopian and realistic as all those other theories put forth by academics in ivory towers. The "free market" is a myth.

Hey! Wouldn't it be great if we had a free market in health care insurance? Almost none of us do. We take what our employers offer, or do without. And these new bills, designed by and for the insurance companies will give us even less choice. You won't be able to decline insurance anymore, and you still won't have the option of choosing an alternative. Only 2% of us will be able to choose the "public option" - and it has been so crippled that it will be more expensive than private insurance so as not to compete "unfairly", or at all, with private plans. That is not a free market reform.

The insurance company execs are high fiving each other right now. They are getting at least 40 million new customers, who can't say no, along with public subsidies to help pay their high premiums (the tiny "public option" will get no subsidy at all - it will be completely funded by enrollees without any tax dollars).

But hey, the Republicans finally came up with an alternative plan. It would cost more than the Democratic bills, and would actually increase the number of uninsured Americans.

I'd really like a third choice.

[Boreas]

Hey! Wouldn't it be great if we had a free market in health care insurance? Almost none of us do. We take what our employers offer, or do without. And these new bills, designed by and for the insurance companies will give us even less choice. You won't be able to decline insurance anymore, and you still won't have the option of choosing an alternative. Only 2% of us will be able to choose the "public option" - and it has been so crippled that it will be more expensive than private insurance so as not to compete "unfairly", or at all, with private plans. That is not a free market reform.

I totally agree. I do not believe there is any such thing as a true free market. Big business will make sure that does not exist.

MoonShadow and Mark, your explanations of the current bill are sad. Is there any hope that the US can get something that is fair to the average citizen or will lobbyists prevail in Washington?

[Naturist Mark]

Is there any hope that the US can get something that is fair to the average citizen or will lobbyists prevail in Washington?

Of course the lobbyists will prevail, but there is still a chance for something that is a little more fair.

The Senate has yet to pass its version of the bill - that could happen next week, or take 6 months. Assuming it gets past all the filibuster threats, then the really important work begins - a joint House and Senate reconciliation committee will be appointed to combine the different bills into a single bill to be voted up or down in both houses. They could make minimal changes to fit the bills together - or it could end up an entirely different bill (which might be the best thing that could happen).

Another possibility - assuming the Senate bill gets successfully filibustered, it could be reintroduced as a budget reconciliation bill - in this case as an amendment to the annual Medicare budget authorization, which is a Must Pass bill and not subject to filibuster, so it would only need a simple majority to pass. Despite what some pundits say about using budget reconciliation being "unprecedented" and "undemocratic", it is often used to pass major legislation - including both of George W Bush's tax cuts. I'm not certain about the parliamentary rules involved, but it might be possible for leader Reid to submit the current bill as a budget reconciliation bill without first going the normal route - which he would only do in the face of serious filibuster threats.

[countryguync]

This evening my local PBS station ran a repeat of A FRONTLINE episode about the American Health Care System. The reporter went to different countries that rank at the TOP of the list of the best in the world. (We rank at number 37) He pointed out how each countries system works, the costs, benefits and drawbacks. He ended his report from TIAWAN, which has taken the best of each in the world and created a good system.

The main thing is to take the PROFIT out of the insurance business AND get the costs under control. Why should doctors be charging so much for services and not give results. Put the docs on salary and charge based on ailment. A flat fee nationwide for each ailment or service rendered.

and I am DAMNED SICK AND TIRED of hearing people say they don't want public heath care because they want to keep the plan they have now and yet no one will be making them change plans. I am 55 y/o, no job, no insurance. Where do I go to get health care? I do not qualify for MEDICAID.

[ki4kxq]

This evening my local PBS station ran a repeat of A FRONTLINE episode about the American Health Care System. The reporter went to different countries that rank at the TOP of the list of the best in the world. (We rank at number 37) He pointed out how each countries system works, the costs, benefits and drawbacks. He ended his report from TIAWAN, which has taken the best of each in the world and created a good system.

The main thing is to take the PROFIT out of the insurance business AND get the costs under control. Why should doctors be charging so much for services and not give results. Put the docs on salary and charge based on ailment. A flat fee nationwide for each ailment or service rendered.

and I am DAMNED SICK AND TIRED of hearing people say they don't want public heath care because they want to keep the plan they have now and yet no one will be making them change plans. I am 55 y/o, no job, no insurance. Where do I go to get health care? I do not qualify for MEDICAID.

Hmmm, after spending over 100k dollars to go through medical school, I wonder just how many docs would be signing up for your plan of capping their earnings? Not many. Already, a good number of docs have said they will hang up their white coats if a public option is passed. Large numbers now are already turning away medicaid and medicare patients. What good does it do you to have a public option if the doctor won't accept the plan?

The unemployment rate is 10%, that means that 90% have a job. There are still places hiring, some with benefits. You may have to work a couple of part-time jobs to either get insurance or make enough to buy your own. The bottom line is this, you are the one who needs to take responsibility for yourself and your situation. Not the government, not the insurance companies, not the taxpayers who don't want this mess no matter how much you think that it's your "right" to have others settle for a bad plan because you need something.

[Boreas]

Hmmm, after spending over 100k dollars to go through medical school, I wonder just how many docs would be signing up for your plan of capping their earnings? Not many. Already, a good number of docs have said they will hang up their white coats if a public option is passed. Large numbers now are already turning away medicaid and medicare patients. What good does it do you to have a public option if the doctor won't accept the plan?

Now that is malarky and spin. Many doctors around the world work in public option health care systems and make very good money. Our docs do not get their earnings capped. They work generally on a fee for service basis. In this town, they do shifts in Emerg and earn more. Then there is on-call, anaesthetics, maternity duties that can earn them more money. I can assure you, that a GP who just works in the family practice, or a doc who just works in Emerg can make a very good salary. You have presented a very scarlet red herring.




The unemployment rate is 10%, that means that 90% have a job. There are still places hiring, some with benefits. You may have to work a couple of part-time jobs to either get insurance or make enough to buy your own. The bottom line is this, you are the one who needs to take responsibility for yourself and your situation. Not the government, not the insurance companies, not the taxpayers who don't want this mess no matter how much you think that it's your "right" to have others settle for a bad plan because you need something.

Many employers do not have benefits, or have inadequate benefits. In some areas, these are the only employers hiring.

Your country has a big problem. Offering adequate universal health care does not diminish personal responsibility. It can enhance it. People cannot take responsibility for their lives if they have certain health issues.

[MoonShadow]

The unemployment rate is 10%, that means that 90% have a job. There are still places hiring, some with benefits. You may have to work a couple of part-time jobs to either get insurance or make enough to buy your own. The bottom line is this, you are the one who needs to take responsibility for yourself and your situation. Not the government, not the insurance companies, not the taxpayers who don't want this mess no matter how much you think that it's your "right" to have others settle for a bad plan because you need something.

There are millions of uninsured WORKING, and working hard but cannot afford health insurance. These are people who ARE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for themselves but cannot, repeat, cannot afford healthcare. And let's repeat again, a government option WOULD NOT BE THE GOVERNMENT taking care of people as those who would join the plan WOULD PAY for this healthcare.

Most part-time jobs WILL NOT pay benefits. There are millions of minimum wage earners working two to three part-time jobs and many working two full-time jobs but still cannot afford healthcare. Why is this difficult for you to see?

[MoonShadow]

Your country has a big problem. Offering adequate universal health care does not diminish personal responsibility. It can enhance it. People cannot take responsibility for their lives if they have certain health issues.

Quite right, Boreas!

[David77]

In Sick Around the World, FRONTLINE teams up with veteran Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/notebook.html) to find out how five other capitalist democracies (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/) -- the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- deliver health care, and what the United States might learn (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/themes/lessons.html) from their successes and their failures.

See Frontline's video at;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/

[marko486]

My 2 cents on how this thing looks like its gonna turn out. They will end up passing something but it will be so watered down and would not hardly cover anyone. The big question is how this play out next election cycle. The Republicans seem to think it is something they can hang that their hat on, but I don't believe that will be the case. I think there is high expectations for much more then will materialize. Obama ran on a platform of reform and healthcare for the masses and won quite decisively, though obviously there were other issues. In the end, I think it is quite clear who opposed it. How well that is sold in the next election remains to be seen.

[nimrod]

The bottom line is this, you are the one who needs to take responsibility for yourself and your situation. Not the government, not the insurance companies, not the taxpayers who don't want this mess no matter how much you think that it's your "right" to have others settle for a bad plan because you need something.

And what about those who are unable to work full time or even enough part time hours because of illness/disabilities to earn enough to buy insurance? Are these people just being irresponsible?

[Naturist Mark]

The bottom line is this, you are the one who needs to take responsibility for yourself and your situation. Not the government, not the insurance companies, not the taxpayers who don't want this mess no matter how much you think that it's your "right" to have others settle for a bad plan because you need something.

How do you suggest that my nephew, who is very healthy but has hemophilia take responsibility for his situation? I suppose you could come up with some reason to blame him for his "choice" to be hemophilic, but that "choice" has made him effectively uninsurable. Ironically he works part time as an EMT (ambulance driver-medic). His company can't afford to hire him for full time and put him on insurance because the premiums for the entire company would be more than doubled just because a single healthy hemophiliac is added to the group.

The purpose of insurance is to spread risk as widely as possible. Private insurance is opposed to that. So what is the "responsible" thing to do?

[ki4kxq]

And what about those who are unable to work full time or even enough part time hours because of illness/disabilities to earn enough to buy insurance? Are these people just being irresponsible?

Illness and/or disabilities that would prevent one from working would qualify them for medicaid and/or disability.

[ki4kxq]

How do you suggest that my nephew, who is very healthy but has hemophilia take responsibility for his situation? I suppose you could come up with some reason to blame him for his "choice" to be hemophilic, but that "choice" has made him effectively uninsurable. Ironically he works part time as an EMT (ambulance driver-medic). His company can't afford to hire him for full time and put him on insurance because the premiums for the entire company would be more than doubled just because a single healthy hemophiliac is added to the group.

The purpose of insurance is to spread risk as widely as possible. Private insurance is opposed to that. So what is the "responsible" thing to do?

I think we have all forgotten the purpose of insurance. It is to cover the event that couldn't be planned for. Take auto insurance. When you put full coverage on your car, the insurance company wants you to come to their office so that the agent can inspect the car for previous damage. In other words, pre-existing conditions. They then will note the damage on the policy and not cover that damage in case of an accident.

People have life events that are certainly unfair. However, the government is not our parents, they are not here to take every unfair event out of life. No one is suggesting that hemophilia is your nephew's fault. However, he has known he has had this disease I am guessing, most of his life. Therefore it will be up to him to make sure he does things a little better than the next guy. A bigger emergency fund, saving better for retirement, self insuring. Unfair? Yep! Most folks have some burden to carry, that one is his.

[ki4kxq]

Now that is malarky and spin. Many doctors around the world work in public option health care systems and make very good money. Our docs do not get their earnings capped. They work generally on a fee for service basis. In this town, they do shifts in Emerg and earn more. Then there is on-call, anaesthetics, maternity duties that can earn them more money. I can assure you, that a GP who just works in the family practice, or a doc who just works in Emerg can make a very good salary. You have presented a very scarlet red herring.





Many employers do not have benefits, or have inadequate benefits. In some areas, these are the only employers hiring.

Your country has a big problem. Offering adequate universal health care does not diminish personal responsibility. It can enhance it. People cannot take responsibility for their lives if they have certain health issues.

Your own Minister of Health or whatever their title is, was just talking about the doctor shortages in Canada. So you do indeed have that problem.

Here in the States, more and more docs are already refusing medicare and medicaid patients. It is not malarky and spin, it has been happening for years already. Docs will do the same with a government option plan that they are doing already with medicare and medicaid.

[Boreas]

Your own Minister of Health or whatever their title is, was just talking about the doctor shortages in Canada. So you do indeed have that problem.



Yes, we do have a shortage of doctors in this country. It is not because of insurance. It is due to a collection of events that they are now trying to remedy.

You are so focused on your ideology you cannot see beyond that. It colours your view. To say that "oh, it is too bad Mark's nephew has hemophaelia" and comparing it to auto insurance is just plain wrong. Are you aware that in some cases rape is considered a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies are more interested in the profit than they are in covering people. That is just plain wrong.

You just do not understand how having a proper health care network actually increases people's freedom and autonomy.

I will give you one thing though. You do hold true to your worship at the altar of the free market, and blaming the individual for all that happens to them.

[MoonShadow]

I will give you one thing though. You do hold true to your worship at the altar of the free market, and blaming the individual for all that happens to them.


Amen, to that!

Amazing how callous some are.

[Procrastinator]

People have life events that are certainly unfair. However, the government is not our parents, they are not here to take every unfair event out of life. No one is suggesting that hemophilia is your nephew's fault. However, he has known he has had this disease I am guessing, most of his life. Therefore it will be up to him to make sure he does things a little better than the next guy. A bigger emergency fund, saving better for retirement, self insuring. Unfair? Yep! Most folks have some burden to carry, that one is his.

It's a shame that The Wizard of Oz is only a fantasy, as you are sorely in need of a visit to The Wizard to obtain a heart.

I find your total lack of compassion and simple human decency toward fellow human beings to be almost incomprehensible. Any more words from me will get me banned from here.

[Naturist Mark]

People have life events that are certainly unfair. However, the government is not our parents, they are not here to take every unfair event out of life. No one is suggesting that hemophilia is your nephew's fault. However, he has known he has had this disease I am guessing, most of his life. Therefore it will be up to him to make sure he does things a little better than the next guy. A bigger emergency fund, saving better for retirement, self insuring. Unfair? Yep! Most folks have some burden to carry, that one is his.

So, his strategy should be to be rich and lucky? Even though employers will avoid giving him a full time job because his health benefits will blow up the premiums for the whole company? And he doesn't dare be self employed?

The average annual healthcare bill for a healthy adult hemophiliac is around $100,000. How do you plan for that?

[MeBNude]

I have to agree with Mark and Procrastinator. While not acusing anyone of being a Nazi, the ultimate result of some of ki4kxq's suggestion feel a little "Aryan Nation" to me. She and I went through a similar interchange a month or so back.

I suppose that only the most fit and the most blond and the most perfect... luck of the genetic draw deserve to move forward, work, have health care, procreate. I didn't ask to be born. I didn't ask to have the disabilities that I was saddled with.

I am very happy that I am here. But I do believe that it is appropriate that a government entertain the notion and make efforts to level the playing field for all of us less fortunate folk when capitalism and private enterprise has failed to even care.

I spent two decades advocating for people stomped on by corporate America, often pro bono/volunteer bases. So then I suffer a two year health fiasco, without insurance for one of the two last years. I don't think that it is unreasonable for me after paying decades of taxes (without taking every possible deduction that I thought might be slightly legal) to hope that I might get a hand up in my time of need.

I don't know. Just my opinion. Just glad to be alive and glad to be here!! Thanks all!:)

[nimrod]

Illness and/or disabilities that would prevent one from working would qualify them for medicaid and/or disability.

Not always true, some do not qualify for benefits for various reasons. One reason is that they have a spouse that works and makes just enough to not slip in under medicaids cut off, but not enough to afford insurance for their spouse. What should happen then?

Another reason why some are denied is that they own to much, they have too many assest to qualify. Should they deliberately put themself in an even worse situation so that they will qualify?

[Naturist Mark]

Illness and/or disabilities that would prevent one from working would qualify them for medicaid and/or disability.

True. Anyone who is not rich and does not have really good insurance that can't be easily canceled has faced the choice of going into "voluntary" poverty in order to qualify for Medicaid and stay alive. My sister used to run an AIDs support agency in the 90s, a large part of her job was showing her clients how to spend down their income on uncompensated health expenses each month in order to qualify for Medicaid. Of course once they lose the ability to keep working (and in the process have lost all their savings and possessions) they'll be officially disabled and will qualify for the SSI and Medicare that could have prevented them from losing everything if they could have gone on it from the beginning - what a horrible, punitive, heartless, kick them in the face system we have for the unfortunate. How much cheaper would it have been for the government to just pay for HIV care without having to destroy the finances of HIV victims and their families? How much better for the economy if those people could have kept working longer, and their families could have maintained their standard of living? That isn't socialism, that is protecting capitalism one middle class family at a time.

"Voluntary" poverty is a survival strategy people with hemophilia like my nephew may have to face. Perhaps when he is dropped from his parent's insurance after his next birthday. Right now he is healthy, he is working two jobs (and sometimes a third) and dreams of starting his own business. But any savings or investments he is able to put away (after paying school loans - he is a recent graduate) will always be at risk. And heaven forbid he ever have family responsibilities. In no other advanced nation in the world would there be so many roadblocks to him being a productive successful contributor to society.

[NudeAl]

I have to agree with Mark and Procrastinator. While not acusing anyone of being a Nazi, the ultimate result of some of ki4kxq's suggestion feel a little "Aryan Nation" to me. She and I went through a similar interchange a month or so back.

I suppose that only the most fit and the most blond and the most perfect... luck of the genetic draw deserve to move forward, work, have health care, procreate. I didn't ask to be born. I didn't ask to have the disabilities that I was saddled with.

I am very happy that I am here. But I do believe that it is appropriate that a government entertain the notion and make efforts to level the playing field for all of us less fortunate folk when capitalism and private enterprise has failed to even care.

I spent two decades advocating for people stomped on by corporate America, often pro bono/volunteer bases. So then I suffer a two year health fiasco, without insurance for one of the two last years. I don't think that it is unreasonable for me after paying decades of taxes (without taking every possible deduction that I thought might be slightly legal) to hope that I might get a hand up in my time of need.

I don't know. Just my opinion. Just glad to be alive and glad to be here!! Thanks all!:)

Bingo this was my first reaction too. I felt like okay we have seen this once before and it didn't work out so well. The only recourse that those of us without power or wealth is our government which is supposed to represent our interests. That is all we have with out that we are back to being serfs for our lords. Needless to say this goes against my idea of what we rebelled against all those years ago.

[Illinois59]

To all those who think they have the world by tail, remember what comes out from underneath the tail.

[Boreas]

To all those who think they have the world by tail, remember what comes out from underneath the tail.


Good one! :applause:

[ki4kxq]

Bingo this was my first reaction too. I felt like okay we have seen this once before and it didn't work out so well. The only recourse that those of us without power or wealth is our government which is supposed to represent our interests. That is all we have with out that we are back to being serfs for our lords. Needless to say this goes against my idea of what we rebelled against all those years ago.ro

Wrong. The goverrnments job is not to look out for your interests. The federal governments job is to protect your ability to pursue your interests by keeping you safe from harm from outside interests. There other job is to make sure that infrastructure is in place, roads, transportation, patent law, the list is very small and specific.

Any other items should come from your state government. That is what the constitution calls for. I am not a Nazi, I want our government to abide by the contract that was given to us, the Constitution. Maybe you should read it sometime and what the founders thought about things like poverty, health care, socialist programs.

By the way, one founder Ben Franklin had a notable quote on poverty. He said, " to cure poverty one needs to be made uncomfortable in his poverty". Sounds like the opposite of what we have now where the government rolls out some new bailout and/or handout every week.

Also, charity comes from your neighbor, not your government. We give apx 20% of our income to various causes. That is what is supposed to happen. Not have the government rob people with the threat of jail to give to whom they seem fit.

[Naturist Mark]

I want our government to abide by the contract that was given to us, the Constitution. Maybe you should read it sometime and what the founders thought about things like poverty, health care, socialist programs.

Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[ki4kxq]

Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And you know that general welfare as proposed by the writers of the constitution does not mean stealing from those who achieve to give to those that don't. In fact, their words in the federalist papers and supporting documents to the constitution show just how much they despised that sort of government.

Again, the specific powers of the federal government are spelled out in detail as to what congress can and cannot fund.

[Agde]

It interesting to see the mishmash of health care reform emerging. As Paul Krugman pointed out in a NYT op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&em) back in August, the original Obama idea was very close to the (very non-socialist) Swiss health care model. As I mentioned in another thread (http://clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=246094#post246094), I have lived under a number of health care systems and the Swiss system was my favourite. It kind of demonstrates that the government's role in health care doesn't have to be so much different than in roads and autos -- more technical than ideological -- so it is amazing to me that there is so much over-the-top polemics among otherwise smart people when trying to adjust the US system to something as straightforward, compatible, and tested as a Swiss-style hybrid of private insurance and common sense public regulation.

[Naturist Mark]

And you know that general welfare as proposed by the writers of the constitution does not mean stealing from those who achieve to give to those that don't. In fact, their words in the federalist papers and supporting documents to the constitution show just how much they despised that sort of government.

Again, the specific powers of the federal government are spelled out in detail as to what congress can and cannot fund.

Did you learn that from Glenn Beck? The guy who thinks he is Thomas Paine, but forgot to read (or perhaps comprehend) what Thomas Paine wrote (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/glenn-beck-is-thomas-pain_b_187102.html)?

"General Welfare" is in the Constitution twice. Not by accident. It is in the preamble and in the Taxing and Spending Clause of Article 1. James Madison (one of the founders of the Democratic Party) argued that the General Welfare Clause was limited to questions of taxation, while Hamilton (a Federalist) took the expansive view that has been predominantly endorsed by the courts - particularly since the New Deal (Helvering v. Davis) when it was explicitly used to recognize that Congress has plenary power to tax and spend money to promote the well being of the public (general welfare).

I'd like to see where in the Federalist Papers either side complained of government that steals from those who achieve to give to those that don't. I suspect that is from Glenn Beck's historical dementia. In fact, the closest I can find to such sentiment is from Glenn's idol Thomas Paine (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/16/beck-thomas-paine/), except that Paine took the redistributionist side. But what do you expect from someone who promotes an anti-progress movement named after the Boston Tea Party, while getting the history almost exactly backwards. The anti-tax teabaggers don't quite realize that the Boston Tea Party (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/15-10) was a revolt against the granting of tax cuts to the largest corporation in the world - the British East India Company - to the detriment of middle class American merchants and traders.

[missouriboy]

I have not read the whole fifty pages of squabbling on here, so I don't know if this thought has come before or not. But I'll still post this letter to the editor that presents a well thought out reminder of the difference between free enterprise and socialism...
What happened to medical progress?

The development of new life-saving medicines and medical treatments has ground to a halt in every country that has government-run healthcare because socialized medicine takes the profit out of medical research.

Is such an end to medical progress a trade-off we Americans are willing to accept in exchange for government-run (socialized) healthcare?

If this terrible health plan is put in place, what assurances would we have that money for research to improve modern medicine and even find cures for medical problems would be available so that we can have true medical progress?

The answer is obvious. (Signed) name, North Carolina

[Naturist Mark]

I have not read the whole fifty pages of squabbling on here, so I don't know if this thought has come before or not. But I'll still post this letter to the editor that presents a well thought out reminder of the difference between free enterprise and socialism...

He'd have a good point if any of that was true.

Most medical (and drug) development in the United States is done in universities and primarily funded by the federal government. THEN private industry scoops up the results. Since the 1980s we have allowed the privatization of publicly funded research, and in return we get the highest prices on the resulting technologies. For example, just today I heard that the average MRI costs $160 in Japan, and over $2000 in the USA.

The pharmaceuticals and medical device companies argue that their sky high US profit margins are needed to pay for the R&D they do ... not mentioning that much of the actual R&D is paid by the taxpayer. And contrary to common belief, much of the progress today is the result of R&D in Europe, yeah - stone age socialist godless Europe - especially in pharmaceuticals (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cPOoKn1sLvk/Sm81CiqFmHI/AAAAAAAABOA/Z3-AHiY2aFo/s1600-h/pharma_research.png). US firms mostly contribute marketing innovations - like slight chemical variations and formulation changes that allow them to repatent the same drugs.

But be proud America! We're Number 37! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4)

[Kouak]

Most medical (and drug) development in the United States is done in universities and primarily funded by the federal government. THEN private industry scoops up the results.

I disagree with this statement. While there is a lot of research done at universities, pharmaceutical companies also do their own research. I contracted as a programmer to one such company and know first hand that they have a large R&D department. The are using computers more and more to try to pre-qualify compounds for the more expensive lab tests.


For example, just today I heard that the average MRI costs $160 in Japan, and over $2000 in the USA.

Sounds like someone else listens to NPR too! The other thing that the story mentioned was that the MRI originally cost $2300 but insurance negotiated a price of $1700. Think about it. Those without insurance will be charged $600 more than the insured. That is a 35% penalty for not having insurance for those people who can least afford it.

[Naturist Mark]

I disagree with this statement. While there is a lot of research done at universities, pharmaceutical companies also do their own research. I contracted as a programmer to one such company and know first hand that they have a large R&D department. The are using computers more and more to try to pre-qualify compounds for the more expensive lab tests.

Yes there is a lot ... sort of ... about 5.5% of total health expenditures are for R&D.

About 40% of those health R&D dollars are from various taxpayer sources, the remainder from industry and private philanthropy. Research America (http://www.researchamerica.org/uploads/healthdollar08.pdf)

Public funding tends to be higher in basic research, while private funding is skewed towards final product development - including, as has been previously noted, towards slightly altering publicly developed technology into privately controlled proprietary products. In other words, most of the innovation and breakthroughs are made on the public dime, then the fruits of those achievements are scooped up by private companies and made proprietary.

[Fitz1980]

What happened to medical progress?

The development of new life-saving medicines and medical treatments has ground to a halt in every country that has government-run healthcare because socialized medicine takes the profit out of medical research.

Is such an end to medical progress a trade-off we Americans are willing to accept in exchange for government-run (socialized) healthcare?

If this terrible health plan is put in place, what assurances would we have that money for research to improve modern medicine and even find cures for medical problems would be available so that we can have true medical progress?

The answer is obvious. (Signed) name, North Carolina

You know. I hear that right-wing canard a lot, but is it really true?

Let's see....


http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/major-breast-cancer-breakthrough-announced-at-bc-cancer-agency-63694862.html
VANCOUVER, Oct. 7 /PRNewswire/ - For the first time in history, BC Cancer Agency scientists in British Columbia, Canada have decoded all of the three billion letters in the DNA sequence of a metastatic lobular breast cancer tumour, a type of breast cancer which accounts for about 10 per cent of all breast cancers, and have found all of the mutations, or "spelling" mistakes that caused the cancer to spread.

The landmark study, which will be published October 8th as the cover story in the prestigious international science journal Nature, helps unlock the secrets of how cancer begins and spreads, thus pointing the way to the development of new breast cancer treatment targets and therapies


http://www.nursingtimes.net/whats-new-in-nursing/swine-flu/uk-scientists-hail-swine-flu-vaccine-breakthrough/5002129.article
UK scientists hail swine flu vaccine breakthrough

28 May, 2009 | By Richard Staines

UK scientists have made a crucial step towards the large scale production of a swine flu vaccine.

The National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) has found a strain of virus suitable for vaccine manufacture, which is being made available to pharmaceutical companies and other flu laboratories.

Part of the Health Protection Agency, NIBSC is one of a group of laboratories belonging to the World Health Organization network that have been trying to produce a virus strain suitable for vaccine manufacture.


http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/sydney-scientists-make-alzheimers-breakthrough-20090603-bv99.html

Sydney scientists make Alzheimer's breakthrough
LOUISE HALL
June 3, 2009
Ads by Google
Every 72 Seconds…

Someone Develops Alzheimer'sLearn About Slowing AD Progress

www.ICARAstudy.com

Scientists in Sydney have discovered a way to stimulate the brain's own stem cells, which has the potential to lead to a new treatment for neurological disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.

Bryce Vissel and Andrea Abdipranoto at the Garvan Institute of Medical Research identified a chemical, called activin A, that is essential for the brain's own stem cells to form new nerve cells, and to repair the brain, following neurodegeneration.

Using a mouse model, the researchers showed that, following acute nerve cell damage, the brain immediately acts to repair itself by replacing the damaged nerve cells with new cells.

The researchers then showed that the brain does this by releasing activin A. But when the chemical was blocked, regeneration stopped.


http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/27/1172063.aspx
Cuba develops 'breakthrough' cancer drug
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:07 AM
Filed Under: Havana, Cuba
By Mary Murray, NBC News Havana Bureau Chief

HAVANA – A Cuban Scientific Research Institute just patented a promising new drug that it says helps terminal lung cancer patients live longer.



http://www.breakthroughdigest.com/diabetes/researchers-discover-mechanism-of-insulin-production-that-can-lead-to-better-treatment-for-diabetes/
Researchers discover mechanism of insulin production that can lead to better treatment for diabetes

November 12, 2009 by admin

How a specific gene within the pancreas affects secretion of insulin has been discovered by researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in collaboration with Japanese and American universities. Their work opens the way for a new understanding of possible paths to battle diabetes and diabetes-related health problems, which are on the rise all over the world.

[Boreas]

Thanks Fitz. There is lots of health research going on in Canada, land of the "socialized" medicine. I wanted to say that I did not have the time or inclination to back up my statement, especially to rebut such a silly comment.

It would be nice if people stopped the fear mongering and actually found ways to provide affordable health care to ALL US citizens.

[Bob S.]

Boreas: "It would be nice if people stopped the fear mongering and actually found ways to provide affordable health care to ALL US citizens."

Preferably without the gargantuan tax increases that will be necessary under either the Democrat's Senate or House proposals. The Repubs have good ideas, but the Dems don't care to hear them and the Repubs have done a poor job putting them to the people.

Bob S.