Health Care reform

[Bob S.]

The biggest problem with health care in the US is the lack of controls on prices. Hospitals tend to be monopolistic when it comes to emergency and higher level medicine. Most areas only have one or two major trauma centers that can handle the worst of the emergencies. This really is very hard to fix so the emergency side of medicine is best handled with insurance.

Everything else from prescriptions to doctor visits and medical testing are easily handled with the use of consumer controls. Right now, everything is handled though insurance companies with the consumer paying a fixed rate depending on their insurance co-pay. The insurance companies are in some cases forced to pay for certain tests, which the medical profession can raise the price and still get paid.

What is needed in the non-emergency payments are health care savings accounts and get the insurance companies out of the way. This would force many doctors to lower the fees and get more competitive or lose patients to doctors who charge less for the same procedures.

On ABC's "20/20" last night, appropriately, they had a story on where John Stossel, the anchor and reporter, did a story on just this kind of situation. He found a company that provided heath care savings accounts to their employees with insurance for catastrophic problems and they found that the company's health care costs fell.

What do people think?

Bob S.

[Sanslines]

I think that since we already have been discussing health care under the Obama thread we might wish to continue our discussions in that thread rather then have two threads about the same thing? Health care reform is an Obama initiative and is certainly related to Obama. Otherwise we will be going back and forth between two threads and that can get rather awkward. Just a thought.

[Fitz1980]

No I'm with Bob, I'd rather discuss it here where that's the actual subject we are supposed to talk about. Rather than the constant thread hijacking and re-hijacking that's been happening when someone changes the subject. Besides I'd like to hear people's idea of health care without so much other stuff related to Obama as a President or even as a person.

[Sanslines]

No I'm with Bob, I'd rather discuss it here where that's the actual subject we are supposed to talk about. Rather than the constant thread hijacking and re-hijacking that's been happening when someone changes the subject. Besides I'd like to hear people's idea of health care without so much other stuff related to Obama as a President or even as a person.

That's fine. As long as we are all on the same page and decide upon one place in which to discuss health care. What usually happens is that the same topic is discussed in two threads and this makes it awkward to go back and forth. Perhaps the health care discussions in the Obama thread can be combined with this thread so as to prevent having to post links here to posts in that thread.

[nakedstudent]

What is needed in the non-emergency payments are health care savings accounts and get the insurance companies out of the way. This would force many doctors to lower the fees and get more competitive or lose patients to doctors who charge less for the same procedures.

On ABC's "20/20" last night, appropriately, they had a story on where John Stossel, the anchor and reporter, did a story on just this kind of situation. He found a company that provided heath care savings accounts to their employees with insurance for catastrophic problems and they found that the company's health care costs fell.

What do people think?

Bob S.

I agree. People seem to be caught up in this misconception that the only way to lower cost is to have a private option. While I do agree with an online marketplace and portions of electronic records (I'd like to see more safeguards and ways to empower the consumer... as proposed too much power goes to D.C.), I think one of the quickest ways to lower cost would be to change insurance to be catastrophic only. If consumers paid for routine care out of pocket, the vast majority of health care would be accounted for.

I'm pretty sure that free health care isn't a right. That's what some are trying to mask by saying "affordable".

I own my body and therefore don't mind paying for it's upkeep.

[MoonShadow]

I'm pretty sure that free health care isn't a right. That's what some are trying to mask by saying "affordable".

I own my body and therefore don't mind paying for it's upkeep.

A public option would not be free. Affordable, yes. Free and affordable are two different animals here.

What do you call affordable? Minimum wage earners cannot afford today's private insurance companies premiums. A $230 a month premium, as an example, is impossible for minimum wage earners.

[Sanslines]

I think one of the quickest ways to lower cost would be to change insurance to be catastrophic only. If consumers paid for routine care out of pocket, the vast majority of health care would be accounted for.

I'm pretty sure that free health care isn't a right. That's what some are trying to mask by saying "affordable".

I own my body and therefore don't mind paying for it's upkeep.

How will any of this reduce health care costs? Health care costs are increasing on average by 10 percent per year. In 10 years or so, we would have over 100 million uninsured and without health care.

How do the poor, who live from paycheck to paycheck, afford to put money aside into health savings accounts? If the suggestion is that the government pay for or subsidize their health care, then where does the government get all of this money from?

Catastrophic health care is a euphemism for very high deductable insurance plans. Where do poor people obtain the money to pay the deductables? No doubt the deductables will increase each and every year as the insurance companies continue to increase profits (as Wall Street demands). Where will people obtain the money necessary to keep up with increasing deductables and premiums?

[Bob S.]

Sanslines, I posted that I was going to discuss my health care issues in the conservatives embarrassed topic. I was thinking about the Obama, but felt like making a new topic.

Sanslines: "How will any of this reduce health care costs? Health care costs are increasing on average by 10 percent per year. In 10 years or so, we would have over 100 million uninsured and without health care."

The same way prices go down in other aspects of economics. Look at gas prices. We all need gas to get around. It goes up and down, but when the price of gas here in the US rose beyond the $4 mark in some places, people altered their lifestyles to drive much less and save gas. The consumers are the best people to gauge how much they are willing to pay for things.

The prices have gone up because consumers are not a part of price control. The insurance companies are and they are constantly being forced to cover more and more. Anything that is forced to be covered can be raised in price and the insurance company has no choice but to pay. Also when you don't have to pay, unnecessary tests and procedures can be done with no thought given to costs. With consumerism, more thought to price and necessity would help drop prices.

Sanslines: "How do the poor, who live from paycheck to paycheck, afford to put money aside into health savings accounts?"

Employers who provide health insurance for employees can spend as much as $9,000 per employee. They could just supply each employee $5,000-$7,500 per employee and save money in the long run. For those who are unemployed or in jobs that don't offer insurance, the govt could provide the $5,000 or another way somehow for a company to provide the money.

As for catastrophic insurance, right now, insurance covers everything so they pay a lot more, and therefore, so do you. If they just went to catastrophic coverage and nothing else, cost for coverage could come down.

Bob S.

[sunfisher]

Health care reform is not going to be easy, there are just too many variables to account for. To start with, education. Colledge/med school is not cheap and many doctors are deep in debt long before they see their first patient. Research. It takes a lot of money for scienctist and engineers to develop and new drugs, equipment and procedures and then go through years of FDA clinical trials before they can be used. Lawyers. If .001% of people have an unforeseen adverse or deadly side effect to a new drug or procedure you have some lawyer out there trying to make himself rich with a classaction lawsuit. The entitlement mentallity. I have the right to have anything I want without having to pay for it. Then comes the veres. Prolife vs prochoice. Insurence has to pay for viagra so a man (even if he is on death row in prison) can get it up and maybe make a baby whereas they don't for birthcontrol pills. Hmm, which cost more, the pill, viagra or baby. Insured vs uninsured. The insured are often charged 50% more than those that aren't in order to cover costs. Medical facilaties still have to pay their staff and operating costs,even if you can't or shut down (Califorina).
And now for the big firestorm (dosen't matter if you blame it on the religious right or liberal left) all life is sacred and must be preserved at any cost. Those that are on death row in prison will be given the best of care untill they die of old age because to exucute them is inhumane. Babies that are born premature or severely mentally/ physically handicapted must also be taken care of, after all they are human. At one time a million would ,out of compation, help to take care of one. Hence the concept of insurence was born.
How to fix todays mess I don't know.

Gene

[BinCo]

BobS: I do not agree with you about how doctors and hospitals will change their rates. My insurance has always covered a certain fee for a certain thing. If the Doc is above that fee I get a bill from the Dr. The only time where this did not happen is when K-P scheduled my colonoscopy at the neighboring hospital. They charge 2x what K-P would pay. I fought it on the grounds that there was not an emergancy and therefore I could have waited until the K-P facility had an opening. K-P conceded and retracted the invoice from the hospital. Otherwise there always seems to be much more than the deductible because of the higher rates some docs charge that the insurance will not cover.

The insurance companies and the providers need to come to a consensus on the price of each thing and then go from there.

I still firmly believe that we need a system that covers everyone. Universal coverage will happen someday, to think otherwise is just plain ignorant. Insurance companies are shooting themselves in the head by causing people so much grief. There isn't a person on this forum that would stand by idly and wait 3-4 months for their car insurance to fix their car or not be up in arms if their roof was tarped for 6 months while the insurance fought about the price. WHY should we bend over and take it for health insurance?

[BinCo]

And now for the big firestorm (dosen't matter if you blame it on the religious right or liberal left) all life is sacred and must be preserved at any cost.

I don't agree with you on this. Terri Shiavo is an excellent case, and there are many more that never got this heated. If you have someone who is brain dead, let them go. I wanted to slap anyone who said that allowing her to die was playing God, but didn't have the mental capacity to see that keeping her alive in the first place was playing God.

Death panels are great, let's start with the ones who started calling them that.;)

[Naturist Mark]

Several points ...

1) the "Poor" and the elderly already get health care as a right. From Medicaid and Medicare. It is the people just above the poor, and many in the middle class who are being squeezed into doing without insurance or with lousy very high deductible plans.

2) High deductible plans (or "catastrophic" plans) are not all that cheap. I know, I was on one when I had a serious accident. When my employer switched from a low deductible 80/20 plan to a high deductible 60/40 plan, we had to pay about 5% more for the lousy plan. But we had to switch because they were raising the rate on the "good" plan by almost 40%. When insurance increases between 10 and 20% every year (for about a 20 to 40% increase after each typical 2 year contract), the high deductible plans become the "holding action" - lousier insurance, but with little or no increase in cost from the previous "good" plan.

3) Medical savings plans plus catastrophic coverage can be a fair to middling deal, IF you have the extra disposable income to afford it. Be aware that you are paying twice for your medical care - you are putting a big chunk of income into savings AND paying premiums that are not all that much lower than comprehensive health insurance. Don't expect a whole lot of rollover once you build up the savings, because you will be paying out of savings nearly as fast, unless you absolutely avoid medical care. It isn't a bad deal overall IF you have the extra income and can afford it, but its a non-starter for almost all of the almost 50 million Americans who are now without health insurance.

==================================================

What do I want to see?

A public option that anyone can buy into at the very least. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel, we already do every kind of health care coverage there is in the US, and the public systems work very well and at lower cost than private insurance.

So let's let anyone buy into Medicare if they wish. Medicare is very efficient - it spends less than 3% on administration and overhead (compared to private insurance's 20 to 40% overhead). Medicare already has the infrastructure, they know how to do the job and what it costs. So let anyone buy into it - we'll have the Medicare's actuarials figure out what it costs per person, and we'll charge that, plus a little extra so that we can subsidize those with lower incomes. That makes it revenue neutral - no new taxes needed, no increase in the deficit. And if it isn't cheaper than private insurance - no one has to buy it! This is the simplest and most effective way to very quickly achieve the goal of closing the health insurance gap. Since it uses what we already have in place, it could be rolled out in a matter of months.

-------------------------------------------------

I like the exchanges too, but that is bit more complex and will take longer. Which is fine. Start with allowing Medicare buy-ins as soon as possible, then establish the exchanges so that Medicare is just another plan that people can choose from the menu.

-------------------------------------------------

But ... If I could really have my way, I'd go with a single payer system that preserves the private insurance option. Such a system would cost considerably less than the aggregate amount of taxes that people now pay that are ultimately spent on health care, plus the premiums they pay for their insurance. We should see a 30% reduction in total cost off the bat (this has already been achieved by the VA).

Instead of enrolling everyone in Medicare, or a Public system like Britain's Health Service, all eligible residents would get a health care voucher. You can use your voucher to enroll in a public plan like Medicare, or to get health coverage from a private insurer - here's where the exchanges come in again. The private insurer would be paid a capitation fee for each voucher equivalent to what the government would spend per person on the public plan (presumably Medicare). If they are more efficient they can make a profit - alternately they can encourage enrollees to pay them an extra fee by providing better services - just like Medicare Advantage plans do - that is something we already do with Medicare for the elderly, so there is no "reinventing the wheel". They could also offer "Medigap" type policies to people who choose to use their voucher on the public plan.

In practice most people could keep their present private health care plans, but start paying for them with the voucher plus a smaller premium than they are now paying.

Most of the cost of the vouchers would be captured by redirecting the tax dollars already spent on healthcare. But ideally most of those taxes will eventually be rescinded and replaced by a flat tax on income - or more simply by rolling it all into the Medicare tax. In no case should the tax be more than current taxes plus healthcare premiums. The biggest advantage to this is that it would completely decouple health care coverage from employment. Industry would no long have to include the cost of employee health care in every product it tries to sell to the world - in competition with industry in countries where the government pays. No longer will people feel they have to stay in dead end jobs in order to keep health care. No longer will people with great ideas hold back from starting new businesses because they can't risk going without personal health care - or afford to provide it to the employees of a start-up company.

[Sanslines]

Sanslines, I posted that I was going to discuss my health care issues in the conservatives embarrassed topic. I was thinking about the Obama, but felt like making a new topic.

Sanslines: "How will any of this reduce health care costs? Health care costs are increasing on average by 10 percent per year. In 10 years or so, we would have over 100 million uninsured and without health care."

The same way prices go down in other aspects of economics. Look at gas prices. We all need gas to get around. It goes up and down, but when the price of gas here in the US rose beyond the $4 mark in some places, people altered their lifestyles to drive much less and save gas. The consumers are the best people to gauge how much they are willing to pay for things.

The prices have gone up because consumers are not a part of price control. The insurance companies are and they are constantly being forced to cover more and more. Anything that is forced to be covered can be raised in price and the insurance company has no choice but to pay. Also when you don't have to pay, unnecessary tests and procedures can be done with no thought given to costs. With consumerism, more thought to price and necessity would help drop prices.

Sanslines: "How do the poor, who live from paycheck to paycheck, afford to put money aside into health savings accounts?"

Employers who provide health insurance for employees can spend as much as $9,000 per employee. They could just supply each employee $5,000-$7,500 per employee and save money in the long run. For those who are unemployed or in jobs that don't offer insurance, the govt could provide the $5,000 or another way somehow for a company to provide the money.

As for catastrophic insurance, right now, insurance covers everything so they pay a lot more, and therefore, so do you. If they just went to catastrophic coverage and nothing else, cost for coverage could come down.

Bob S.

Bob,

The major difference between a government plan and an insurance plan is profit. Government can afford to cover high risk patients and patients who actually become ill and incure expenses. Insurance companies are driven by Wall Street to make profit at all costs. Hence, insurance companies have resorted to all kinds of tricks to maintain and increse their profits. They have denied coverage to patients who have dutifully paid their premiums for years, they have increased premiums year after year for others, they routinely drop some patients, and they will routinely dictated to doctors as to what tests they will allow, what medications they will cover, and how much time doctors may spend with patients.

The worst thing that ever happened to medicine was when business got their nasty hands on it. Before that time, medical and dental fees were affordable to the average wage earner. Insurance was also affordable and patients were not openly abused by the system as it is done now.

Sadly, several doctors that I know have to spend valuable time trying to find alternate medications that will treat a particular medical problem. Such alternatives are not as good as the medication that is actually required, but more and more patients are openly telling their doctors that they just can not afford the proper medication. The insurance companies certainly will not cover those medications.

What is the sense of the present medical care system where most people have no clue that they are playing russian roulette with their health treatements. Depending upon the illness that befalls you, you may or may not be covered by your insurance company. You have no way of knowiing what is or is not covered because such decisions are made by corporate types for purely profit driven reasons.

Medical care is not a consumer product. It is not optional. The government can not afford to keep the existing system where the government is obliged to keep paying out more and more taxpayer money to insurance companies at the rate of 10 percent or more increase year after year.

The whole health care issue is not about the government abolishing insurance health care plans. Obama has repeated over and over again that if someone is happy with their insurance company then they can keep their present insurance plan. However, the insurance companies can not tolerate any kind of government plan that will offer a viable and real option to those who can not, will not, chose not to deal with insurance companies.

I routinely assist seniors with their Medicare statements. I know that Medicare is a lifeline to seniors. Many, if not most, would be dead 15 times over had they been forced to deal with insurance companies. I have also seen those who were sick with cancer had to somehow find the extra energy to fight for their life against insurance companies that want to drop them midstream in treatment because the treatments eat into their profits. Insurance companies do not care if people live or die. They only care about profit. Health care shoud never be about profit. It should be a basic human right that is offered by a compassionate society. If we go around the world and preach to other nations how just and compassionate that we are and yet allow such mistreatment of our sick and vulnerable citizens, then we are clearly guilty of outrageous hypocrisy.

If we want costs to come down, then we must allow a government plan (extension of Medicare) to be created followed by the ability of such a plan to use its fantastic size to drive down costs. Pharmaceutical costs can be driven down if the government were to shop worldwide for such pharmaceuticals. Medical test procedure costs can be driven down if the govenrment offers central government testing labs and facilities. As it stands now, due to the enormous profit potential, many doctor's offices and hospitals create redundant testing facilities all in the name of chasing profits. The consumer pays for all of this. The list can go on and on as to what the govenrment can do versus what the insurance companies will not due.

God help you if you ever become sick with cancer. The insurance companies certanly won't and only then might you find out just what a house of horrors our medical system has become.

[Sanslines]

I don't agree with you on this. Terri Shiavo is an excellent case, and there are many more that never got this heated. If you have someone who is brain dead, let them go. I wanted to slap anyone who said that allowing her to die was playing God, but didn't have the mental capacity to see that keeping her alive in the first place was playing God.

Death panels are great, let's start with the ones who started calling them that.;)

Euthanasia and the right to end one's life are debates that we NEVER have had in this country. Religious fanatics have prevented such a debate from occuring. I have seen terminally ill cancer patients whose greatest fear was being allowed to suffer in extreme pain all due to the fact that the present system will not interfere in the 'natural process'. They pray for a speedy death as that is the end to their suffering. We routinely put down animals that would suffer but we won't do the same to humans.

[Mosquito_Bait]

Why does anyone believe the following.

1. Medical costs can be contained while continuing to have large numbers of uninsured people getting their medical care in hospital emergency rooms.

2. After eight years of ignoring the issue, Republicans are sincere about developing an alternative plan to "fix" healthcare.

3. Government cannot be trusted to be involved in our healthcare, but large insurance companies can be trusted.

[MoonShadow]

Euthanasia and the right to end one's life are debates that we NEVER have had in this country. Religious fanatics have prevented such a debate from occuring. I have seen terminally ill cancer patients whose greatest fear was being allowed to suffer in extreme pain all due to the fact that the present system will not interfere in the 'natural process'. They pray for a speedy death as that is the end to their suffering. We routinely put down animals that would suffer but we won't do the same to humans.

Good post! You are right that we will put down a suffering animal but not humans. When the end of life comes and an individual will do nothing but suffer great agony, why aren't we humane enough to end it especially when the individual wishes it to end?

No living being should suffer the end of their days in agony. It's inhumane.

[MoonShadow]

Why does anyone believe the following.

1. Medical costs can be contained while continuing to have large numbers of uninsured people getting their medical care in hospital emergency rooms.

2. After eight years of ignoring the issue, Republicans are sincere about developing an alternative plan to "fix" healthcare.

3. Government cannot be trusted to be involved in our healthcare, but large insurance companies can be trusted.

Excellent questions!

Those in Congress need to work TOGETHER to get a public option out to the rest of us. This partisanship is just more of the same, I am not going to work with you as you are the opposite party. It is disgusting.

Until we have a public option, the status quo will continue and we know what that is doing. It is not insuring those who have no coverage and it won't.

[NudeAl]

To those in Congress who oppose public health care I ask you to demonstrate the strength of your convictions by doing away with the health care benefits you already receive as a public servant. Think that will happen anytime this century?

[LamontCranston]

Those in Congress need to work TOGETHER to get a public option out to the rest of us. This partisanship is just more of the same, I am not going to work with you as you are the opposite party. It is disgusting.

Until we have a public option, the status quo will continue and we know what that is doing. It is not insuring those who have no coverage and it won't. Alas, herein lies the problem. You say that everyone in Congress needs to work together to enact YOUR solution. I would encourage our public servants to seek to provide an equitable, affordable and effective solution to the problem at hand.

The phrase "public option" is just that, a phrase. It's good for sound bytes and it fits on a posterboard but it doesn't by itself solve anything.

Definition of the problem.
At least three proposals.
Each proposal includes risks, rewards, pros, cons, expense, and funding sources.
Proposals are written, not released to the public verbally in bits and pieces announced by 535 different Congress people over four months.
Informed decision.
Leadership.
Planned execution and rollout hitting projected schedule milestones and budget figures.
Progress reports.

Let's do that... :eek:

I've said this before: Medicaid, Medicare and the Veteran's Administration are publicly funded health care programs serving a sector of our population. Let's expand the eligibility requirements and funding to cover the currently uninsured, or put together and fund a fourth program to cover the currently uninsured.

Write a bill and bring it to the floor of the House and vote on it. Do the same in the Senate. Reconcile the differences and vote on it again. The President signs it and we're done.

That would be Leadership.

Touring the country throwing ideas against the wall to see what pleases people is what I would do because I'm not a leader.

Those are my opinions...

[MoonShadow]

Alas, herein lies the problem. You say that everyone in Congress needs to work together to enact YOUR solution. I would encourage our public servants to seek to provide an equitable, affordable and effective solution to the problem at hand.

The phrase "public option" is just that, a phrase. It's good for sound bytes and it fits on a posterboard but it doesn't by itself solve anything.

Definition of the problem.
At least three proposals.
Each proposal includes risks, rewards, pros, cons, expense, and funding sources.
Proposals are written, not released to the public verbally in bits and pieces announced by 535 different Congress people over four months.
Informed decision.
Leadership.
Planned execution and rollout hitting projected schedule milestones and budget figures.
Progress reports.

Let's do that... :eek:

I've said this before: Medicaid, Medicare and the Veteran's Administration are publicly funded health care programs serving a sector of our population. Let's expand the eligibility requirements and funding to cover the currently uninsured, or put together and fund a fourth program to cover the currently uninsured.

Write a bill and bring it to the floor of the House and vote on it. Do the same in the Senate. Reconcile the differences and vote on it again. The President signs it and we're done.

That would be Leadership.

Touring the country throwing ideas against the wall to see what pleases people is what I would do because I'm not a leader.

Those are my opinions...

They can call it anything they choose if the label, "public option" irritates people.

They can incorporate it with Medicare expanding Medicare to cover the uninsured. But care needs to be extended here. You do not want the 65 and over to suffer any consquences when a large segment of others under age 65 are added.

[LamontCranston]

You do not want the 65 and over to suffer any consquences when a large segment of others under age 65 are added. Exactly right. We agree on that. And it would seem possible to achieve without spending a new $1 trillion, but that's not the plan. The plan is for something new, big, far-reaching and still murky on the details and the funding and that's where the ball of string starts to unravel.

And look what else happened. You and I agreed on something with only a few sentences of debate. I read Mark's big post below and agree with a lot of that too. See? This isn't really so hard, which makes me and others wonder aloud at the real goal here. ;)

While all this health care reform is being debated, the war in Afghanistan turned in the deadliest two months (July and August) since it began in 2001, along with a national election and a troop escalation. The objective seems to be "kill as many Taliban as possible until I say stop." Meanwhile, Congress is oddly silent.

Would you send 20,000 U.S. Marines into combat then go on vacation for a month?

[Naturist Mark]

They can incorporate it with Medicare expanding Medicare to cover the uninsured. But care needs to be extended here. You do not want the 65 and over to suffer any consequences when a large segment of others under age 65 are added.

There is no reason that the services provided to those over 65 would have to change in any way if younger people are able to buy into Medicare. Despite the lies designed to scare Seniors, none of the plans under consideration would cut services to Seniors - they already have the coverage we are trying to extend to others.

If anything, it should make Medicare more financially sound since we would be adding a lot of lower risk people to the system.

[Sanslines]

There is no reason that the services provided to those over 65 would have to change in any way if younger people are able to buy into Medicare. Despite the lies designed to scare Seniors, none of the plans under consideration would cut services to Seniors - they already have the coverage we are trying to extend to others.

If anything, it should make Medicare more financially sound since we would be adding a lot of lower risk people to the system.

Mark,

What is your response to those who continue to promote the notion that the health care system would be overwhelmed if 330 million people were placed on a government health plan? There are insufficient doctors and nurses to handle so many people??

[Naturist Mark]

Mark,

What is your response to those who continue to promote the notion that the health care system would be overwhelmed if 330 million people were placed on a government health plan? There are insufficient doctors and nurses to handle so many people??

LOL...

So all the doctors and nurses we have now will be sent to the death panels?

The government health plans under consideration only provide insurance, not replace doctors and nurses. But gee, what about all the multi-million dollar a year CEO's?

None of the plans under development involve putting all 330 million Americans under a government insurance plan. But even if 100% of the public choose the "public option", they'll keep going to the same doctors, clinics and hospitals.

By extending health coverage to the 50 million or so who are currently uninsured, we should decrease the burden on the delivery system. It isn't like they aren't getting health care in emergencies - just more expensive care that isn't covered.

[Bob S.]

Binco: " I do not agree with you about how doctors and hospitals will change their rates."

Well, for one, we get rid of the middle man. The gargantuan amount of red tape standing between you and your doctor. A good amount of money spent is to cover the overhead, both in terms of doctors' employees who must send in the right forms and argue their cases and the people who work for the insurance companies who must approve the procedures. There are some doctors who do not take insurance and only take cash. They charge about the same as what they were charging for co-pays.

Also, there have been stories about people who pay cash (or credit cards) for procedures who get thousands of dollars off of the procedures. One man got up to 40% off of his procedure simply for taking out his plastic. Doctors and hospitals can be negotiated with if the patient is paying without insurance.

Sanslines: "The major difference between a government plan and an insurance plan is profit."

Exactly. The govt has no reason to make a profit. The difference is that when a health care insurance company has money issues, it may just fail. The govt, however, has the power to just raise taxes or sell the debt, thus creating more money for each taxpayer to be indebted. no matter which way, the people pay. Either higher premiums or higher taxes.

Oh and Mosquito, I enjoy August. That is when the Congress is out of town and I know we are safe from them. :D

Bob S.

[David77]

Many permanently disabled persons are provided, not technically insurance, but assurance, assurance that they will receive complete health care from any doctor or dentist or hospital of their choice, who will accept them and accept the reasonable amount of payment the state will pay them - not all doctors wil cooperate with this plan. Incidentally, there are federal matching funds for this program of all the states.

These persons on public assitance benefits in Illinois, for example, get a medical card sent them from the state once a month which they present to the doctor, dentist, hospital verifying their eligibility. Many families with financially depent children get the same medical card sent to them once a month.

This leaves temporarily disables person ineligible for the medical card benefits, as well as the working persons who can not afford health insurance, and persons who are simply unemployed at the time and have no resources for medical care. They are lucky to find a clinic in a big teaching hospital to attend regularly, if need be. Some who become in emergency medical crisis go to the emergeny room of the hospital, and then worry about the astronomical bill they receive in the mail for the service which they, of course, are unable to pay.

In my opinion, it is extremely immoral of our collective conscience, our government, our society, to turn our backs on those who cannot afford good health insurance from an inability to work, or out of work or can not find work, or whose wages are too low to provide basis need, including health care.

[Naturist Mark]

Also, there have been stories about people who pay cash (or credit cards) for procedures who get thousands of dollars off of the procedures.

Usually it is just the opposite. Those who pay for service rather than through insurance are charged much higher rates.

I was charged $98 for "out of network" blood work that my insurance pays only $13 for "in network". $1700 for dental work before I had dental insurance that would now be paid for by insurance at $500-600. Insurance companies can negotiate lower prices, individuals have substantially less leverage. Indeed, providers feel they need to charge the uninsured much more because 1) they need to make up for lost profit margins on insurance work and 2) the appallingly large number of medically caused bankruptcies which prevent payment of a large percentage of uninsured bills.

Still, I can see how cash up front would be appealing to providers - immediate money instead of waiting for insurance, and no collections costs or risk of non-payment. So clearly the best strategy for patients to save money on medical care is to be wealthy.

[nakedstudent]

A public option would not be free. Affordable, yes. Free and affordable are two different animals here.

What do you call affordable? Minimum wage earners cannot afford today's private insurance companies premiums. A $230 a month premium, as an example, is impossible for minimum wage earners.

I recently lost my job (mostly voluntarily) and am between career changes. I was notified (per legal policy) that I had the option to be "COBRA-ed" for over 300 a month. I used one of those online market places to find that I can purchase my own private policy for as little as 90 a month.

I'm not sure where this $230 number you threw out there comes from, but it does not represent my circumstance.

I think it is irresponsible to shuffle expenses into the money that is taken out of compensation. At some point there will be a trade off. In some places, people work as long as the first 6 months just to earn their tax responsibility for the entire year.

In a system where there is so much waste (Social Security, Prescription Drug, and Medicare programs are a combined 59 trillion in debt), I'd say spending much more money could end our ability to sustain any of the good projects our government has.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I saw somewhere in Forbes the other day that the US Federal Reserve has begun printing money to BUY OUR OWN DEBT!!! Now the obvious effect of printing more money is inflation (devalue of the dollar and therefore increased price of goods). I'm not saying this is entirely the Democrats' fault. Bush was extremely fiscally irresponsible. Look at the laughing stock in California where they had to resort to a GARAGE SALE to help bridge the budget gap!

I'm also very reluctant to let much legislation pass because of the nature of people surrounding the president. Chief Science Advisor John Holdren once wrote "Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce." He also said "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. "

These quotes were taken from the Holdren book Ecoscience. This shows a complete backwards thinking of the way the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted. The Constitution was set up to specifically enumerate powers of the federal government. With these reckless interpretations flying around, I really do feel uncomfortable with any law being signed.

A simple google search for quotes regarding to Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd (also a great Youtube video calling Chavez's revolution in Venezuela "incredible"), or Van Jones will reveal some of the very disturbing viewpoints that are within the close advisers to President Obama.

[nakedstudent]

By extending health coverage to the 50 million or so who are currently uninsured, we should decrease the burden on the delivery system. It isn't like they aren't getting health care in emergencies - just more expensive care that isn't covered.

Let's be truthful about this number. According to the Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf , the number of unwillingly uninsured is far lower than 50 million.

According to page 22, 9.74 million non citizens are factored into the 47 million uninsured that the government documents. Furthermore, (on the same page) 8 million of the uninsured are between 18 and 24.

This young category (elsewhere in the document page 6 if memory serves me correctly) earns darn near the median income and is (obviously) mostly single individuals.

The true number of unwillingly uninsured is around 30 million or 10% of the population.

[nakedstudent]

Oh and Mosquito, I enjoy August. That is when the Congress is out of town and I know we are safe from them. :D

Bob S.

AMEN!!! I completely agree with that!!!

[BinCo]

I recently lost my job (mostly voluntarily) and am between career changes. I was notified (per legal policy) that I had the option to be "COBRA-ed" for over 300 a month. I used one of those online market places to find that I can purchase my own private policy for as little as 90 a month.

I'm not sure where this $230 number you threw out there comes from, but it does not represent my circumstance.

I was laid off in early 2001 from my last employer. My COBRA back then was going to be $680 a month. For me alone, since my wife was not covered by company paid policy and I didn't make enough to insure her and her son while she was in school and I was the only breadwinner. $680 a month is a tough nut to crack when unemployment only paid $1200 and I didn't know when I was going to go back to work.

I say my last employer because I now own my business.

You might want to do a lot of due diligence on the company you have insurance with. At that price it's highly likely that you have to pay first and then get reimbursed for your care. A system that would shut down the naysayers in a hurry when they found out it took 6-9 months to get paid 75% of the bill.

[Naturist Mark]

Let's be truthful about this number. According to the Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf , the number of unwillingly uninsured is far lower than 50 million.

Yes, let's be truthful.

Those census figures, from 2007, only count those who were without insurance for the entire calendar year. Ignoring those who lost insurance during the year, or only had insurance for a part of the year.

If we go the other way, and count all those who went without insurance at any time over a two year period, the number is 86.7 million Americans. One third of our population was at risk of complete economic devastation from sudden medical expenses during those last two years. (These numbers were derived from the same data as the Census report by Families USA (http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/05/news/economy/health_uninsured/index.htm))<blockquote>
* Nearly three out of four of those uninsured Americans were without health insurance for at least six months.
* Almost two-thirds of them were uninsured for nine months or more.
* Four out of five of the uninsured were in working families.
* People without health insurance are less likely to have a usual doctor and often go without screenings or preventative care.</blockquote>

A study (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/08/cu_insurance.html) from 2007 found that another 25% of Americans are underinsured

This is not a matter of "voluntary" lack of insurance.

[nakedstudent]

Yes, let's be truthful.

Those census figures, from 2007, only count those who were without insurance for the entire calendar year. Ignoring those who lost insurance during the year, or only had insurance for a part of the year.

If we go the other way, and count all those who went without insurance at any time over a two year period, the number is 86.7 million Americans. One third of our population was at risk of complete economic devastation from sudden medical expenses during those last two years. (These numbers were derived from the same data as the Census report by Families USA (http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/05/news/economy/health_uninsured/index.htm))<blockquote>
* Nearly three out of four of those uninsured Americans were without health insurance for at least six months.
* Almost two-thirds of them were uninsured for nine months or more.
* Four out of five of the uninsured were in working families.
* People without health insurance are less likely to have a usual doctor and often go without screenings or preventative care.</blockquote>

A study (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/08/cu_insurance.html) from 2007 found that another 25% of Americans are underinsured

This is not a matter of "voluntary" lack of insurance.

Hah... now let's just completely revolutionize the way we report data huh?

Here's a stat for you:

In the year 1000, 100% of the people alive were without medical insurance... civilization survived this "moral injustice"...

And how about the number of non citizens that came into the country for less than that full year? Do you think that number might have increased as well? I can guarantee you that 9.74 million was an underestimate in the first place...

[nakedstudent]

You might want to do a lot of due diligence on the company you have insurance with. At that price it's highly likely that you have to pay first and then get reimbursed for your care. A system that would shut down the naysayers in a hurry when they found out it took 6-9 months to get paid 75% of the bill.

That's the way some of my insurance worked before. Vision and dental required me to pay out of pocket and wait for a reimbursement check.

It's all pretty ludicrous to me... I'd rather not pay the monthly premium for vision or dental and pay out of pocket. The once a year fee for a checkup and glasses/contacts is cheaper than the total of the 12 monthly payments you make for the service.

Dental has tracked the same way too. Visits cost far less than the premium I pay for the insurance company to take care of it...

I really would rather just have had the extra money put into my pay... even though I was fiscally responsible enough to not need it...

Future's looking questionable though... I was thinking about getting into pharmacy but I don't know what's going to happen to the field with the current health care proposal. I've heard many people in the profession who say prescription drug coverage often only reimburses them for part of the bill. If that's how the health care bill works as well, I don't think I'd want any part of it... at least not as a business owner...

Soul searching ahead... that's a guarantee...

[Sanslines]

Dental has tracked the same way too. Visits cost far less than the premium I pay for the insurance company to take care of it...


Yes, I have seen my share of dental plans that are 'rigged'. The details are in the math. There are not only caps as to how much would be reimbursed by the insurance companies for each procedure, but there are also limits as to how many of the same types of procedures that you can have per certain time period. A person generally will pay more for insurance premiums then pay completely out of pocket for the procedure.

Yet, most people have no idea about any of this. They blindly accept whatever the dental insurance companies tell them to believe.

The bottom line: Insurance companies exist to make money - NOT to pay for sickness!

[Naturist Mark]

Hah... now let's just completely revolutionize the way we report data huh?

Here's a stat for you:

In the year 1000, 100% of the people alive were without medical insurance... civilization survived this "moral injustice"...

So the fact that 1/3rd of the American population lacked medical insurance for some period during 2007 and 2008 is just an irrelevant historical note from the distant past?

Interesting viewpoint ...

[nakedstudent]

So the fact that 1/3rd of the American population lacked medical insurance for some period during 2007 and 2008 is just an irrelevant historical note from the distant past?

Interesting viewpoint ...

Oh it's pretty relevant. It probably happened because people started loosing jobs then and health insurance is tied to employment so tightly. I'd like to see stats on the number of people in that group that had no idea that they could get insurance on their own.

I bet that percentage would be pretty high too!

But if the most conservative figure (from the Census Bureau) says over 10% of even this number were non citizens, and another 10% is a nearly completely single subset of the country, earning darn near the median income, it is extremely difficult to say that affordability is the only problem with our current system.

We should not pay for illegal aliens. We simply can't afford them. We should kindly bus them back to Mexico and come up with immigration reform that works for both sides. Until then, we need a certain number of legal, documented immigration points on the border and a sniper tower every 300 yards.

We should not pay for people who have the means to pay for insurance but choose not to. In fact, that choice is a freedom that I don't personally agree with, but don't think should be eliminated, so long as the patient is solely responsible for their medical debt.

My body isn't property of the government or my employer. Why should responsibility for my medical care or insurance be any different?

[Sanslines]

But if the most conservative figure (from the Census Bureau) says over 10% of even this number were non citizens, and another 10% is a nearly completely single subset of the country, earning darn near the median income, it is extremely difficult to say that affordability is the only problem with our current system.

We should not pay for illegal aliens. We simply can't afford them. We should kindly bus them back to Mexico and come up with immigration reform that works for both sides. Until then, we need a certain number of legal, documented immigration points on the border and a sniper tower every 300 yards.

We should not pay for people who have the means to pay for insurance but choose not to. In fact, that choice is a freedom that I don't personally agree with, but don't think should be eliminated, so long as the patient is solely responsible for their medical debt.

My body isn't property of the government or my employer. Why should responsibility for my medical care or insurance be any different?

How about this for a stat:

Bankruptcy and Medical Debt

Most people think that most of those who file bankruptcy did so because they got way over their heads in credit card debt; however, research shows the truth is much more surprising. For the years 2003 and 2004, just over 50 percent of all personal bankruptcies were the result of medical debt by those with health insurance. A significant percentage of those listing medical debt as the reason for their bankruptcy are 65 and older. Other groups disproportionately bankrupted by medical debt include single women raising children on low wages or who have been abandoned by their husbands who refuse to pay child support.


The medical debt causing these bankruptcies isn't overwhelming in many circumstances. Statistics available in 2003 are as follows: about 20% of bankruptcy filings involve a medical debt of less than $1,000; about 40% involve a medical debt of less than $5,000; and 13% of bankruptcy filings involve a medical debt of over $10,000. One would think these people could make some sort of payment arrangements to pay off the debt rather than file bankruptcy.


Perhaps many file bankruptcy for the simple reason that the medical collection industry is so inflexible and will not work out reasonable payment plans for those who can not pay the debt off quickly. Instead, hospitals, doctors, and medical collection agencies rush to the courthouse to file small claim lawsuits (those less than $5,000). In fact, many small claims courts are clogged with such suits, with medical debt lawsuits making up a large portion of a court's docket. And this trend is only going to increase as many hospitals, doctors and other medical-related businesses turn their delinquent accounts over to collection agencies in 30 or 60 days rather than waiting the traditional 150 days before doing so. Another trend is for medical-related businesses to sue in small claims court for very trivial amounts, say $100, rather than just write the debt off as a bad debt.


http://www.bcsalliance.com/y_debt_medical.html

[nakedstudent]

How about this for a stat:

Bankruptcy and Medical Debt

Most people think that most of those who file bankruptcy did so because they got way over their heads in credit card debt; however, research shows the truth is much more surprising. For the years 2003 and 2004, just over 50 percent of all personal bankruptcies were the result of medical debt by those with health insurance. A significant percentage of those listing medical debt as the reason for their bankruptcy are 65 and older. Other groups disproportionately bankrupted by medical debt include single women raising children on low wages or who have been abandoned by their husbands who refuse to pay child support.


The medical debt causing these bankruptcies isn't overwhelming in many circumstances. Statistics available in 2003 are as follows: about 20% of bankruptcy filings involve a medical debt of less than $1,000; about 40% involve a medical debt of less than $5,000; and 13% of bankruptcy filings involve a medical debt of over $10,000. One would think these people could make some sort of payment arrangements to pay off the debt rather than file bankruptcy.


Perhaps many file bankruptcy for the simple reason that the medical collection industry is so inflexible and will not work out reasonable payment plans for those who can not pay the debt off quickly. Instead, hospitals, doctors, and medical collection agencies rush to the courthouse to file small claim lawsuits (those less than $5,000). In fact, many small claims courts are clogged with such suits, with medical debt lawsuits making up a large portion of a court's docket. And this trend is only going to increase as many hospitals, doctors and other medical-related businesses turn their delinquent accounts over to collection agencies in 30 or 60 days rather than waiting the traditional 150 days before doing so. Another trend is for medical-related businesses to sue in small claims court for very trivial amounts, say $100, rather than just write the debt off as a bad debt.


http://www.bcsalliance.com/y_debt_medical.html

Do you think this would change with a public plan? Personally I think the US government could go bankrupt with a public plan... Just look at the Debt Clock right now!!!

[Sanslines]

Do you think this would change with a public plan? Personally I think the US government could go bankrupt with a public plan... Just look at the Debt Clock right now!!!

Health care reform should and will include a number of steps to control current runaway health care costs. Right now, with no reforms, health care costs are increasing by 10% to 20%. This rate is unsustainable and will bankrupt the nation. In short, we can no longer afford NOT to have health care reform.

[Naturist Mark]

Do you think this would change with a public plan? Personally I think the US government could go bankrupt with a public plan... Just look at the Debt Clock right now!!!

The latest estimates of the cost of a health reform bill with a public option is $300 billion over 10 years.

The cost of doing nothing, in extra taxdollars spent, will be $5.66 Trillion over 10 years.

Which option is more likely to cause bankruptcy?

[Naturist Mark]

Turns out there really is a problem with immigrants taking advantage of public health care, and the risk of bankrupting the system because of it.

But the immigrants are Americans moving to Mexico.
<blockquote>
Mexico's health care lures Americans (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-08-31-mexico-health-care_N.htm)

MEXICO CITY — It sounds almost too good to be true: a health care plan with no limits, no deductibles, free medicines, tests, X-rays, eyeglasses, even dental work — all for a flat fee of $250 or less a year.

To get it, you just have to move to Mexico. <blockquote>

[Sanslines]

To those who believe that private insurance companies are the answer to America's health care crisis READ THIS:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32729358/ns/health-more_health_news

[Boreas]

This is an interesting discussion. I am glad to see most people are finding some common ground in the discussion. It completely baffles me that this is such an issue in the richest and most powerful country in the world. Also, the number of uninsured or underinsured in your country is comparable to the entire population of Canada. Imagine that, the number of these people could make up a whole country! And that is okay with some people???:confused: I do not get it.

As for paying only for catastrophic healthcare, and not day to day things, that sounds good on a superficial level. In reality, many people put off taking care of the day to day things because they cannot pay for them, and then only get care when it becomes catastrophic. To me it is much cheaper to pay for the small things, and prevent them from turning into big things. The Emergency Department is not the place for routine healthcare.

We have discussion about healthcare in Canada. They seem to be private vs public discussions. Frankly, I think we can look at both Canadian and American systems, and create a plan that uses the best of both.

I will be having surgery on my foot this fall. I had the choice of going to the podiatrist for it, and paying a couple of thousand dollars or having the orthopaedic surgeon to it with no cost. I have chosen the orthopod. As a person who is self-employed, it will cost me in lost wages for a couple of weeks. We need to remember that the costs are not just what the system charges, but also lost wages. If someone is sick for an extended period of time often their wages are lost. Short term and long term disability insurance often only goes so far, if the person has it at all. I am glad I do not have to worry about the cost of the surgery itself, I have enough to worry about already.

Profit should not be in healthcare. Insurance companies are only there to make a profit, and apparently they are doing a fabulous job on that level. It amazes me that people would trust them over the government. I am not saying the government is worthy of blind trust for the record.

The government can set guidelines and principles for how healthcare is delivered without actually running the system. Canada has the Canada Health Act for this purpose.

I am sure glad I am not directly involved in revamping healthcare in either country. I know some good things are happening in Canada. I hope for the same in the US. You have a crisis which must be fixed. I am sure it does not have to be destroyed and rebuilt. Just build on what is working. It sounds like that is an option, with expanding Medicare and Medicaid. Doctors will continue to be paid properly. They get very decent salaries here in Canada. Other health professionals will continue to be paid properly. Well, that is if it is the will of the leadership. Perhaps a system that is not dictated by insurance wogs will work better. Professional staff will be able to do their jobs of helping people, rather than fill out papers and answer to the wogs.

[Naturist Mark]

Why I may end up urging Democratic lawmakers to vote against Health Care Reform:
Sick and Wrong -
How Washington is screwing up health care reform – and why it may take a revolt to fix it (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/)

[Bob S.]

I just thought of one more option that may be worth looking into. Have doctors, hospitals, and all medical centers to post their prices for the procedures. That would include "hidden costs" such as an x-ray eachnician looking at the x-ray and diagnosing the problem vs. just having the x-ray by itself.

If we could get medical procedures priced so that the public knows beforehand what everything costs and could easily price shop for different procedures, doctors may try to compete for businesses by lowering the costs.

Bob S.

[Sanslines]

If we could get medical procedures priced so that the public knows beforehand what everything costs and could easily price shop for different procedures, doctors may try to compete for businesses by lowering the costs.
Bob S.

Better yet, if we could get medical procedures priced so the public knows the real and complete cost of such procedures, the public would get so disguisted to the point where there would be mass migration to a country with affordable health care.

[ki4kxq]

The latest estimates of the cost of a health reform bill with a public option is $300 billion over 10 years.

The cost of doing nothing, in extra taxdollars spent, will be $5.66 Trillion over 10 years.

Which option is more likely to cause bankruptcy?

Why do you guys keep trying to float the notion that either we do the public option or nothing at all. As far as I know, most people have said that reforms need to be made, however, that should not include the public option.

Here's an idea, if President Obama is so sure that he can pay for health care with savings by cutting fraud from medicare and medicaid, let's get that done BEFORE we pass this huge boondoggle of a public option. Thing is, those cuts will never happen. But I'm willing to have an open mind if you save the money first and PROVE that you can do it.

Next, you say that illegals won't be covered, and the bill actually says that. However, there is no provision to check for eligibility by making folks prove citizenship or that they have legal status. Democrats have voted down the bills to make folks prove their eligibility each time they have come up. If you folks want us to take you at your word, pass these bills.

The are too many unanswered questions to pass this health care bill as it stands. Again, President Obama is not working in a bi-partisan manner when he states things that are not facts, and engages in the it's either the bill as it stands or nothing at all.

[Naturist Mark]

Why do you guys keep trying to float the notion that either we do the public option or nothing at all. As far as I know, most people have said that reforms need to be made, however, that should not include the public option.Without a robust public option that is not hobbled to prevent it from being competitive, there will continue to be no reason for private insurance to improve - especially since we will be delivering 50 million new customers who will be required to buy, and we will be subsidizing those same companies with billions of tax dollars. We will be using the law to ensure them more customers and more money - straight from the US treasury with little or no incentive to contain costs or improve efficiency. And remember, the US system is already the most inefficient health care system in the world by a long shot - twice as expensive (or wasteful) of any other nation's.
Here's an idea, if President Obama is so sure that he can pay for health care with savings by cutting fraud from medicare and medicaid, let's get that done BEFORE we pass this huge boondoggle of a public option. Thing is, those cuts will neve happen. But I'm willing to have an open mind if you make the save the money first and PROVE that you can do it. It has already been proven - by the VA over the last 15 years. The best quality care system in the USA with the lowest cost - 1/3rd less than the national average, even though it has a patient population that is significantly higher risk and higher need than their peers.

The dirty secret is that much of the "fraud" and "waste" in Medicare and Medicaid (which by the way are much lower cost and much more efficient than any private plan) are due to holes in their coverage that were deliberately put their to benefit private insurers who sell "medigap" plans and other services. The very worst example is Medicare part D - the drug insurance plan that was deliberately designed to be overpriced and full of fraud.
Next, you say that illegals won't be covered, and the bill actually says that. However, there is no provision to check for eligibility by making folks prove citizenship or that they have legal status. Democrats have voted down the bills to make folks prove their eligibility each time they have come up. If you folks want us to take you at your word, pass these bills. Illegals, like everyone else, cannot be turned away from an emergency room ever since 1983 when Saint Ronnie signed it into law. Nothing whatsoever to do with the current reform plans.

It is perfectly legal for private insurance companies to offer health insurance to illegals, - and they do so routinely. Illegals cannot qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. The measures that have been rejected have nothing to do with offering insurance to illegals, they had to do with making health care providers - doctors and hospitals - determine if a patient is a legal resident.

Please tell me that you want the hospital or your doctor to require proof of citizenship or legal landed immigrant status each time you need care. And heaven forbid you have a birth certificate (like mine) that says "Certificate of Live Birth", because apparently that isn't considered valid proof by Fox News viewers, and you'll have to go bleed somewhere else.

Every government funded plan requires valid ID proving legal status. Just like you already do to get Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

The claim that "All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services." (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free-health-care-illegal-immigrants-health-bill) is a Pants on Fire Lie according to Politifact.

The claim that "Nothing in any of the Democrat bills would require individuals to verify their citizenship or identity prior to receiving taxpayer-subsidized benefits." (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/10/house-republicans/house-republicans-back-heckler-saying-health-bill-/) is at best a half truth but is effectively a lie. House Bill HR 3200 specifies that the "afforability credits" will be issued by the IRS, which will require a valid Social Security number - meaning they are prescreened for legal status.

By the way ... did you know that Joe Wilson (R-SC), the mouth breather who heckled Obama, voted in 2003 to have the federal government PAY for the health care of illegal aliens at hospital emergency rooms? Yep. Mr "You Lie" is on the record supporting free government provided health care for illegals.
The are too many unanswered questions to pass this health care bill as it stands. Again, President Obama is not working in a bi-partisan manner when he states things that are not facts, and engages in the it's either the bill as it stands or nothing at all.The IS NO health care bill "as it stands", there are 5 separate bills that will need to be reconciled into a single bill. Hard to know exactly what it will end up with. And the criticism of "lack of bi-partisanship" by Obama is pure flaming bull-crap on a shiney stick. He has been absurdly open to bi-partisanship with absolutely nothing to show for it except a bill that looks like it will be so watered down and compromised that it will just be a public money give-away to the very insurance companies that caused the crisis in the first place. He needs to stop being Charlie Brown to Lucy and her football and grow a pair (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=240131#post240131).

[Sanslines]

Why do you guys keep trying to float the notion that either we do the public option or nothing at all. As far as I know, most people have said that reforms need to be made, however, that should not include the public option.

Here's an idea, if President Obama is so sure that he can pay for health care with savings by cutting fraud from medicare and medicaid, let's get that done BEFORE we pass this huge boondoggle of a public option. Thing is, those cuts will never happen. But I'm willing to have an open mind if you save the money first and PROVE that you can do it.

Next, you say that illegals won't be covered, and the bill actually says that. However, there is no provision to check for eligibility by making folks prove citizenship or that they have legal status. Democrats have voted down the bills to make folks prove their eligibility each time they have come up. If you folks want us to take you at your word, pass these bills.

The are too many unanswered questions to pass this health care bill as it stands. Again, President Obama is not working in a bi-partisan manner when he states things that are not facts, and engages in the it's either the bill as it stands or nothing at all.

I am certain that you and the rest of the D.C. Mall protesters today will all turn down Medicare and VA Health benefits because these are government programs that you all claim to detest. Or will you and the others prove me wrong and accept VA and Medicare government handouts while hypocritically condemning government health care programs?

[Sanslines]

By the way ... did you know that Joe Wilson (R-SC), the mouth breather who heckled Obama, voted in 2003 to have the federal government PAY for the health care of illegal aliens at hospital emergency rooms? Yep. Mr "You Lie" is on the record supporting free government provided health care for illegals.

Mr. "Lie" is a hypocitical *** who condemns government health run plans and yet accepts the more then generous government health care benefits that are provided to him as a politician.

[Naturist Mark]

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZXFHXqrrJ6g&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/ZXFHXqrrJ6g&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[ki4kxq]

I am certain that you and the rest of the D.C. Mall protesters today will all turn down Medicare and VA Health benefits because these are government programs that you all claim to detest. Or will you and the others prove me wrong and accept VA and Medicare government handouts while hypocritically condemning government health care programs?

You would be wrong. As a veteran, I am eligible for VA benefits. I choose to provide for my own healthcare as do thousands of other vets. We do this because VA care is inferior care in most cases.

[Fitz1980]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EehBHlmESjo&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/EehBHlmESjo&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>

Some advice to President Obama from Bill Maher. Skip to 1:45 if you want to get to the meat and skip the random jokes.

Basically he says that the dems have to get in touch with their inner asshole. Obama needs to stop being the nice guy who wants to let everyone be heard even if they are bat**** crazy or outright lying. Bi-partisenship is fine but when the other party is a bunch of liars and loons who take any attempt to include them as a weakness to be exploited than it's time to say "it's grownup time and we're sick of you and your corporate masters screwing people over for money and political gain."

[Fitz1980]

You would be wrong. As a veteran, I am eligible for VA benefits. I choose to provide for my own healthcare as do thousands of other vets. We do this because VA care is inferior care in most cases.

You feel that way, but plenty of people feel otherwise. Including many who would have NO HEALTH CARE OPTIONS without the VA. Would you deny your fellow veterans care simply because you don't like the VA? Better question. You've said that you feel that if there was a public option it would drive private insurers out of the market despite the fact that you are sure it would be sub-standard treatment. Aren't you living proof that such a situation is not the case. You are eligible for VA care but choose to go elsewhere. Plenty of people choose to send their kids to private school when a good public option is available.

Answer me this one question: Why is having a not-for-profit national public option that's not tax payer funded a bad thing? If it's substandard and nobody is required to pay into it, it will fail. If it works than the current crooks who run the health care industry will have to change they way they do business in order to compete, which is also a good thing. So what's the problem?

[Sanslines]

You would be wrong. As a veteran, I am eligible for VA benefits. I choose to provide for my own healthcare as do thousands of other vets. We do this because VA care is inferior care in most cases.

If you make it a matter of principle to NOT accept any form of government run health care (VA, Medicare) because you are opposed to any government run program, that that is one thing. So many people (politicians included) strongly protest against government health care programs and yet hypocritically and readily accept any government entitlement that they can obtain. Actions speak louder then words and many of those who protest against government programs are pure hypocrits.

[Illinois59]

If you make it a matter of principle to NOT accept any form of government run health care (VA, Medicare) because you are opposed to any government run program, that that is one thing. So many people (politicians included) strongly protest against government health care programs and yet hypocritically and readily accept any government entitlement that they can obtain. Actions speak louder then words and many of those who protest against government programs are pure hypocrits.

The hypocrisy of the rightwingers is unbelievable. They say they believe in the free market but then object if another player enters the market. If these government plans are so bad, why the heck don't the rightwingers start a movement to end Medicare, the VA healthcare program, and MedicAid. Why don't the rightwingers campaign against existing programs? Maybe they have have no guts to take on the existing government programs because it could mean throwing their parents or badly injured veterans out in the street. Or perhaps the religious rightwingers can justify how Jesus, who healed many people with diseases and disablities, would support the denial of healthcare to those who can't afford insurance or are turned down by the insurance companies.

[Naturist Mark]

You would be wrong. As a veteran, I am eligible for VA benefits. I choose to provide for my own healthcare as do thousands of other vets. We do this because VA care is inferior care in most cases.

Turns out it is you who are wrong about the VA.

20 years ago ago it was a mess. But starting in the Clinton Administration they turned it around - completely. The VA health system is now the best in America, and it has accomplished that while spending less money per patient than than anyone else.

From the 2005 Washington Monthly article The Best Care Anywhere (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html)<blockquote>Yet here's a curious fact that few conservatives or liberals know. Who do you think receives higher-quality health care. Medicare patients who are free to pick their own doctors and specialists? Or aging veterans stuck in those presumably filthy VA hospitals with their antiquated equipment, uncaring administrators, and incompetent staff? An answer came in 2003, when the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a study that compared veterans health facilities on 11 measures of quality with fee-for-service Medicare. On all 11 measures, the quality of care in veterans facilities proved to be "significantly better."

Here's another curious fact. The Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a study that compared veterans health facilities with commercial managed-care systems in their treatment of diabetes patients. In seven out of seven measures of quality, the VA provided better care.

It gets stranger. Pushed by large employers who are eager to know what they are buying when they purchase health care for their employees, an outfit called the National Committee for Quality Assurance today ranks health-care plans on 17 different performance measures. These include how well the plans manage high blood pressure or how precisely they adhere to standard protocols of evidence-based medicine such as prescribing beta blockers for patients recovering from a heart attack. Winning NCQA's seal of approval is the gold standard in the health-care industry. And who do you suppose this year's winner is: Johns Hopkins? Mayo Clinic? Massachusetts General? Nope. In every single category, the VHA system outperforms the highest rated non-VHA hospitals.

But when it comes to health care, it's a government bureaucracy that's setting the standard for maintaining best practices while reducing costs, and it's the private sector that's lagging in quality. That unexpected reality needs examining if we're to have any hope of understanding what's wrong with America's health-care system and how to fix it. It turns out that precisely because the VHA is a big, government-run system that has nearly a lifetime relationship with its patients, it has incentives for investing in quality and keeping its patients well--incentives that are lacking in for-profit medicine.</blockquote>

That article has been updated and expanded into a book - you can read excerpts from it here:
Best Care Anywhere:
Why VA Health Care Is Better Than Yours
By Phillip Longman (http://books.google.com/books?id=Pe9-adfujDgC&dq=best+care+anywhere&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=L-2sSvmEA5W2NuS55fIN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

[Bob S.]

Illinois: "They say they believe in the free market but then object if another player enters the market."

We are concerned when the wrong players enter the market. The govt would be making the rules in the same market where they would be competing. That is unfair. They would be telling their competitors what they have to cover while they themselves would never go out of business. Ultimately, they would be pricing the competition out of business.

What could work is if the govt allowed more competition by relaxing the rules that allow interstate buying of health care coverage as McCain and others have suggested. Fair competition is what is needed in health care, not more govt involvement.

For work-based insurance, the employee could make the same pre-tax payments to the insurance companies while the employer could use the money normally paid for the regular insurance to give to the employee for their health care savings account. The employee could spend some of that on more coverage or for use in their normal preventive and other health care spending.

With the competition of forced pricing of all procedures and other medical issues and more competition of health insurers, costs may come down.

Bob S.

[Sanslines]

Turns out it is you who are wrong about the VA.

20 years ago ago it was a mess. But starting in the Clinton Administration they turned it around - completely. The VA health system is now the best in America, and it has accomplished that while spending less money per patient than than anyone else.


Of course she is wrong but to be generous and fair to her she may be making her generalization based upon one VA facility that is local to her.

Many vets retire to San Diego specifically to be near one of the finest VA facilites in the nation. The staff and facilities at the San Diego VA are at least equal to if not better then the UCSD medical facilities.

[Sanslines]

Illinois: "They say they believe in the free market but then object if another player enters the market."

We are concerned when the wrong players enter the market. The govt would be making the rules in the same market where they would be competing. That is unfair. They would be telling their competitors what they have to cover while they themselves would never go out of business. Ultimately, they would be pricing the competition out of business.

What could work is if the govt allowed more competition by relaxing the rules that allow interstate buying of health care coverage as McCain and others have suggested. Fair competition is what is needed in health care, not more govt involvement.

For work-based insurance, the employee could make the same pre-tax payments to the insurance companies while the employer could use the money normally paid for the regular insurance to give to the employee for their health care savings account. The employee could spend some of that on more coverage or for use in their normal preventive and other health care spending.

With the competition of forced pricing of all procedures and other medical issues and more competition of health insurers, costs may come down.

Bob S.

How can costs come down when each and every night the airwaves are full of the latest pharmaceutical advertisements for their latest wonder drug? Enormous amounts of money are spent on this frivolous nonsense. Doctors are the proper individuals who need to be informed of medicines. Patients should not have the latest medicines peddled to them like they are some kind of consumer item. Patients should not go to their doctors and demand viagra or other name brand drugs just so they earn bragging rights to their neighbors and friends. This is an abuse of the medical system.

The only way that prices will come down is if the government takes sensible leadership in forcing those prices down. As it stands now, pharmaceutical companies can afford to be extremely wasteful and still earn enormous profits.

[ki4kxq]

You feel that way, but plenty of people feel otherwise. Including many who would have NO HEALTH CARE OPTIONS without the VA. Would you deny your fellow veterans care simply because you don't like the VA? Better question. You've said that you feel that if there was a public option it would drive private insurers out of the market despite the fact that you are sure it would be sub-standard treatment. Aren't you living proof that such a situation is not the case. You are eligible for VA care but choose to go elsewhere. Plenty of people choose to send their kids to private school when a good public option is available.

Answer me this one question: Why is having a not-for-profit national public option that's not tax payer funded a bad thing? If it's substandard and nobody is required to pay into it, it will fail. If it works than the current crooks who run the health care industry will have to change they way they do business in order to compete, which is also a good thing. So what's the problem?

If it's not taxpayer funded, why does Obama talk about it costing us 900 billion dollars. Of course it's taxpayer funded. Yes, people will pay some premiums, but the rest of the money will come from taxpayers.

Obama said that he will pay for this project with savings from medicare and medicaid fraud. Fine, get the fraud out first. However, we are not that stupid. This new expansion will only expand the fraud, waste, and mismanagement.

Fix what's bad. Hold insurance companies to new standards. Make insurance available across state lines so that instead of apx 5 insurance companies available people will have 1300 or so. That kind of competition will drive down prices as well, just like it has in auto insurance and life insurance.

[ki4kxq]

Of course she is wrong but to be generous and fair to her she may be making her generalization based upon one VA facility that is local to her.

Many vets retire to San Diego specifically to be near one of the finest VA facilites in the nation. The staff and facilities at the San Diego VA are at least equal to if not better then the UCSD medical facilities.

Are either of you eligible for the VA? Have either of you been treated at the VA? I have been to several. That is the reason I now know not to go there.

[Fitz1980]

We are concerned when the wrong players enter the market. The govt would be making the rules in the same market where they would be competing. That is unfair. They would be telling their competitors what they have to cover while they themselves would never go out of business. Ultimately, they would be pricing the competition out of business.

You mean like public schools have done with private schools? Oh wait......

[gmoney]

Let's be truthful about this number. According to the Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf , the number of unwillingly uninsured is far lower than 50 million.

According to page 22, 9.74 million non citizens are factored into the 47 million uninsured that the government documents. Furthermore, (on the same page) 8 million of the uninsured are between 18 and 24.

This young category (elsewhere in the document page 6 if memory serves me correctly) earns darn near the median income and is (obviously) mostly single individuals.

The true number of unwillingly uninsured is around 30 million or 10% of the population.

Hah... now let's just completely revolutionize the way we report data huh?

Here's a stat for you:

In the year 1000, 100% of the people alive were without medical insurance... civilization survived this "moral injustice"...

And how about the number of non citizens that came into the country for less than that full year? Do you think that number might have increased as well? I can guarantee you that 9.74 million was an underestimate in the first place...
Some of these on here don't like it when you put FACTS in their faces. They can't understand it...
If it's not taxpayer funded, why does Obama talk about it costing us 900 billion dollars. Of course it's taxpayer funded. Yes, people will pay some premiums, but the rest of the money will come from taxpayers.

Obama said that he will pay for this project with savings from medicare and medicaid fraud. Fine, get the fraud out first. However, we are not that stupid. This new expansion will only expand the fraud, waste, and mismanagement.

Fix what's bad. Hold insurance companies to new standards. Make insurance available across state lines so that instead of apx 5 insurance companies available people will have 1300 or so. That kind of competition will drive down prices as well, just like it has in auto insurance and life insurance.
That's a great idea but they can't do it. Post Office is losing billions and still HIRING..They don't belive in fixing goverment 1st just meddling in the free market...

[Fitz1980]

That's a great idea but they can't do it. Post Office is losing billions and still HIRING..They don't belive in fixing goverment 1st just meddling in the free market...

So how do you send out your Christmas cards and bills? Would you rather the USPS folded and you could Fed-Ex all of your letters, bills and the like?

[Naturist Mark]

If it's not taxpayer funded, why does Obama talk about it costing us 900 billion dollars.

Sigh ...

The "public option" would be a government run insurance program like Medicare (why not just offer them Medicare?). But it would not be government funded, it would be funded fully by those who enroll in it.

The 900 Billion (actually less), is for setting up the "exchanges" etc., but is mostly for the "affordability Credits" that will be paid to PRIVATE insurers.

Got that? The government program won't get tax dollars. The "private enterprise" insurance programs will get tax dollars.

Oy Veh!

[Sanslines]

Are either of you eligible for the VA? Have either of you been treated at the VA? I have been to several. That is the reason I now know not to go there.

Have you specifically been to the San Diego VA? If conditions are so bad and so widespread as you claim, then there would be numerous articles outlining such horrendous problems. Care to post any articles that objectively state just how horrible the VA is?

[MeBNude]

Having been a victim of the outrageous private system we have here in the U.S., I am looking forward to reform. Below is a post I made earlier today in another thread.

Boreas,

I completely agree. I suppose I should post this in the health care debate thread as well. Having been without insurance for almost a year until Sept. 1, I question the "freedoms" that allegedly come with a free market system. Being without insurance during that time caused me some real, serious life set backs. I lived in France for a year and a half and even as a foreigner I had great access to competent and affordable medical care. Compared to what we see here in the U.S., it was practically free.

Again, I need to think about changing my borders. Canada is closer than France, and I already speak french, so... this could work out!:)

[Illinois59]

Fix what's bad. Hold insurance companies to new standards.

Do you mean ending the "pre-existing condition" exclusions and end the insurance company death panels that refuse to cover situations that may cost them some money? What new standards are going to be applied to insurance companies since the wingnuts are opposed to changing anything regarding healthcare insurance? What do the Republicans offer except "NO"?

[gmoney]

So how do you send out your Christmas cards and bills? Would you rather the USPS folded and you could Fed-Ex all of your letters, bills and the like?

Just don't confuse yourself by thinking it actually is costing you only .44 to mail that letter.
When the goverment is involved, nothing is free, nothing is low cost and NOTHING is for the good of ALL.

[BinCo]

Just don't confuse yourself by thinking it actually is costing you only .44 to mail that letter.
When the goverment is involved, nothing is free, nothing is low cost and NOTHING is for the good of ALL.

Maybe not, but it costs 44 cents to mail it across the street or across the country. Now the USPS is talking about closing a lot of smaller post offices to make up for some of the loss to e-mail and ultra-cheap phone service.

I, personally, hate the USPS for any packages. They try to show how they compete with Fed-Ex and UPS, but they don't have anywhere near the same service. USP and Fed-Ex can actually track a package and allow you to see it too. USPS has no means of tracking and can only bet that it will be delivered when they say it will. If they screw up, no money is returned. If UPS is paid to deliver overnight and it takes 3 days, you get some refund to make up for the cost difference.

Then again, I would not want to pay $3.00 to mail a letter.

[MeBNude]

When the goverment is involved, . . . NOTHING is for the good of ALL.

It's nice to have a place where you can hear all sorts of opinions, even those that are polar opposites to your own. And yet we share our enjoyment of nudism and nudist recreation together.

[BinCo]

Back on Topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4

This video is pretty funny.

[BinCo]

When the goverment is involved, nothing is free, nothing is low cost and NOTHING is for the good of ALL.

Really? Let's look at a few of those things that seem to be pushed into the private sector lately.

1: Government run prison costs:
Buildings
Employees
Incidentals (food and such)
Waste

Private run prison costs:
Buildings
Employees
Incidentals (food and such)
Waste
Profit

2: Government run municipal service (water, sewer, etc) costs:
Buildings
Employees
Incidentals (vehicles and such)
Waste

Private run municipal service (water, sewer, etc) costs:
Buildings
Employees
Incidentals (vehicles and such)
Waste
Profit

3: Government run traffic enforcement costs:
Buildings
Employees
Incidentals (vehicles and such)
Waste

Private run traffic enforcement costs:
Buildings
Employees
Incidentals (vehicles and such)
Waste
Profit

4: Government run school costs:
Buildings
Employees
Incidentals (food, books and such)
Waste

Private run Charter school costs:
Buildings
Employees
Incidentals (food, books and such)
Waste
Profit

5: Government run Armed Forces costs:
Buildings
Employees
Incidentals (equipment and such)
Waste

Private run Armed Forces costs:
Buildings
Employees
Incidentals (equipment and such)
Waste
Profit

That's just a few I could think of off the top of my head in Colorado. See what they all have in common? The main difference is PROFIT! Private sector companies are expecting to make a profit. They reduce waste in order to boost the profit. Some of the reductions are good, like making things more efficient. Sadly, most the reductions are by lowering wages and reducing benefits to the employees. Any savings that they think will happen to the taxpayer are gobbled up by the lawyers who are forever negotiating new contracts and litigation against the current company.

[Naturist Mark]

New study: (http://www.rwjf.org/healthreform/quality/product.jsp?id=48408) 72.5% of physicians favor a public option.

[Boreas]

New study: (http://www.rwjf.org/healthreform/quality/product.jsp?id=48408) 72.5% of physicians favor a public option.

And there is a novel suggestion implied.....get the doctors' and other health professionals' opinions in health care, rather than politicians and insurance wogs!

[Naturist Mark]

Just don't confuse yourself by thinking it actually is costing you only .44 to mail that letter.
When the goverment is involved, nothing is free, nothing is low cost and NOTHING is for the good of ALL.

Until the economic downturn the Post Office was making a sustantial profit - which was sent to the US treasury.

Is UPS, Fed-Ex, Purolator, or DHL offering to send an envelope anywhere in the United States for just 44 cents?

[gmoney]

It's nice to have a place where you can hear all sorts of opinions, even those that are polar opposites to your own. And yet we share our enjoyment of nudism and nudist recreation together.
I have no problem sittin on a beach with anybody and I am a liked person. I'm sure I don't "hang out" with people with huge differing views except maybe "there"
Really? Let's look at a few of those things that seem to be pushed into the private sector lately.

2: Government run municipal service (water, sewer, etc) costs:
Buildings
Employees
Incidentals (vehicles and such)
Waste

Private run municipal service (water, sewer, etc) costs:
Buildings
Employees
Incidentals (vehicles and such)
Waste
Profit


That's just a few I could think of off the top of my head in Colorado. See what they all have in common? The main difference is PROFIT! Private sector companies are expecting to make a profit. They reduce waste in order to boost the profit. Some of the reductions are good, like making things more efficient. Sadly, most the reductions are by lowering wages and reducing benefits to the employees. Any savings that they think will happen to the taxpayer are gobbled up by the lawyers who are forever negotiating new contracts and litigation against the current company.

I can say on this you are way off. My water bill is private at a rate around $40 per month.
I know many that use county water at a rate from $100 to $400 a month with the same usage as me.
Profit should be ok. Private sector can run it more efficient with less cost anyway.

[ki4kxq]

New study: (http://www.rwjf.org/healthreform/quality/product.jsp?id=48408) 72.5% of physicians favor a public option.

I guess that's why thousands of doctors marched on Washington last week and presented petitions to all members of the legislature, against a public option.

[Naturist Mark]

I guess that's why thousands of doctors marched on Washington last week and presented petitions to all members of the legislature, against a public option.

And what percentage of American physicians do you suppose they represent?

Here is the summary of the study from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (http://www.rwjf.org/healthreform/quality/product.jsp?id=48408) and published in the New England Journal of Medicine :<blockquote>A RWJF survey summarized in the September 14, 2009 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine shows that 62.9 percent of physicians nationwide support proposals to expand health care coverage that include both public and private insurance options—where people under the age of 65 would have the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans. The survey shows that just 27.3 percent of physicians support a new program that does not include a public option and instead provides subsidies for low-income people to purchase private insurance. Only 9.6 percent of doctors nationwide support a system where a Medicare-like public program is created in lieu of any private insurance. A majority of physicians (58%) also support expanding Medicare eligibility to those between the ages of 55 and 64.

In every region of the country, a majority of physicians supported a combination of public and private options, as did physicians who identified themselves as primary care providers, surgeons, or other medical subspecialists. Among those who identified themselves as members of the American Medical Association, 62.2 percent favored both the public and private options.

The survey was conducted between June 25 and September 3, 2009 by Salomeh Keyhani, M.D., M.P.H., and Alex Federman, M.D., M.P.H., of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. While the survey was conducted in several “waves” over a tumultuous summer for the health reform debate, no statistically significant differences were identified in physician responses throughout the summer. </blockquote>

[gmoney]

Is UPS, Fed-Ex, Purolator, or DHL offering to send an envelope anywhere in the United States for just 44 cents?

Goes to show, it takes common sense to run a business.
It just takes idiotic taxpayers to fund a goverment.

Thanks for the incite, you are proving to be on the right side after all.

[Naturist Mark]

Until the economic downturn the Post Office was making a sustantial profit - which was sent to the US treasury.

Is UPS, Fed-Ex, Purolator, or DHL offering to send an envelope anywhere in the United States for just 44 cents?Goes to show, it takes common sense to run a business.
It just takes idiotic taxpayers to fund a goverment.

Thanks for the incite, you are proving to be on the right side after all.

"incite" instead of "insight" ... clever.

But I was asking a question - have any of the private companies ever offerred to send a letter anywhere in the US for the equivalent of first class postage? Would they?

The USPS does, and usually makes a profit doing it.

[gmoney]

"incite" instead of "insight" ... clever.

But I was asking a question - have any of the private companies ever offerred to send a letter anywhere in the US for the equivalent of first class postage? Would they?

The USPS does, and usually makes a profit doing it.

They are losing 2 Billion a quarter right now.

Thats 2 Billion with a B.
Hardly a profit and they are still hiring while talking of closing down and limiting days.
It makes no sense except that's how the gov does things...

[Sanslines]

"incite" instead of "insight" ... clever.

But I was asking a question - have any of the private companies ever offerred to send a letter anywhere in the US for the equivalent of first class postage? Would they?

The USPS does, and usually makes a profit doing it.

What appears to be killing the post office are the enormous decreases in mail volume and the prefund retiree health care benefits and yet the postmaster gets 800k in pay:

Postal Service Ends Third Quarter With $2.4 Billion Loss

Year-End Cash Shortfall Likely Despite $6 Billion in Cost Reductions; Customer Service Scores Remain High in Face of Economic Challenges
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The U.S. Postal Service ended its third quarter (April 1 – June 30) with a net loss of $2.4 billion, including a non-cash adjustment that increased workers’ compensation expense by $807 million. Ongoing electronic diversion and the widespread economic recession continued to reduce mail volume, resulting in a $1.6 billion decrease in revenue for the quarter.

Despite cost reductions against the fiscal 2009 plan of more than $6 billion and actions to grow revenue, the Postal Service (USPS) projects a net loss of more than $7 billion at fiscal year-end. The organization’s financial situation is compounded by its obligation to pay $5.4 billion to $5.8 billion annually to prefund retiree health benefits. This requirement, established in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, is an obligation that no other government agency has to pay.

The Postal Service has incurred net losses in 11 of the last 12 fiscal quarters. The fiscal 2009 year-to-date net loss is $4.7 billion, compared to a loss in the same period last year of $1.1 billion, in spite of comprehensive, organization-wide cost reduction initiatives. The organization is working to mitigate a possible Sept. 30 cash shortfall of up to $700 million.

Postmaster General John Potter noted that the Postal Service has maintained a high level of customer service while facing continuing economic challenges. Third quarter service scores for overnight single-piece First-Class Mail remained at 96 percent on-time, while the score for two-day, single-piece First-Class Mail improved 1 percentage point to 94 percent.

"Our commitment to customer service is paramount," Potter said. "We will continue to provide the dependable service our customers need. We also will keep a balance with our critical focus on reducing costs so that service is not diminished.

"Thanks to extraordinary efforts across the entire organization, we are well on track to achieve our 2009 target of more than $6 billion in total cost reductions," said Potter. "In the third quarter, we surpassed the targeted amount by $500 million."

Cost reductions center on initiatives to match work hours to reduced mail volume. Other savings are coming from consolidating excess capacity in mail processing and transportation networks, realigning carrier routes, halting construction of new postal facilities, freezing Postal Service officer and executive salaries at 2008 pay levels, reducing travel budgets and similar measures. Of note is an effort launched this year to reduce the cost of more than 500 existing contracts that will result in short- and long-term savings for the Postal Service in the areas of price, scope and process improvements.

"Securing the fiscal stability of the Postal Service will require continued efforts in all of these areas, as well as further review of retiree health benefit prefunding," said Potter. "It also will require that the Postal Service gain flexibility within the law to move toward five-day delivery, to adjust our network as needed, to develop new products the market demands, and to work with our unions to meet the challenges ahead."

Work hours were reduced by 88 million hours in the first three quarters of fiscal 2009, or 8.4 percent compared to the first three quarters of 2008. "We are on pace to meet our goal of reducing work hours by more than 100 million for the entire year," said Joe Corbett, chief financial officer and executive vice president. "That’s double the rate of last year’s successful work-hour reductions and the equivalent of 57,000 full-time employees, or 8.6 percent of our full-time workforce."

A significant portion of USPS losses are due to an unprecedented decline in mail volume, which has fallen by nearly 20 billion pieces in 2009 compared to the first three quarters of last year. Third quarter mail volume totaled 41.6 billion pieces, down 7 billion pieces, or 14.3 percent, compared to a year ago — the largest consecutive three-quarter drop in total volume since 1971. The trend of letter mail and business transactions being replaced with electronic alternatives will also cause continued downward pressure on mail volume into coming years.
Third quarter results also show an increase in workers’ compensation expense, which increased $722 million or 198 percent compared to the same period last year. The increase reflects a non-cash adjustment of $807 million to the carrying value of the Postal Service’s workers’ compensation liability, due to a change in discount rates caused by the current low interest rate environment.

Complete USPS third-quarter results include operating revenue of $16.3 billion, a decrease of nearly $1.6 billion, or 9 percent, from the same period last year, and operating expenses of $18.7 billion, a reduction of $294 million, or 1.5 percent, from the third quarter of last year. Details are contained in the Postal Service Form 10-Q report, available at http://www.usps.com/financials/ (click Form 10-Q under Quarter Reports).
An independent federal agency, the U.S. Postal Service is the only delivery service that reaches every address in the nation, 149 million residences, businesses and Post Office Boxes, six days a week. It has 34,000 retail locations and relies on the sale of postage, products and services, not tax dollars, to pay for operating expenses. Named the Most Trusted Government Agency five consecutive years by the Ponemon Institute, the Postal Service has annual revenue of $75 billion and delivers nearly half the world’s mail.

For the record, note how seldom the word ‘union’ is mentioned.
It’s mentioned once:
"Securing the fiscal stability of the Postal Service will require continued efforts in all of these areas, as well as further review of retiree health benefit prefunding," said Potter. "It also will require that the Postal Service gain flexibility within the law to move toward five-day delivery, to adjust our network as needed, to develop new products the market demands, and to work with our unions to meet the challenges ahead."
Lest we forget, the United States Postal Service used to be the envy of the world.

Much like our health system is now.

Related Articles:

Post Office Spends Millions On Houses (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/post-office-spends-millions-on-houses)
Postmaster Got $800K In Pay And Perks (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/postmaster-got-800k-in-pay-and-perks)
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/post-office-service-loses-2-4-billion




And Mr. Gilbert is 100% correct.
One word.
Unions.
Got a friend who works a bulk facility. She works the midnight to 8 shift. It is hellish. The union gang bosses do nothing, and I mean nothing. One drinks most of the night and the other sleeps at his desk or eats. Both are immensely overweight. Her co-workers are as weird as Darwin’s Waiting Room. This past election they made sure EVERYBODY knew how to vote. As a woman she’s often afraid for her safety.
And then there’s the issue of why do postal workers go postal?
One word.
Unions.
Byzantine rules, Byzantine culture, Byzantine labyrinths of how to move up the ladder and union bosses with their hands out.
Unions.
But she won’t quit because the nearly $30 an hour she makes can’t be compared to other local jobs.
Unions.

[gmoney]

The USPS does, and usually makes a profit doing it.

You did get this "one" wrong.


The Postal Service has incurred net losses in 11 of the last 12 fiscal quarters

[gmoney]

.



[/INDENT]Lest we forget, the United States Postal Service used to be the envy of the world.

Much like our health system is now.




Are you using irony here?
If what you say is true than why the demand to change it?

[Naturist Mark]

One word.
Unions.

UPS drivers are union.
Not every business succeeds by keeping its employees poor.

[Navigator]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x1I9xsV-g9Y&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/x1I9xsV-g9Y&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]

You did get this "one" wrong.


The Postal Service has incurred net losses in 11 of the last 12 fiscal quarters

It turned a profit of $672 million in the first quarter of 2008, despite sky high fuel prices and declining first class mail due primarily to the emergence of email. Prior to the economic downturn the USPS was averaging a profit of over 1 Billion (with a "B") dollars per year.

[gmoney]

It turned a profit of $672 million in the first quarter of 2008, despite sky high fuel prices and declining first class mail due primarily to the emergence of email. Prior to the economic downturn the USPS was averaging a profit of over 1 Billion (with a "B") dollars per year.

By the 1990s e-mail was a part of everyday life in workplaces and in homes.
That's a long time before 2008.

[gmoney]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x1I9xsV-g9Y&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/x1I9xsV-g9Y&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>

Left wing propaganda......

[Bob S.]

Sanslines: "How can costs come down when each and every night the airwaves are full of the latest pharmaceutical advertisements for their latest wonder drug?"

I hate those as well. They are ridiculous and counterproductive. Doctors are the ones who should be discussing prescription medications with the patients, not the TV. People don't understand what medicines are best for them, that's why doctors are the only ones who can prescribe the drugs. That would be one of my first decisions, to ban prescription companies from advertising for prescription drugs on TV, radio, or in print.

Sanslines: "The only way that prices will come down is if the government takes sensible leadership in forcing those prices down."

Laser eye surgery and other consumer-driven health care are some of the only prices to come down in the health care industry. The reason is that the patients are the consumers and the different companies are fighting for their business.

Fitz: "You mean like public schools have done with private schools? Oh wait......"

That's actually a great comparison, Fitz. The govt is not in control of what the private schools have to teach. They leave them alone. If the govt told the private schools that they could only teach what the public schools taught in teh same way the public schools do things, then there would be far fewer private schools because they would just be the same as the public schools.

Similarly for the Post Office. Why can UPS, Fed Ex, and all other businesses compete with them? Because they do not tell their competition how to run their businesses.

If health care is so vital, what about groceries? Should we next get food insurance? What if we decided to give everyone food insurance and all prices were set by the insurance companies? There would no longer be sales, coupons, specials, or advertising by competing stores to sell their food at lower prices.

Food prices could never go down if outside insurance companies were the ones who controlled the prices. Prices stay lower because of consumer-driven competition. Why people don't think this would work in the health care sector is unknown to me.

Bob S.

[Boreas]

Left wing propaganda......


I have seen the Billionaires for Wealth Care in another You Tube clip, probably earlier in this thread, or in the Obama thread. They were a protest.

All this protest to a universal health care program really makes me wonder if some citizens of the US are out to destroy the nation, or if they are just plain stupid. Coming from a country with universal health care, I am absolutely baffled by the protests. I have mentioned before, that I will be having surgery on my foot in the next month or so. I am glad I do not need to worry about costs or insurance......and that is a relatively minor health concern in the grand scheme of things.

Would you care to explain the opposition to health care without slinging insults? How is corporate insurance companies better than government in running things? How are insurance death panels (essentially, since they deny health care) better than alledged death panels by the Administration? Etc.

[Navigator]

Left Wing propaganda? Hardly. It's humor, satire, irony and parody gmoney. It's exposes the ignorance, about Health Care Reform, of all those who are seriously in touch with their inner Republican.

Here's another one from the same group. Some of their views can be found at www.billionairesforwealthcare.com

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jHVwrCzRUX0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&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/jHVwrCzRUX0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[gmoney]

Boreus goverment run anything is bad.
Look at the history in the US of almost every goverment run program.

That is what the protest are about.
This country is run by the people, for the people not for the bureaucrats in Washington.

When citizens speak out and demand this, they have 2 choices stay employed or move back to the private sector.


What a few in Washington want IS NOT REFLECTIVE of this country as a whole.

[Naturist Mark]

That's actually a great comparison, Fitz. The govt is not in control of what the private schools have to teach. They leave them alone.

Not true in Ohio. Private schools are subject to regulation and supervision by the county boards of education, and are required to teach according to certain broad curriculum requirements. And there is mandatory state testing just like in public schools. Same applies to home schooling.

[Boreas]

Boreus goverment run anything is bad.
Look at the history in the US of almost every goverment run program.

That is what the protest are about.
This country is run by the people, for the people not for the bureaucrats in Washington.

When citizens speak out and demand this, they have 2 choices stay employed or move back to the private sector.


What a few in Washington want IS NOT REFLECTIVE of this country as a whole.


That does not really explain things to me. I live in a country where the government has guidelines and rules, but does not really run things.....as the propaganda would suggest. You are likely to hear a Canadian say that the government ought to do....... for us. We have an entirely different mindset. To me, the absolute fear of anything "government" creates a lot of craziness south of our border. Hanging on to dogma and ideology is not useful, no matter what side of the fence you lie on.

[Naturist Mark]

Boreus goverment run anything is bad.
Look at the history in the US of almost every goverment run program.

Yeah, just look at our disastrous socialist highways, and fire departments, and libraries, and municipal water systems, and the oppressive air traffic control system that keeps planes from flying free like eagles in the wild blue yonder! MY GOD I NEED TO BUY A GUN!

[Boreas]

Not true in Ohio. Private schools are subject to regulation and supervision by the county boards of education, and are required to teach according to certain broad curriculum requirements. And there is mandatory state testing just like in public schools. Same applies to home schooling.


That is the way it is in Canada. There are broad requirements for education standards. Schools, private, public or home schooling must meet those standards. We manage to have a variety of private school formats, along with public and home schooling. Even in thie "socialist" country.

[Naturist Mark]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sdhTumEUBN8&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/sdhTumEUBN8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Naturist Mark]

RIP Patrick Swayze
RIP Crystal Lee "Norma Rae" Sutton (http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/12/norma-rae-dead-health-insurer/)

[ki4kxq]

I have seen the Billionaires for Wealth Care in another You Tube clip, probably earlier in this thread, or in the Obama thread. They were a protest.

All this protest to a universal health care program really makes me wonder if some citizens of the US are out to destroy the nation, or if they are just plain stupid. Coming from a country with universal health care, I am absolutely baffled by the protests. I have mentioned before, that I will be having surgery on my foot in the next month or so. I am glad I do not need to worry about costs or insurance......and that is a relatively minor health concern in the grand scheme of things.

Would you care to explain the opposition to health care without slinging insults? How is corporate insurance companies better than government in running things? How are insurance death panels (essentially, since they deny health care) better than alledged death panels by the Administration? Etc.

The opposition to health care is on several fronts. First, the denial of treatment can and will happen with either insurance or a public option. It has to. Anytime a third party pays for your health care, they have a right to draw the line at some point, for some procedures. Government run public option will do this as well. They must as there is not an infinite amount of money to cover everybody for everything. If we open up and allow all 1300 insurance companies to compete for everyone's business, competition will solve a lot of the problems with insurance companies we have now.

Also, no program such as medicare or medicaid, which some folks want this public option to be modeled after, operates without massive fraud, waste, and abuse. Even President Obama admits this. His plan to pay for the public option would be savings from cleaning up medicare and medicaid fraud. Gee, if that's so easy, clean up the waste now and then we'll talk public option. However, most folks are smart enough to know that we will not clean up any fraud and waste, we will only add billions and billions more by adding more money and patients.

Most importantly, our constitution doesn't allow for it. Our constitution purposely gives very limited power to the federal government. It gives the power to the state governments. This is because the states are more able to determine what their populations need far better than those in DC. The entitlement programs we have now are unconstitutional but are a way of life and will never be repealed. However, we sure don't want to add more. If states want to begin a health care plan, that would be the way to go. Thing is, several states have done just that and not one has worked. TennCare is way over projected costs. Hawaii shut their program down after just 7 months because it was on it's way to bankrupting the state. Massachusetts health care program is deep in the red and is having fraud and waste problems as well.

Does this mean that we can't help those who need assistance on a temporary basis. Of course not, and we should. What folks don't want is a massive federal public option that is a total waste of resources and leads us down the road to a single payer system. The majority of folks are happy with what we have although they do want some reform of the system. Why in the world would we completely change the system for apx 10 million out of 300 million people? That is the actual number of those that chronically have no way of getting health coverage.

[Boreas]

The opposition to health care is on several fronts. First, the denial of treatment can and will happen with either insurance or a public option. It has to. Anytime a third party pays for your health care, they have a right to draw the line at some point, for some procedures. Government run public option will do this as well. They must as there is not an infinite amount of money to cover everybody for everything.

True enough. The Canadian system has limits. It will not pay for cosmetic surgeries. It will not pay for some fertility treatments, and will pay for others......go figure. I do not need to worry about some insurance wog telling my doctor how to practice medicine. Nor do I have a government wog telling me how to practice. If I get a sore throat, I can go to the walk-in clinic, and not worry about whether I will get treatment. if I get cancer, or have a heart attack, I know I will get treatment. Neither the government or an insurance wog will deny me this.

As long as people stick doggedly to the ideology that sees sinister motives in government, or universal health care, nothing will change. Even "cleaning up" the waste and such will not happen.

All I can say is I am glad I live on this side of the border. And believe me, I am not totally trusting of our government. I do know that guidelines and safeguards can be put into place that create a better health care system, and also allows for some freedom of health professionals to practice within that system.

[Fitz1980]

That's actually a great comparison, Fitz. The govt is not in control of what the private schools have to teach. They leave them alone. If the govt told the private schools that they could only teach what the public schools taught in teh same way the public schools do things, then there would be far fewer private schools because they would just be the same as the public schools.

Wrong. The government does dictate what private schools must teach. It's called accreditation.

http://www.northwestaccreditation.org/
"The mission of the Northwest Association of Accredited Schools is to advance excellence in education through the process of accreditation." Accreditation promotes continual school improvement leading to greater student achievement.

The Northwest Association of Accredited Schools accredits distance education, elementary, foreign nation, high, K‑12, middle level, post secondary nondegree granting, residential, special purpose, supplementary education, and travel education schools.

The Northwest Association of Accredited schools is one of the nation's six acknowledged accreditation agencies. The geographic territory of the Association consists of the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, and other geographical areas designated from time to time by the Board of Trustees.

There are others in different regions of the country, but you get my point. There are also accrediting bodies for colleges; both public and private. They set the standards and even insure that religious institutes have to teach actual science instead of creationism & faith healing.

If health care is so vital, what about groceries? Should we next get food insurance? What if we decided to give everyone food insurance and all prices were set by the insurance companies? There would no longer be sales, coupons, specials, or advertising by competing stores to sell their food at lower prices.

What do groceries have to do with health care? I don't even get the comparison. The government does regulate grocery stores. Ever hear of the USDA, FTC or the health department? The government does subsidize people who can't afford grocery stores, ever hear of food stamps.

[Sanslines]

Sanslines: "How can costs come down when each and every night the airwaves are full of the latest pharmaceutical advertisements for their latest wonder drug?"

I hate those as well. They are ridiculous and counterproductive. Doctors are the ones who should be discussing prescription medications with the patients, not the TV. People don't understand what medicines are best for them, that's why doctors are the only ones who can prescribe the drugs. That would be one of my first decisions, to ban prescription companies from advertising for prescription drugs on TV, radio, or in print.

Sanslines: "The only way that prices will come down is if the government takes sensible leadership in forcing those prices down."

Laser eye surgery and other consumer-driven health care are some of the only prices to come down in the health care industry. The reason is that the patients are the consumers and the different companies are fighting for their business.

Fitz: "You mean like public schools have done with private schools? Oh wait......"

That's actually a great comparison, Fitz. The govt is not in control of what the private schools have to teach. They leave them alone. If the govt told the private schools that they could only teach what the public schools taught in teh same way the public schools do things, then there would be far fewer private schools because they would just be the same as the public schools.

Similarly for the Post Office. Why can UPS, Fed Ex, and all other businesses compete with them? Because they do not tell their competition how to run their businesses.

If health care is so vital, what about groceries? Should we next get food insurance? What if we decided to give everyone food insurance and all prices were set by the insurance companies? There would no longer be sales, coupons, specials, or advertising by competing stores to sell their food at lower prices.

Food prices could never go down if outside insurance companies were the ones who controlled the prices. Prices stay lower because of consumer-driven competition. Why people don't think this would work in the health care sector is unknown to me.

Bob S.

I have seen far too many laser eye surgery adverts along with dental implant and lumineer adverst. Both are full of misleading information that is openly and actively promoted to attract customers.

Laser eye surgery is not the cure all that it is made out to be. A little known fact is that laser eye surgery almost guarantees that you will need glasses later in life.

Dental implants are a complicated proceedure that can not be done in a day or a week. Depending upon the individual circumstances of each patient, the entire process may take one year from start to finish. There are periods of time where the gums must heal due to gum surgery.

Lumineers are very thin veneers that are not appropriate for all patients. They are used on the front visable teeth only and they can and do detach from teeth. They are not the cure all that they are made out to be and are primarily sold to people with vanity issues.

These industries will obviously not self regulate themselves to stop the misleading if not downright false advertising. Who is left to stop this consumer misinformation besides the government?

As for food prices, fair competition does not work to the extent that you are trying to say that it does. There is no free market. For example, milk prices here remain high despite the fact that the raw bulk price of milk has gone down. The only ones who receive less money are the farmers who do the backbreaking work to provide the milk. The consumers do not benefit from the drop in milk prices because the business middlemen pocket the profits that they squeeze from the farmers.

[Sanslines]

Wrong. The government does dicate what private schools much teach. It's called accreditation.

Your statement is certainly correct. In New York State, students take the state Regents Exams regardless of whether they attend public or private school.

[gmoney]

Yeah, just look at our disastrous socialist highways, and fire departments, and libraries, and municipal water systems, and the oppressive air traffic control system that keeps planes from flying free like eagles in the wild blue yonder! MY GOD I NEED TO BUY A GUN!

You bring up good points.
The roadway system in this country is in need of major repair, and you need to dig deeper into these municipal water systems. They have many problems as well.

One problem with goverment runs programs is when the money gets tight they fire the people ACTUALLY doing the work but keep the 6 figure heads in place. Lots of private companies start at the top when they try to cut cost. not so with the goverment.

The entire goverment is way out of control in this country.
If Obama was willing to fix known problems with ALL the other gov run programs I would consider what he wants to do elsewhere.
Trying to force an issue this massive down the publics throat the way he has shows in his approval ratings. He's not a leader, right now he is on the campaign trail still. He truly doesn't get it.

[Sanslines]

The opposition to health care is on several fronts. First, the denial of treatment can and will happen with either insurance or a public option. It has to. Anytime a third party pays for your health care, they have a right to draw the line at some point, for some procedures. Government run public option will do this as well. They must as there is not an infinite amount of money to cover everybody for everything. If we open up and allow all 1300 insurance companies to compete for everyone's business, competition will solve a lot of the problems with insurance companies we have now.

This is not meant as an insult, but you really need to look more deeply into this subject. The opposition to health care is driven by uninformed individuals who either will not take the time to properly inform themselves of the factual information out there or are incapable of understanding it. It is extremely important to understand the motivation behind the denial of treatment. Private insurance companies use profit as the primary motivation to deny coverage - government does not. This is the difference between the two. Once this is understood and accepted, then it becomes clear that private insurance companies are driven by the bottom line and will deny coverage at each and every opportunity that they get - government will not.

Another important point to make is that there really is no such thing as a free market. Competition will always have some kinds of rules and regulations in order to prohibit past abuses from reoccuring. The need to create profit is far greater then the need to lower prices and collusion between insurance companies can and will occur.

Also, no program such as medicare or medicaid, which some folks want this public option to be modeled after, operates without massive fraud, waste, and abuse. Even President Obama admits this. His plan to pay for the public option would be savings from cleaning up medicare and medicaid fraud. Gee, if that's so easy, clean up the waste now and then we'll talk public option. However, most folks are smart enough to know that we will not clean up any fraud and waste, we will only add billions and billions more by adding more money and patients.

It is very clear that you are completely at peace with a system that denies coverage to millions of americans. This number grows by the day. As long as you have your assumed health care coverage then that is all that you are concerned about. I agree to clean up waste and fraud and that will only occur if people demand it. You don't demand that. You demand to get rid of any chance of a government option even though you know that this will be one option among many. You know very well that private insurance companies have enormous overhead and problems of waste and fraud of their own. Yet you do not cry out for them to clean up their own mess or demand that they be abolished because of their wasteful record. Why is that?

Most importantly, our constitution doesn't allow for it. Our constitution purposely gives very limited power to the federal government. It gives the power to the state governments. This is because the states are more able to determine what their populations need far better than those in DC. The entitlement programs we have now are unconstitutional but are a way of life and will never be repealed. However, we sure don't want to add more. If states want to begin a health care plan, that would be the way to go. Thing is, several states have done just that and not one has worked. TennCare is way over projected costs. Hawaii shut their program down after just 7 months because it was on it's way to bankrupting the state. Massachusetts health care program is deep in the red and is having fraud and waste problems as well.

The Constitution allows for the protection and general well being of the citizens of this nation. You fail to recognize this important fact. the states do not have the resources or in some cases the competency to establish health care systems of their own. Not all states are equal as you must know. We honestly do not need half the government that we have. So many entire nations have a federal and local governments. We have federal, state and local. We have layer upon layer of government and yet we can't seem to find a way to get rid of half of it. Why do we need so much state government?

Does this mean that we can't help those who need assistance on a temporary basis. Of course not, and we should. What folks don't want is a massive federal public option that is a total waste of resources and leads us down the road to a single payer system. The majority of folks are happy with what we have although they do want some reform of the system. Why in the world would we completely change the system for apx 10 million out of 300 million people? That is the actual number of those that chronically have no way of getting health coverage.

Your ten million number is baloney and you know it. The greatest fear of the private insurance companies is that a viable government plan is created that allows for massive defections from private insurance plans to the public option. This is fact and common sense in spite of the rhetoric that the insurance companies toss out to guillible people.

[gmoney]

Why do we need so much state goverment?

Because they are free states, we do not need federal goverment. You can live in anystate you want.

Federal Goverment is the problem,It is way out of control and only getting bigger. That's is what this country as a WHOLE is fed up with.

[Illinois59]

Lots of private companies start at the top when they try to cut cost. not so with the goverment.



My 40+ years experience in manufacturing tells me that cost cutting in a private business starts at the bottom with equipment maintenance being the first item cut and executive pay never being cut. Right now I'm about a month and a half from losing my job due to a plant closing. Funny thing is that our plant manager says that this plant was profitable for every one of his 26 years as plant manager except for the current year of the economic crash caused by the games played by Wall Street and mismanagement by the top level of the company.

[Naturist Mark]

Beaten women being denied medical care because because wife-beating is a pre-existing condition. Domestic violence is a "pre-existing condition"? (http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/domestic-violence-victims-have-a-pre-existing-condition.php) The 29% of Americans who currently are covered by a public healthcare plan do not have to put up with this kind of insanely inhumane and immoral nonsense.

Crystal Lee Sutton (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090914/ap_on_re_us/us_obit_norma_rae_inspiration), the real life "Norma Rae" who's story won an oscar for Sally Field, died of brain cancer Friday. Insurance company bureaucrats fatally delayed her treatment for several months.

The only "death panels" are at insurance companies.

[Boreas]

Beaten women being denied medical care because because wife-beating is a pre-existing condition. Domestic violence is a "pre-existing condition"? (http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/domestic-violence-victims-have-a-pre-existing-condition.php) The 29% of Americans who currently are covered by a public healthcare plan do not have to put up with this kind of insanely inhumane and immoral nonsense.

Crystal Lee Sutton (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090914/ap_on_re_us/us_obit_norma_rae_inspiration), the real life "Norma Rae" who's story won an oscar for Sally Field, died of brain cancer Friday. Insurance company bureaucrats fatally delayed her treatment for several months.

The only "death panels" are at insurance companies.

It is this type of thing that baffles me. Why is this okay in the most powerful, "free-est" country in the world? That is a sin.

[Sanslines]

Beaten women being denied medical care because because wife-beating is a pre-existing condition.

LOL......LOL........why does this not surprise me???

If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

[gmoney]

Beaten women being denied medical care because because wife-beating is a pre-existing condition. Domestic violence is a "pre-existing condition"? (http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/domestic-violence-victims-have-a-pre-existing-condition.php) The 29% of Americans who currently are covered by a public healthcare plan do not have to put up with this kind of insanely inhumane and immoral nonsense.

Crystal Lee Sutton (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090914/ap_on_re_us/us_obit_norma_rae_inspiration), the real life "Norma Rae" who's story won an oscar for Sally Field, died of brain cancer Friday. Insurance company bureaucrats fatally delayed her treatment for several months.

The only "death panels" are at insurance companies.

SEIU-Acorn-Obama

I see the Big picture......

If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state

Over the weekend, hundreds of people took action, telling Congress that we need health insurance reform now
Much unlike the ten of thousands protesting now.

See the picture? 70%'s are against it....

[Boreas]

SEIU-Acorn-Obama

I see the Big picture......

If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state

Over the weekend, hundreds of people took action, telling Congress that we need health insurance reform now
Much unlike the ten of thousands protesting now.

See the picture? 70%'s are against it....


I knew you'd dismiss this because of the union.

These people had insurance and could not get health care. That is okay with you?

It seems that most of the people protesting the loudest are doing so based on lies and misinformation. They still seem to think Obama is not a Christian, that he was not born in the US, and that he will have death panels. How credible is that?

[Sanslines]

I knew you'd dismiss this because of the union.

These people had insurance and could not get health care. That is okay with you?

It seems that most of the people protesting the loudest are doing so based on lies and misinformation. They still seem to think Obama is not a Christian, that he was not born in the US, and that he will have death panels. How credible is that?

The problem with most of these people is that scream, yell, rant, and rave about government programs and yet if a disaster or tragedy struck them, they would be the first demanding government assistance.

Many of these people will be the first to claim social security, medicare, and other retirement programs that are offered by the government yet hypocritically denouce all government programs. If they so hate government programs, then why are they not leading by example and refusing to accept any government program for themselves? If politicians are so outraged by government programs, then why have they created special government pension and health programs that are above and beyond anything that anyone on social security will ever see?

[EZ Nude]

It seems that most of the people protesting the loudest are doing so based on lies and misinformation. They still seem to think Obama is not a Christian, that he was not born in the US, and that he will have death panels. How credible is that?

It all make sense when you understand that these are the same people that believe that there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll, Elvis is alive and well and living in Kalamazoo, and that the moon landing never happened and it was all done on a Hollywood set..

[BinCo]

One problem with goverment runs programs is when the money gets tight they fire the people ACTUALLY doing the work but keep the 6 figure heads in place. Lots of private companies start at the top when they try to cut cost. not so with the goverment.

Gmoney: As a business owner, I do not agree. I would like you to find me a company that did this. A company in any sector of the economy. Every layoff listed here in Colorado in the past year has started at the bottom, or slightly in the middle. Retail stores close and sometimes the manager will be transfered, but the rest are dismissed. Manufacturing layoffs always start on the production line and sometimes include office people and middle management, never upper management. Construction layoff start with the grunts in the field. Oil and gas layoffs are the field workers actually on the rigs as rigs are pulled from use. Real Estate lays off the realtors first since the managers are usually also realtors. It goes on and on. A few company owners will take cuts in pay prior to a layoff, but I have never seen one get rid of upper management in favor of the line workers.

From a business perspetive it's quite simple to see. If business picks up, it's cheaper to work everyone a little harder and maybe some overtime before you go and hire replacements that take longer to train. OJT people are always the first to go, skilled labor gets it next in line.

[BinCo]

Food prices could never go down if outside insurance companies were the ones who controlled the prices. Prices stay lower because of consumer-driven competition. Why people don't think this would work in the health care sector is unknown to me.

Bob S.

Bob, One word. Collusion.

I have built packaging machines for the pharma industry for about 7 years now. They are always in contact with one another. If someone gets a machine that makes them more efficient, they share it with the "competition". It's the strangest thing I've ever seen. You would think that they are interested in keeping themselves better, but NO. I've had new customers call and tell me point blank that they heard from Bob at Company A that they bought a new packer from us and they want to see it and get a quote on it. I have signed agreements and non-competes that seem to get all blown out of the water by the employees at these companies. This is insurance mail order pharmacy companies. It happens, I've been involved with it on all ends of the deals and it makes me sick. So forget about the "competative" free market. It isn't there.

[BinCo]

I can say on this you are way off. My water bill is private at a rate around $40 per month.
I know many that use county water at a rate from $100 to $400 a month with the same usage as me.
Profit should be ok. Private sector can run it more efficient with less cost anyway.

That's not the case here. Our private company is much higher than Denver Water.

My house water rates for potable water, no sewer as we are all on septic:
0-4000 gal: $49 flat starting fee
5000-7000 gal: $2/1000 gal
8000-11,000 gal:$8/1000 gal
12,000-15,000 gal:$10/1000 gal
16,000+ gal:$20/1000 gal

My house water rates for non-potable irrigation water, charged from April thru November whether you use it or not:
0-10,000 gal: $32 flat starting fee
11,000-24,000 gal: $3/1000 gal
25,000-39,000 gal:$4/1000 gal
40,000-69,000 gal:$5/1000 gal
70,000-100,000 gal:$6/1000 gal
101,000+ gal:$10/1000 gal

Denver Water, including sewer, all treated water:
0-11,000 gal:$1.91/1000 gal
12,000-30,000 gal:$3.82/1000 gal
31,000-40,000 gal:$5.73/1000 gal
40,000+ gal/$7.64/1000 gal

So my water bill in from April thru November starts at $81 and goes up. Denver customers start at $1.91. Let's say that the average splits 4000 gal potable and 16,000 gal irrigation for a total of 20,000 gallons. For me that's $99 and for Denver Water customers it's $55.39. It's simple math. Also, if our water is shut down due to a problem in the system we still have to pay, Denver customers get refunds off the bill if they have system problems that entail needing to flush 2000 gallons to clear out the lines or something.

[Naturist Mark]

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G4TsaHmtgfA&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/G4TsaHmtgfA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[Bob S.]

Fitz: "What do groceries have to do with health care? I don't even get the comparison. The government does regulate grocery stores. Ever hear of the USDA, FTC or the health department? The government does subsidize people who can't afford grocery stores, ever hear of food stamps."

Food is just as vital, if not more so, than health care. And yes, the govt regulates the safety of the food and the other products that they sell. That is what they should do, but they do not regulate the food prices like insurance companies do.

A question, would you want any third party getting between you and the grocery store to pay for the groceries? Food stamps are not the same as a third party as it acts as specific money (it can only be spent on certain approved items). Would you want the govt telling you that you can only buy so many of each item per week, that you can only buy once a week, and that you cannot have a party without their permission (as it would require you going over your limit per week)? Would you want any company saying that?

The competition and free market forces do keep prices down. Even as Sanslines is saying with milk, the prices are controlled by what the customers are paying. This was shown very well last year when gas prices shot up. They hit a tipping point where it affected how much drivers traveled and the stations suddenly had a surplus. Supply and demand caused the gas prices to fall.

Sanslines: "These industries will obviously not self regulate themselves to stop the misleading if not downright false advertising. Who is left to stop this consumer misinformation besides the government?"

That is what the govt is for, to regulate the safety and advertisements of all products and services. I applaud them for that. It is what the govt is there for, not to pay for those procedures for people who can and cannot afford it.

Mark: "Private schools are subject to regulation and supervision by the county boards of education, and are required to teach according to certain broad curriculum requirements. And there is mandatory state testing just like in public schools. Same applies to home schooling."

OK, there is specifics of what they teach, but I was just mentioning that they do not regulate the private schools in the same way they regulate the public schools. Parochial schools can teach whatever else they want and procedures are much different.

Mark: "Yeah, just look at our disastrous socialist highways, and fire departments, and libraries, and municipal water systems, and the oppressive air traffic control system that keeps planes from flying free like eagles in the wild blue yonder!"

Look at the infrastructure problems in the roads system. About 25% of all bridges in the US are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. That is significant. Libraries are always facing shortages of money. But these are things the govt should be dealing with. They are vital to society in that for most of them, it is impossible for the private sector to have any kind of competition.

Bob S.

[Sanslines]

Fitz: "What do groceries have to do with health care? I don't even get the comparison. The government does regulate grocery stores. Ever hear of the USDA, FTC or the health department? The government does subsidize people who can't afford grocery stores, ever hear of food stamps."

Food is just as vital, if not more so, than health care. And yes, the govt regulates the safety of the food and the other products that they sell. That is what they should do, but they do not regulate the food prices like insurance companies do.

Ah but the federal government indirectly does regulate the price of milk through price supports. Have you seen the latest Farm Bill and the myriad of price supports and other incentives to plant this crop and penalties to not plant that crop?

The competition and free market forces do keep prices down. Even as Sanslines is saying with milk, the prices are controlled by what the customers are paying. This was shown very well last year when gas prices shot up. They hit a tipping point where it affected how much drivers traveled and the stations suddenly had a surplus. Supply and demand caused the gas prices to fall.

Ah but the consumer does not control the price of milk. The middlemen actually do. The farmers and consumers are subject to whatever those individuals want to pay and to charge for milk products. As it stands now, many dairy farmers here are eligilble for food stamps as they can't earn enough money to even provide food for themselves. The consumers obviously do not benefit and really have no say in the price of milk. if consumers do not buy dairy products, then ultimately it will be the farmers that will be further hurt.

New York State Milk Gouging Law:

http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us/DI/DIHome.html



Sanslines: "These industries will obviously not self regulate themselves to stop the misleading if not downright false advertising. Who is left to stop this consumer misinformation besides the government?"

That is what the govt is for, to regulate the safety and advertisements of all products and services. I applaud them for that. It is what the govt is there for, not to pay for those procedures for people who can and cannot afford it.

Who will pay for these procedures? Will we continue to see people who could have been treated for their illnesses in a very cost effective manner up front continue to wait until they are deathly ill and then wind up in the Emergency Room where the costs of treating their advanced illnesses will require someone to pay orders of magnitude more then what could have been paid initially?

Pre 1970's, when medicine was not yet turned into a for profit business doctors would make house calls for $20 per visit. There were far more jobs to be had so most people were either working or could find work and could afford to pay their medical bills.

In today's world, we no longer have job stability and we continue to have a seevre shortage of jobs. So many of the jobs today pay minimum wage (which was never designed to be a living wage) and it is impossible for people to pay for their medical bills on such a wage let alone afford health care insurance that may or may not be there for them when they do get sick.

A heart attack today can cost a person easily hundreds of thousands of dollars. Whan minimum wage earning person could ever hope to pay off such a bill?

The medical establishment has had many years to self regulate but has chosen the Wall Street path of endlessly creating more and more profit at the expense of people's lives. There is just something completely wrong about sacrificing lives for profits. This has gone on far too long and it will be up to the government to step in and do something about this serious problem. Govenrment is the choice of last resort. If government is not successful to some extent on changing the current situation, then you can be assured that the numbers of uninsured will continue to increase and the costs of health insurance will continue to rise well above the inflation rate. Consumers as well as taxpayers will continue to pay out ever increasing amounts of money to sustain and to satisfy the medical industry and Wall Street's unquenchable thirst for more money and more profit.

Mark: "Private schools are subject to regulation and supervision by the county boards of education, and are required to teach according to certain broad curriculum requirements. And there is mandatory state testing just like in public schools. Same applies to home schooling."

OK, there is specifics of what they teach, but I was just mentioning that they do not regulate the private schools in the same way they regulate the public schools. Parochial schools can teach whatever else they want and procedures are much different.

Schools have to meet certain basic standards and cover certain basic course material ie English, Mathematics, etc (assuming that we are talking about general education primary and high schools and not some kind of private, special curriculum such as only Farsi language courses). The states and the federal government set rules, regulations, and standards that apply to both public and private schools.

[gmoney]

The problem with most of these people is that scream, yell, rant, and rave about government programs and yet if a disaster or tragedy struck them, they would be the first demanding government assistance.

Many of these people will be the first to claim social security, medicare, and other retirement programs that are offered by the government yet hypocritically denouce all government programs. If they so hate government programs, then why are they not leading by example and refusing to accept any government program for themselves? If politicians are so outraged by government programs, then why have they created special government pension and health programs that are above and beyond anything that anyone on social security will ever see?

That's where you are wrong.

The best example is Katrina---New Orleans a welfare state, people killing each and looting waiting on the goverment for help.

Iowa---Floods----Neighbors helping each other taking care of their own---These types are the protesters because they are sick of what's happening in the US.

Why can't people take care of themselves?
Are they that stupid?

[Illinois59]

Look at the infrastructure problems in the roads system. About 25% of all bridges in the US are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. That is significant. Libraries are always facing shortages of money. But these are things the govt should be dealing with. They are vital to society in that for most of them, it is impossible for the private sector to have any kind of competition.

Bob S.

How about the Catch-22 of the money. The government gets the funds from the taxpayers for roads and libraries. You also have the "Teabaggers" screaming about government taxation and spending. You have a choice - either increase taxes for roads and libraries or wait until bridges collapse and the libraries have outdated and worn-out books and reference materials. Sorry, but if you don't want to spend money on something, you have to do without it.

[Naturist Mark]

Mark: "Yeah, just look at our disastrous socialist highways, and fire departments, and libraries, and municipal water systems, and the oppressive air traffic control system that keeps planes from flying free like eagles in the wild blue yonder!"

Look at the infrastructure problems in the roads system. About 25% of all bridges in the US are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. That is significant. Libraries are always facing shortages of money.


We are reaping the "benefits" of 30 years of deliberate Straussian policy to mismanage government programs in order to prove they don't work. FEMA anyone? Even though Democrats keep getting elected when thngs get really screwed up and start putting things right again ...

But these are things the govt should be dealing with. They are vital to society in that for most of them, it is impossible for the private sector to have any kind of competition.Exactly!

Things like bank regulation, road building, emergency response are all vital public functions that need to be properly done by government. The public good depends on it. The PRIVATE good also depends on it - basic social and physical infrastructure is necessary for free markets to work. And today that INCLUDES healthcare. Our businesses cannot afford to compete with the rest of the world while paying twice (or more) as much for healthcare - a number set to double in a decade. We can't afford to see healthcare go from almost 17% of GNP to 30% in the next decade. We can't afford to leave 1/3rd of our workforce without healthcare protection.

This isn't rocket science. We have plenty of examples to look at systems more successful than ours. Like every single other advanced industrialized country in the world, and even a few "third world" ones that do better then we do, like Costa Rica and Dominica. Heck, there are even thousands of Americans moving to Mexico to take advantage of their "public option" - incredible!

[Sanslines]

This isn't rocket science. We have plenty of examples to look at systems more successful than ours. Like every single other advanced industrialized country in the world, and even a few "third world" ones that do better then we do, like Costa Rica and Dominica. Heck, there are even thousands of Americans moving to Mexico to take advantage of their "public option" - incredible!

You might be surprised at just how many Americans fly to border cities with Mexico, such as Tijuana and Juarez for no other purpose then to cross the border to access affordable dental care. A patient could fly from New York to San Diego, enjoy a fabulous week in San Diego while going to TJ for dental care procedures, and still spend far less then they would for a NY dentist.

Dental care is a serous problem. I know countless dental students who are encouraged to go to places like Los Angeles where they can pander to the cosmetic surgery crowd and make enormous amounts of money tending to their cosmetic needs. Meanwhile, those in Appalachia who need basic dental care go without. Honestly, given the amount of money that can be made from the wealthy by stroking their self centered needs why bother with poor people? This is what so many dental students believe in spite of the insincere compassionate rhetoric that they spout.

[maliakei]

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G4TsaHmtgfA&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/G4TsaHmtgfA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Ohhhhh I watched the video and it makes me SO sick to my stomach, SO angry how the insurance companies deny treatment to honest, hard-working people who've religiously paid the premiums and for what? Big houses, Big salaries, Big jets w/leather chairs & gold silverware, etc. etc. etc.

This is one thing I see happening.. many folks paying into that will cancel their policies, instead putting 100% into some kind of personal fund, separate from ins co's. Say if they're disaplined or financially able to save $500/mo or something... anything they can... then and put that $ into an interest-earning, compounding, fully liquidable acccount then at least you know where the money is. Yeah, that's chancing it something might happen, but at least it's better to have those funds available. Something is better than nothing. No claims to fill out, no more giving $ to pay for CEO lavish lifestyles. This would be a Big wake up call. It's already happening.

[Naturist Mark]

Ohhhhh I watched the video and it makes me SO sick to my stomach, SO angry how the insurance companies deny treatment to honest, hard-working people who've religiously paid the premiums and for what? Big houses, Big salaries, Big jets w/leather chairs & gold silverware, etc. etc. etc.

In every other developed nation, it is illegal for primary health insurance to be offered by for-profit companies. Even in nations like Switzerland where universal healthcare is achieved with 100% non government private insurance. Health - not profit, must be the first priority of any company standing between doctor and patient.

Reporter T.R. Reid made a documentary for PBS/Frontline, "Sick Around America", a follow-up to his "Sick Around the World" documentary. In SAA Reid concluded that "You can't allow a profit to be made on the basic package of health insurance." he included the fact that no other developed nation allows it. PBS edited the fact out and substituted a conclusion mandating private-insurance coverage from for-profits. Which is why Reid left the project and removed his name from it, even though it is almost entirely his work, "...mandating for-profit insurance is not the lesson from other countries in the world. I said I'm not going to be in a film that contradicts my previous film and my book."

His Book The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care (http://www.amazon.com/Healing-America-Global-Better-Cheaper/dp/1594202346) tells his real findings.<blockquote>In The Healing of America, New York Times bestselling author T. R. Reid shows how all the other industrialized democracies have achieved something the United States can't seem to do: provide health care for everybody at a reasonable cost.

In his global quest to find a possible prescription, Reid visits wealthy, free market, industrialized democracies like our own-including France, Germany, Japan, the U.K., and Canada-where he finds inspiration in example. Reid shares evidence from doctors, government officials, health care experts, and patients the world over, finding that foreign health care systems give everybody quality care at an affordable cost. And that dreaded monster "socialized medicine" turns out to be a myth. Many developed countries provide universal coverage with private doctors, private hospitals, and private insurance.

In addition to long-established systems, Reid also studies countries that have carried out major health care reform. The first question facing these countries-and the United States, for that matter-is an ethical issue: Is health care a human right? Most countries have already answered with a resolute yes, leaving the United States in the murky moral backwater with nations we typically think of as far less just than our own.

The Healing of America lays bare the moral question at the heart of our troubled system, dissecting the misleading rhetoric surrounding the health care debate. Reid sees problems elsewhere, too: He finds poorly paid doctors in Japan, endless lines in Canada, mistreated patients in Britain, spartan facilities in France. Still, all the other rich countries operate at a lower cost, produce better health statistics, and cover everybody. In the end, The Healing of America is a good news book: It finds models around the world that Americans can borrow to guarantee health care for everybody who needs it.</blockquote>

[maliakei]

I'm not 100% against for-profit with business, but when private insurance companies deny coverage to people who've relgiously paid into the system and need it, it's just plain unethical, cruel.. No words can describe how callous this is, especially where it's evident the profits are being spent lavishly where it's obvious they should be spent on healthcare & medicine.

Years back I received notices in the mail from doctors informing they will only accept PPO or check/cash/cc payments from their patients. Nothing more. I've always elected for PPO ins, but many times ended up paying 100% in order to qualify for immediate care needed at the time. I've always been a healthy person, but that can always change in an instant. You just never know. Disease has a way of being hidden and silent until it's too late.

Bottom line: Insurance companies care about making money. They could care less if someone gets sick. If we die then sure they'll be sad.. only monetarily. It's their game, and their rules. We can pay into them yet there's no guarantee. They can pull-the-plug anytime. Now that there are SO many people out of work, have no health coverage, then that means less for everyone. Not only that but even those who are working decided to call it quits, stop paying. Sure that's a BIG chance you take, but let's say if all of us pulled-the-plug on them then there would be no more profits for them. See how they like a taste of their own medicine.

It makes greater sense to stop profit making on basic health coverage, like other industrialized countries have done by providing health care for ALL at a fair price. Socialized medicine works, and having health care IS a human right! If people want private insurance, doctors, hospitals then they can choose to do that.

[Fitz1980]

A question, would you want any third party getting between you and the grocery store to pay for the groceries?

Isn't the insurance company a 3rd party that gets between you and your doctor?

I'm not 100% against for-profit with business, but when private insurance companies deny coverage to people who've relgiously paid into the system and need it, it's just plain unethical, cruel.. No words can describe how callous this is, especially where it's evident the profits are being spent lavishly where it's obvious they should be spent on healthcare & medicine.

A-men

[Sanman]

...These industries will obviously not self regulate themselves to stop the misleading if not downright false advertising. Who is left to stop this consumer misinformation besides the government?
Consumer reports, watchdog groups, individual research, etc. In a free market, only companies with a good reputation and quality products will survive, while the shamsters will get a bad reputation and go out of business. However, with government intervention to "assure a quality standard", the average consumer becomes apathetic to discerning quality for themselves and simply believes a company must be ok or else the government would have done something about it.

[Naturist Mark]

Consumer reports, watchdog groups, individual research, etc. In a free market, only companies with a good reputation and quality products will survive

If that were true, how do you explain the horrible state of our current healthcare system?

US 37th in quality of healthcare delivered to its population.
US worst of 19 leading industrial nations in preventable deaths due to treatable conditions.
US healthcare system the most expensive per capita in the world.
US ranked 26th in infant mortality.
US ranked 42nd in life expectancy.

If that isn't a free market failure ...

But then, health care is anything but a free market. Most Americans have one choice in health care insurance - you go with what your employer provides or you go without. Where is the competitive market?

[Sanslines]

Consumer reports, watchdog groups, individual research, etc. In a free market, only companies with a good reputation and quality products will survive, while the shamsters will get a bad reputation and go out of business. However, with government intervention to "assure a quality standard", the average consumer becomes apathetic to discerning quality for themselves and simply believes a company must be ok or else the government would have done something about it.

In a free market, companies with a good marketing group will survive. Most people either do not konw or care what actually occurs. Corporate marketing groups can spoonfeed consumers any kind of misleading nonsense and consumers will lap it all up. If it were not for government rules and regulations that were created to protect the consumer, corporate america would freely run wild and market out and out lies. As it stands now, good corporate marketing is the ability to walk a very fine line between a degree of truth that is mandated by the government and out and out lies that corporate america would love to promote.

The government only does something when consumers demand it. Apathetic consumers have no one to blame but themselves for not taking a roll in demanding a "truth in _______" laws (fill in the blank with words such as 'lending', etc).

We would not have had half of the mortgage mess that we are experiencing now had the previous administration stepped up to the plate and demanded that mortgage contracts be written in clear, readable, and plain language that most consumers can understand instead of the legal mumbo jumbo code that is incomprehensible to anyone but an attorney trained in this kind of double speak.

[Sanslines]

If people want private insurance, doctors, hospitals then they can choose to do that.


The strange thing about health care debate is that no one is demanding that people no longer have the right to pay for private insurance if they so chose. Obama has repeated this time after time. The real debate seems to be coming from a certan group of people that wish to deny others fair access to health care that can only be provided by a government plan as the insurance industry has failed to ever offer this option for the past multitude of years.

[BinCo]

That's where you are wrong.

The best example is Katrina---New Orleans a welfare state, people killing each and looting waiting on the goverment for help.

Iowa---Floods----Neighbors helping each other taking care of their own---These types are the protesters because they are sick of what's happening in the US.

Why can't people take care of themselves?
Are they that stupid?

Gmoney, There is quite a difference between the tens of thousands people in the Midwest who were effected in the floods and the one million plus that were in the wake of Katrina. Also, consider that flood insurance that helped to rebuild the homes and businesses in Iowa is a government insurance program in the form of the National Flood Insurance Program. Also consider that Katrina changed within 24 hours of landfall and usually midwest floods have days to deal with slowly rising waters.

Some statistics:
Quick Summary for Midwest Flood:
Two dozen people killed and 148 injured
Approximately 35,000 – 40,000 people evacuated from homes
Flood warnings cover a span of about 325 miles from Dubuque, Iowa to St. Louis, Missouri
Mississippi crested at 37 feet in St. Louis area, seven feet above flood level
Iowa's agricultural economic losses are estimated to exceed $2 billion
9 Iowa rivers crested at record levels
83 of 99 Iowa counties are disaster areas
21 Illinois counties declared disaster areas
Cedar Rapids – water covered 1,300 city blocks, 9.2 square mile
Cedar Rapids – City Hall, the Linn County jail, the fire department, police communication equipment, most of the public library's collection and 3,900 homes were all under water
Cedar River flood crest exceeds historic 1929 record
Cedar River flood crested at over 32 feet Friday, June 13
South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois and Indiana have also been affected
Floods have wrecked the Midwest's corn and soybean crops
22 levees breeched as of 6.20.08
Abnormally heavy snowpack with unseasonably heavy rainfall are root causes of flooding
Cedar Rapids recorded 24.09 inches of rain for the year — more than 10 inches above normal
Other parts of Eastern Iowa within the Cedar watershed recorded from 15–20 inches of rain between May 10–June 10
Cedar River has flooded more than 4,000 homes and many businesses in Cedar Rapids
Areas of Cedar Rapids are flooded beyond the so-called 500-year flood level of 26.5 feet
Damage costs in Cedar Rapids estimated at over $1.5 Billion

Katrina stats:

Damage: $81 billion total; $40.6 billion in insured losses

Deaths (direct and indirect: 1,833 total; 1,577 in Louisiana, 238 in Mississippi, 14 in Florida, two in Georgia, two in Alabama

Winds: Maximum winds extended to a 25-30 mile radius; hurricane force winds extended 75 miles east of the center (on August 29)

Storm Surge
Western Mississippi: 24-28 feet in a 20-mile wide swath centered on St. Louis Bay Eastern Mississippi: 17-22 feet

Louisiana St. Tammany Parish from Slidell to Mandeville (northeast shore of Lake Pontchartrain: 12-16 feet East New Orleans, St. Bernard Parish, Plaquemines Parish: 15-19 feet West New Orleans: 10-14 feet Western shore of Lake Pontchartrain: 5-10 feet

Alabama Western Alabama coast (including Dauphin Island): 10-15 feet Eastern Alabama coast: up to 10 feet Mobile Bay: 8-12 feet

Tornadoes: 43 total; one in Florida, 20 in Georgia, 11 in Alabama, 11 in Mississippi

Evacuees: 1.2 million people in northern Gulf coast from Louisiana to Alabama were under evacuation order

To make an attempt to compare the two disasters is like comparing a fender bender to a 25 car pileup and your attempt to say that the people of Iowa are better than the ones who could not/or would not get out of the way of Katrina is grossly ignorant.

I also hope everyone fully appreciates how you glorify the neighbors helping each other out in Iowa and then immediately ask why can't people take care of THEMSELVES.:rolleyes:

[BinCo]

Consumer reports, watchdog groups, individual research, etc. In a free market, only companies with a good reputation and quality products will survive, while the shamsters will get a bad reputation and go out of business.

Yeah right, Like Alabama?

Alabamians' health premiums soar 79 percent while Blue Cross dominates state market
Posted by Sean Reilly, Washington Bureau September 09, 2009 9:06 AM
Categories: Breaking News, Politics

According to the American Medical Association, Blue Cross/Blue Shield controls 89 percent of a major sector of the medical insurance market in the state, and 96 percent of small group insurance.WASHINGTON -- If there's a speck of common ground in the debate over the nation's health care system, it's the belief that the insurance industry needs more competition.


That premise faces a particularly stiff challenge in Alabama, which, by several yardsticks, has one of the nation's least competitive markets for medical coverage.

Last year, for example, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama captured a 96 percent share of small group insurance business, which in Alabama is defined as health plans that have between two and 50 participants, according to figures collected by the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog agency.

And when measured by enrollment in health maintenance organizations and preferred-provider organizations, Birmingham-based Blue Cross's market slice amounts to 89 percent, the American Medical Association reported this year.

That share, which is derived from 2006 data, "does appear to be the largest in the country," a spokeswoman for the Chicago-based doctors group said in an e-mail.

While Blue Cross supports reform, spokeswoman Koko Mackin said, "we just don't want to throw out all the programs that are working and replace them with something totally new."

Nationally, Alabama's market "is probably the toughest nut to crack," said Avram Goldstein, research director at Health Care for America Now, a national coalition that supports President Barack Obama's push for change, including the so-called "public option" for government-backed health insurance.

In a recent report, the coalition linked insurance industry consolidation to soaring coverage costs nationally. Between 2000 and 2007, the average annual combined premium for employers and workers in Alabama rose 79 percent to $11,216, the report says.

Mackin cited more recent figures, showing that rate increases in Alabama were running behind the national average and that average family premiums last year were lower than those of most other states.

Obama, who will address Congress tonight in hopes of regaining leverage over the health care debate, has frequently lauded the benefits of competition. Republicans, although mostly opposed to the public option, agree that consumers need more insurance choices.

"We really have not had enough competition between insurance companies for a long time," Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., told Fox News last month.

While differing significantly in the details, Democratic bills in the House and Senate would both create health insurance exchanges to make it easier for individual and small businesses to buy coverage.

But although more competition would probably be better, it won't change the fact that the biggest driver of high health care costs is "the underlying spending on health care services," said Alwyn Cassil, spokesperson for the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C.

The free market is a false sense of security that the righties cling onto like a warm blankie. I call BS on this one. There is NO free market in the world, if you think there is than you are the fool. Every market is manipulated by the trade agreements that are put into place by lawmakers being bought by special interests, by deregulation that allows grotesque monopolies to form and by wall street demanding higher and higher profits at any cost.

[Naturist Mark]

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vKI9be55N00&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vKI9be55N00&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[gmoney]

To make an attempt to compare the two disasters is like comparing a fender bender to a 25 car pileup and your attempt to say that the people of Iowa are better than the ones who could not/or would not get out of the way of Katrina is grossly ignorant.

I also hope everyone fully appreciates how you glorify the neighbors helping each other out in Iowa and then immediately ask why can't people take care of THEMSELVES.:rolleyes:

You know what I meant. They were not killing each other, they were not looting, they were helping one another take care of the problem.

They are easy to compare

[Naturist Mark]

You know what I meant. They were not killing each other, they were not looting, they were helping one another take care of the problem.

They are easy to compare

I remember it very well. Some people were described as "collecting provisions", while others were described as "looting" - you can easily guess what single characteristic defined the difference. The widespread reports of rapes and killings, in the superbowl and in the streets were almost all hoaxes. The wild gunshots turned out to be police turning back desperate evacuees on the bridges, not "looters" on "killing sprees".

What happened after Katrina is one of the darkest chapters of our nation's history. And among the most shameful parts of it is the ongoing effort to blame the victims, rather than the exploiters and profiteers.

[Sanman]

If that were true, how do you explain the horrible state of our current healthcare system?

US 37th in quality of healthcare delivered to its population.
US worst of 19 leading industrial nations in preventable deaths due to treatable conditions.
US healthcare system the most expensive per capita in the world.
US ranked 26th in infant mortality.
US ranked 42nd in life expectancy.

If that isn't a free market failure ...

But then, health care is anything but a free market. Most Americans have one choice in health care insurance - you go with what your employer provides or you go without. Where is the competitive market?
Exactly! We don't have a free market healthcare now and look where it's gotten us. Government intervention has caused corruption, insurance companies and healthcare providers paying off politicians to pass laws to their favors, etc.

[Sanman]

In a free market, companies with a good marketing group will survive. Most people either do not konw or care what actually occurs. Corporate marketing groups can spoonfeed consumers any kind of misleading nonsense and consumers will lap it all up. If it were not for government rules and regulations that were created to protect the consumer, corporate america would freely run wild and market out and out lies. As it stands now, good corporate marketing is the ability to walk a very fine line between a degree of truth that is mandated by the government and out and out lies that corporate america would love to promote.

The government only does something when consumers demand it. Apathetic consumers have no one to blame but themselves for not taking a roll in demanding a "truth in _______" laws (fill in the blank with words such as 'lending', etc).
Agreed. Since we don't have a free marked economy, this is what happens. People are apathetic because they think the government will take care of it. In a free market economy, the proper role of government is to prosecute fraud so these corporations don't lie to the public. That's not socialism, that's a responsible government in a free market.

We would not have had half of the mortgage mess that we are experiencing now had the previous administration stepped up to the plate and demanded that mortgage contracts be written in clear, readable, and plain language that most consumers can understand instead of the legal mumbo jumbo code that is incomprehensible to anyone but an attorney trained in this kind of double speak.
Actually, it is precisely because of the previous several administrations interfeering with mortgage lending practices. Gov. required banks to make risky loans to people who would never have been approved before, and now we're reaping the consequences. This blame mostly falls at the Federal Reserve's feet. They actually want the country in greater and greater debt. Do a youtube search for "money as debt" for a good explaination of why the Fed loves debt.

[Sanman]

Yeah right, Like Alabama?
...

The free market is a false sense of security that the righties cling onto like a warm blankie. I call BS on this one. There is NO free market in the world, if you think there is than you are the fool. Every market is manipulated by the trade agreements that are put into place by lawmakers being bought by special interests, by deregulation that allows grotesque monopolies to form and by wall street demanding higher and higher profits at any cost.

You are correct that there is no free market today, and we see the evidence of what all this government intervention has done. "Deregulation" is NOT what it's name implies. It is not a return to a free market system, just a few changes in policy to give some corporations advantages over others. This is why those who understand economics strongly advocate for a true free market. I'm baffled that so many see the problems of government intervention, then say the solution is even more government control. This is insanity! Please, everyone just go do some reading of Ludwig Von Mises.
http://www.mises.org

[Naturist Mark]

Actually, it is precisely because of the previous several administrations interfeering with mortgage lending practices. Gov. required banks to make risky loans to people who would never have been approved before, and now we're reaping the consequences.

Wrong.

Conservatives have been dumping on the Community Reinvestment Act for years. But it was NOT the cause of the housing foreclosure crisis - quite the opposite - those banks which operated under CRA rules had the LOWEST foreclosure and distressed mortgage rates. See previous posts where this was debunked in detail: Taxpayers FURIOUS about Bush bank bailout (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=210917&highlight=reinvestment#post210917) and President Obama (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=213820&highlight=reinvestment#post213820)

[Naturist Mark]

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090917) - that's more than all the deaths from drunk driving and homicides combined - or fifteen 9/11's every year.

[gmoney]

I remember it very well. Some people were described as "collecting provisions", while others were described as "looting" - you can easily guess what single characteristic defined the difference. The widespread reports of rapes and killings, in the superbowl and in the streets were almost all hoaxes. The wild gunshots turned out to be police turning back desperate evacuees on the bridges, not "looters" on "killing sprees".

What happened after Katrina is one of the darkest chapters of our nation's history. And among the most shameful parts of it is the ongoing effort to blame the victims, rather than the exploiters and profiteers.

You know when they say leave FLA cause of a hurricane, people leave.
What happened shows why this country is in the dumps...its the mindset of the people living in certain areas...you even had a politician saying the weather should have been explained in "ebonics"
Give me a break, the public education system is a joke to start(another gov run program)
I don't blame anyone but the people themselves for not leaving.

Why would someone be a "Victim" if they didnt know a hurricane of catastophic measures was coming?
That's ridiculous, they knew what needed to be done.

[gmoney]

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090917) - that's more than all the deaths from drunk driving and homicides combined - or fifteen 9/11's every year.

•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599

(Data are for the U.S.)



•Number of deaths: 2,426,264
•Death rate: 810.4 deaths per 100,000 population
•Life expectancy: 77. 7years
•Infant Mortality rate: 6.69 deaths per 1,000 live births
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
•Heart disease: 631,636
•Cancer: 559,888
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
•Diabetes: 72,449
•Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
•Septicemia: 34,234

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf

The 15 leading causes of death in 2006 were:

15.Assault (homicide) 15,000
Auto Fatalities 2007 41,000 Alcohol related 15,387
440,000 from smoking and NO ONE makes you smoke...

NOT A STUDY BUT A FACT>>> SMOKING KILLS TEN TIMES MORE PEOPLE THAN HAVING NO INSURANCE.

and your claim is 1/10th of 1% of uninsured die each year.... Someone dies everyday for a number of reasons...

[BinCo]

You know what I meant. They were not killing each other, they were not looting, they were helping one another take care of the problem.

They are easy to compare

I disagree. You also have to remember that the people along the flood plains are typically mobile. Meaning they have cars, tractors or a variety of means of transportation. In many inner city and poor areas, people are restricted to public transportation. Some of them are limited because of their own problems (like DWI), many of them are in a position that they can't compete for jobs against people who are more educated for a low wage job. Then they can't afford to fix a car when it breaks down, or they just don't need a car because they share a ride or ride public transit. In the last 24 hours before Katrina hit they are being told to evacuate, but no buses are provided. Not to mention that the higher density housing and crime rates will lead to people fearing that what little they have will be stolen from them by the stragglers and the police will do nothing.

You also have to realize that these people have been told for years that the levees are fine and will hold. Of course any funding request to make the levees better was always shot down. So these people had little time to realize that the levees broke. They were told to go to the superdome for shelter, which turned out to be a mistake.

The sickest thing of all is that people like you look at the people who did what they were told to do and got caught when the flooding was much worse than predicted and put them down. The moron in office had the opportunity to become a hero of the black community by pulling out all the stop to help the thousands trapped. What does he do? He takes 2 days to fly over the Democrat areas and then talk about how we were going to rebuild while standing in the Republican stronghold. Then you have the police disarming the people, shooting at people wanting to get to safety across a bridge and the slow response by Brown.

Oh, and I distinctly remember seeing many locals in their personal boats traveling the streets to rescue people.

This thread is not about Katrina, it's about healthcare. Let's get it back to that.

[BinCo]

•440,000 from smoking and NO ONE makes you smoke...

NOT A STUDY BUT A FACT>>> SMOKING KILLS TEN TIMES MORE PEOPLE THAN HAVING NO INSURANCE.

and your claim is 1/10th of 1% of uninsured die each year.... Someone dies everyday for a number of reasons...

Yes, and FINALLY the FDA has the power to regulate tobacco to help control the chemicals used to enhance the addictive power. This regulation would never have even been seriously considered when we had a Republican controlled White House and Congress.

Personally, I would rather see cigarette taxes raised to $10 a pack, but I know that many poor people are addicted so bad that they would rather smoke than eat a meal.

I seriously hope you never have to be on the other side of the insurance issue that many millions are going thru, but maybe it would do you some good.

[BinCo]

Exactly! We don't have a free market healthcare now and look where it's gotten us. Government intervention has caused corruption, insurance companies and healthcare providers paying off politicians to pass laws to their favors, etc.

Sure. And collusion between the insurance companies is a myth, right? Insurance companies would never divide the country between each other. No.:rolleyes:

[Lord Drakkus]

440,000 from smoking and NO ONE makes you smoke...

NOT A STUDY BUT A FACT>>> SMOKING KILLS TEN TIMES MORE PEOPLE THAN HAVING NO INSURANCE.

Actually, even those numbers are greatly exaggerated. In case you didn't know, if somebody has ever admitted to having even one cigarette, or being in the same room as another person who was smoking a cigarette, then when they die it's considered smoking related.

So here's the thing. If your doctor knows you had a cigarette when you were 17, and you die of a heart attack at age 80, he can call that a smoking related death. The true number of deaths caused by smoking cannot possibly be anywhere near the 440,000 that you're quoting. I honestly believe that the number is less than 1/10th of that, but there's never going to be a way to find out because nobody's ever going to regulate what a "smoking related" death actually is.

[Sanslines]

Actually, even those numbers are greatly exaggerated. In case you didn't know, if somebody has ever admitted to having even one cigarette, or being in the same room as another person who was smoking a cigarette, then when they die it's considered smoking related.

So here's the thing. If your doctor knows you had a cigarette when you were 17, and you die of a heart attack at age 80, he can call that a smoking related death. The true number of deaths caused by smoking cannot possibly be anywhere near the 440,000 that you're quoting. I honestly believe that the number is less than 1/10th of that, but there's never going to be a way to find out because nobody's ever going to regulate what a "smoking related" death actually is.

Smoking related deaths could also include those who never smoked one cigarette but were subjected to passive smoke. The 440,000 number is just a very rough estimate. Who really knows how accurate it is. However, regardless of how accurate it is, the number of active smokers who die from smoking tobacco products is still very large.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm

[BinCo]

Actually, even those numbers are greatly exaggerated. In case you didn't know, if somebody has ever admitted to having even one cigarette, or being in the same room as another person who was smoking a cigarette, then when they die it's considered smoking related.

So here's the thing. If your doctor knows you had a cigarette when you were 17, and you die of a heart attack at age 80, he can call that a smoking related death. The true number of deaths caused by smoking cannot possibly be anywhere near the 440,000 that you're quoting. I honestly believe that the number is less than 1/10th of that, but there's never going to be a way to find out because nobody's ever going to regulate what a "smoking related" death actually is.

I believe that number is for pulminary deaths only, not cardiac related ones. It includes pulminary disease, emphazema, lung cancers and a variety of things that effect the lungs. Since a lions share of these have been proven to be a causal effect from smoking it's clear that the numbers are a lot closer to above 90%.

[gmoney]

Here's a new thought...

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St.Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.

8. During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy (including Winn-Dixie).

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.

11 This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at a Wal-Mart store.

(Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart

Let Wal-Mart run the health care program. Better yet . . . Let them run the whole Government!!

Talk about an efficient system...

[Boreas]

And Walmart is responsible for the decline of wages to the point where living wages are harder to come by. Walmart is one of the biggest users of "welfare" because its employees cannot live on the wage, and must top it up with social assistance. Walmart is part of the reason for contracting out to the lowest bidder, so now we see poor wages in other sectors.

No, let's not have Walmart running the health care system. They have already had enough of a negative effect on it. Here anyway.

[Naturist Mark]

I keep hearing the cons obsessing about the cost of Healthcare reform. We can't afford it! How are we going to pay for it!

I've shown earlier that the public (taxpayer) cost of doing nothing will be an additional $5.66 trillion dollars (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=236777&postcount=481) over 10 years. Which dwarfs even the most grandiose reform plans.

If cost were the only factor - every single conservative would be demanding single payer. That would immediately cut our national health care bill by at least 20% in one fell swoop, without any reduction in services.

We have plenty of experience with single payer - over 100 million Americans are insured by single payer government plans - mostly Medicare and Medicaid, we know how it works, we know what it costs. If we wanted even greater savings, we could take a few lessons from the devilish French, who provide universal care, better services and better outcomes than we do, while leaving the actual care in the hands of private doctors and institutions - and do it at half the cost. If they won't tell us how they do it, we can have Dick Cheney use some enhanced interrogation techniques on them.

[Sanslines]

And Walmart is responsible for the decline of wages to the point where living wages are harder to come by. Walmart is one of the biggest users of "welfare" because its employees cannot live on the wage, and must top it up with social assistance. Walmart is part of the reason for contracting out to the lowest bidder, so now we see poor wages in other sectors.

No, let's not have Walmart running the health care system. They have already had enough of a negative effect on it. Here anyway.


Oh where do we begin with the endless criticisms of WalMart:

Criticism of Wal-Mart

Working conditions:

Allegations of predatory pricing and supplier issues:

Wal-Mart has been accused of selling merchandise at such low costs that competitors have tried to sue it for predatory pricing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing) (intentionally selling a product at low cost in order to drive competitors out of the market).

Employee and Labor Relations:

With close to two million employees worldwide, Wal-Mart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart) has faced a torrent of lawsuits and issues with regards to its workforce. These issues involve low wages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage), poor working conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health), inadequate health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care), as well as issues involving the company's strong anti-union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_union) policies. Critics point to Wal-Mart's high turnover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnover_(employment)) rate as evidence of an unhappy workforce, although other factors may be involved. Approximately 70% of its employees leave within the first year.

Wages:

Other critics have noted that in 2001, the average wage for a Wal-Mart Sales Clerk was $8.23 per hour, or $13,861 a year, while the federal poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton) once said, "I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment."

Working Conditions:

Wal-Mart has also faced accusations involving poor working conditions of its employees. For example, a 2005 class action lawsuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action_lawsuit) in Missouri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri) asserted approximately 160,000 to 200,000 people who were forced to work off-the-clock, were denied overtime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtime) pay, or were not allowed to take rest and lunch breaks.

Child Labor Violations:

In January 2004, the New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times) reported on an internal Wal-Mart audit conducted in July 2000, which examined one week's time-clock records for roughly 25,000 employees.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-NYTchildren_57-0>[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart#cite_note-NYTchildren-57)</SUP> According to the Times, the audit, "pointed to extensive violations of child-labor laws and state regulations requiring time for breaks and meals," including 1,371 instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day.

Use Of Illegal Workers:

Wal-Mart has been accused of allowing illegal immigrants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration) to work in its stores.

Health Insurance:

As of October 2005, Wal-Mart's health insurance covered 44% or approximately 572,000 of its 1.3 million U.S. workers. In comparison, Wal-Mart rival and wholeseller Costco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco) insures approximately 96% of its eligible workers, although Costco has been criticized by investors for its high labor costs. Wal-Mart spends an average of $3,500 per employee for health care, 27% less than the retail-industry average of $4,800. When asked why so many Wal-Mart workers choose to enroll in state health care plans instead of Wal-Mart's own plan, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Scott) acknowledged that some states' benefits may be more generous than Wal-Mart's own plan: "In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value - with relatively high income limits to qualify, and low premiums." Critics of Wal-Mart argue in Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart:_The_High_Cost_of_Low_Price) that employees are paid so little they cannot afford health insurance.

Labor Union Opposition:

Wal-Mart has been criticized for its policies against labor unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_union). Critics blame workers' reluctance to join the labor union on Wal-Mart anti-union tactics such as managerial surveillance and pre-emptive closures of stores or departments who choose to unionize. Wal-Mart states that it is not anti-union but, "pro-associate," arguing that its employees do not need to pay third parties to discuss problems with management as the company's open-door policy enables employees to lodge complaints and submit suggestions all the way up the corporate ladder.

Imports And Globalization:

As a large customer to most of its vendors, Wal-Mart openly uses its bargaining power to bring lower prices to attract its customers. The company negotiates lower prices from vendors. For certain basic products, Wal-Mart "has a clear policy" that prices go down from year to year. If a vendor does not keep prices competitive with other suppliers, they risk having their brand removed from Wal-Mart's shelves in favor of a lower-priced competitor. Critics argue that this pressures vendors to shift manufacturing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing) jobs to China and other third world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world) nations, where the cost of labor is less expensive.

Overseas Labor Concerns:

Wal-Mart has been criticized for not providing adequate supervision of its foreign suppliers. It has also been criticized for using sweatshops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop) and prison labor. For example, in 1995, Chinese dissident Harry Wu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Wu) charged that Wal-Mart was contracting prison labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_labor) in Guangdong Province (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangdong_Province). However, Wal-Mart says it does not use prison labor. There have also been reports of teenagers in Bangladesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh) working in sweatshops 80 hours per week at $0.14 per hour, for Wal-Mart supplier Beximco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beximco). The documentary film Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart:_The_High_Cost_of_Low_Price) shows images of factories that produce goods for Wal-Mart that appear in poor condition, and factory workers subject to abuse and conditions the documentary producers consider inhumane.

Product Selection Bias:

Wal-Mart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart)'s product selection has been criticized by some groups in the past, primarily as viewed as a promotion of a particular ideology or as a response to its original rural, religious target market. In 2003, Wal-Mart removed certain men's magazines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_magazines) from its shelves, such as Maxim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_(magazine)), FHM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FHM), and Stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuff_(magazine)), citing customer complaints regarding their racy content. Later that year, it decided to partly obscure the covers of Cosmopolitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitan_Magazine), Marie Claire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Claire) and Redbook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redbook) on store shelves due to "customer concerns", and refused to stock an issue of Sports Illustrated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Illustrated)'s swimsuit special because it took exception to one photograph.

Taxes And Dead Employees Insurance:

Until the mid-1990s, Wal-Mart took out corporate-owned life insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-owned_life_insurance) policies on its employees including "low-level," employees such as janitors, cashiers, cart pushers, and stockers. This type of insurance is usually purchased to cover a company against financial loss when a high-ranking employee dies, and is usually known as "Key Man Insurance." Critics derided Wal-Mart as buying what they called "Dead Peasants Insurance" or "Janitor Insurance." Critics, as well as the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service), charge that the company was trying to profit from the deaths of its employees, and take advantage of the tax law which allowed it to deduct the premiums. The practice was stopped in the mid-1990s when the federal government closed the tax deduction and began to pursue Wal-Mart for back taxes.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart


Yeah right, with all of the above as just a start to the abuses that WalMart has commited against humanity, let's put WalMart in charge of national health so that they can find another way to earn endless profits from working their employees to death and then cashing in on secret life insurance policies that the company took out against those employees before they killed them off.

[Sanslines]

I keep hearing the cons obsessing about the cost of Healthcare reform. We can't afford it! How are we going to pay for it!

Lol....we can afford it and we will pay it. Money is no object. The Repubs told us that deficits just don't matter anymore! Charge it and be done with it. Let China finance it.

[gmoney]

NO ONE has to work or shop at WALMART so why critique them negatively.
You people never understand that these people make their own choices...

Instead you want yourself and the goverment to decide everything for them.

[gmoney]

Yeah right, with all of the above as just a start to the abuses that WalMart has commited against humanity, let's put WalMart in charge of national health so that they can find another way to earn endless profits from working their employees to death and then cashing in on secret life insurance policies that the company took out against those employees before they killed them off.

Where do you get this stuff from?
Does the huffington post make these comments?

I can hardly contain my excitement now knowing Joe Biden is gonna get involved in the health care debate next week. Talk about a gift for the right! He inserts his foot in his mouth regularly....

[Sanman]

Sure. And collusion between the insurance companies is a myth, right? Insurance companies would never divide the country between each other. No.:rolleyes:

That's not what I said. I know full well that insurance companies (as well as many other industries), THROUGH POLITICAL MANIPULATION are indeed conspiring together to "screw" the public. This is Fascism at it's very core! If the government did not accept bribes (campaign contributions) from big corporations, then there wouldn't be laws passed that favor the few big corps and drive out competition from other companies.

Learn some history... most of this mess got a major start about 100 years ago. Go read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" to get understanding. Or, if you don't like to read, there's a good video if you search for that book title.

[Sanman]

Lol....we can afford it and we will pay it. Money is no object. The Repubs told us that deficits just don't matter anymore! Charge it and be done with it. Let China finance it.

I like Ron Paul's solution... we could easily afford it by cutting all overseas spending and bring the troops home. We have military bases in several countries all over the world. There's no need for that! Bring the troops home, use the saved money to fix healthcare and social security long enough for those already dependant on it to remain, while also giving everyone the choice to opt-out of government social programs too. I would be all for gov. healthcare so long as I can choose to not participate if I don't want, including not being taxed for it. If I don't want to accept the benefit, then I don't want to have to pay for it either.

[sdcal]

I would be all for gov. healthcare so long as I can choose to not participate if I don't want, including not being taxed for it. If I don't want to accept the benefit, then I don't want to have to pay for it either.

And I don't want to pay for more "Star Wars" systems that don't work, or more warplanes or submarines. Do we all get a choice of where our taxes get spent? I say more for health care and education and less for the military.

[Sanslines]

I like Ron Paul's solution... we could easily afford it by cutting all overseas spending and bring the troops home. We have military bases in several countries all over the world. There's no need for that! Bring the troops home, use the saved money to fix healthcare and social security long enough for those already dependant on it to remain, while also giving everyone the choice to opt-out of government social programs too. I would be all for gov. healthcare so long as I can choose to not participate if I don't want, including not being taxed for it. If I don't want to accept the benefit, then I don't want to have to pay for it either.

The problem with the concept of receiving exactly what you paid in taxes back in the form of a service is that this concept just does not work. This does not work in both the private and public sectors. Insurance companies never pay back in benefits what a person pays in premiums. In some cases, insurance companies pay more to a person that what that person paid. In most causes, insurance companies take in more money from individuals that they will ever pay back to those individuals. The insurance companies must do this in order to not only pay out for premium demands, but also generate the huge profits as demanded by Wall Street.

[Navigator]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yVgOl3cETb4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yVgOl3cETb4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[MoonShadow]

That was a great video, Navigator!! Funny (but sadly too true).

We just need to go to France for the best of the best. ;)

[Sanman]

The problem with the concept of receiving exactly what you paid in taxes back in the form of a service is that this concept just does not work. This does not work in both the private and public sectors. Insurance companies never pay back in benefits what a person pays in premiums. In some cases, insurance companies pay more to a person that what that person paid. In most causes, insurance companies take in more money from individuals that they will ever pay back to those individuals. The insurance companies must do this in order to not only pay out for premium demands, but also generate the huge profits as demanded by Wall Street.

I'm well aware that insurance companies and the government too must take in more money than what they shell out in benefits, and that most people will pay more in for healthcare premiums (whether ins. or gov.) than what they will receive in benefits. I never said anything about a concept of receiving exactly what I paid in taxes in the form of a service. All I said is that I want the option of not participating, both in not paying the tax nor receiving the benefits. All who do want to participate can, but those of us who don't should be allowed that choice.

[Sanslines]

I'm well aware that insurance companies and the government too must take in more money than what they shell out in benefits, and that most people will pay more in for healthcare premiums (whether ins. or gov.) than what they will receive in benefits. I never said anything about a concept of receiving exactly what I paid in taxes in the form of a service. All I said is that I want the option of not participating, both in not paying the tax nor receiving the benefits. All who do want to participate can, but those of us who don't should be allowed that choice.

Then how would programs such as Medicaid work? Would those on Medicaid be either denied access to the program because they never paid into the system or forced to work (regardless of whether they can or not) in order to qualify?

We all pay a myriad of road taxes - both state and local - and yet will will never travel on 99.99 percent of the roads that we pay for.

[Smiley]

In 1965 when my first son was born I didn't have any sort of health insurance. Doctor bill was an even $100, the hospital bill was $265 and some odd cents. In 1968 my second son was born right after I'd switched jobs, again the doctor bill was $100 but the hospital bill was $283 and some odd cents. This was before health insurance was so widely pushed. Later in 1968 I took out the optional health insurance policy that was offered through my employer. As I recall, my whole family was covered for around $7 a month. Later that same year I was involved in an accident and couldn't work for a month and a half. .the insurance company paid ME $50 a month. Not a lot now but back then it paid the grocery bill for several weeks.

I realize inflation over the years has raised prices but how was it back then hospital and doctor bills were reasonable compared to today?? Could it be that the insurance companies in collusion with the medical field decided that medical bills/medical insurance could be big business?? Remember, a visit to the doctor's office around the same time would be the lordly cost of $2-$3 dollars. .about the same as I was earning hourly. And this wasn't some backwoods village where the doctor would sometimes take his pay in chickens or pigs, this was in Portland Oregon in the late 1960's.

Just wondering as I had a heart attack a several years ago. .hospital bill ran around $15,000 and the cardiologist alone was several thousand dollars. .for a half hour procedure of installing a stent. I sure wish my hourly wage was that high now:laugh:

[Naturist Mark]

From Brave New Films (http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/?p=71909) blog:
<p>The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation <a href="http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/091509_altman.cfm">released a simple document</a> that could transform the entire health care debate in the United States. Absolutely no other set of statistics so cleanly identify the nature of our broken system.</p><blockquote><p>This week we put out our annual benchmark survey of employer health coverage and costs. Two numbers jumped off the pages.</p><p>The first number was the average cost of a family health insurance policy in 2009: $13,375. To put that number in context, if you are an employer, you can hire an employee at the minimum wage for about $15,000 per year. If you are a consumer, you can rent an average two-bedroom apartment nationwide for $11,136 per year (though it is quite a bit more here in Menlo Park, California where our Foundation is based). You can also buy a new Chevy Aveo for $12,000, and it gets 35 miles per gallon on the highway.</p><p>The other result that jumped off the page was the stark contrast between increases in health insurance premiums and overall inflation in the general economy. Premiums went up 5% and prices overall fell 0.7% (mainly driven by a big drop-off in energy prices) [...] over the last ten years premiums have increased by 131%, while wages have grown 38% and inflation has grown 28%. Consider this: If people (and businesses) are as concerned as they are now about rising health care costs in a period when they are actually moderating, how much more concerned will they be when rates of increase return to historic averages? </p><p>Let’s do some very simple arithmetic. Start with a fairly conservative assumption: If we assume that premium increases over the next ten years will average what they did over the last five (about 6.1% per year), the average premium for a family policy in 2019 will be $24,180. That’s a big number. On the other hand, if we assume increases revert to the average of the last ten years—an average annual increase of about 8.7% and a very plausible scenario—premiums in 2019 will average a whopping $30,803, a very scary number.</p></blockquote><p>And here’s the chart:</p><p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3486/3923909689_fafb51f0c1.jpg" alt="091509pitgif_2" height="352" width="500"></a></p><p>Very few families will be able to afford a $30,000 insurance policy. Even less companies will find a market for it. So their only choice will be to cut back on what the coverage offers, either with less benefits or lower amounts of coverage. More businesses will have to drop their coverage and throw their employees on to the individual market, driving costs up higher, as individuals aren’t bargaining collectively with insurers for lower prices.</p><p>Simply put, the private insurance market would cease to exist within 10 years, maybe a little more, on the current trajectory.</p><p>Those who think “failure is not an option” is just a slogan should really take a look at the Kaiser Foundation numbers. What they show is nothing but a nightmare.</p><p>Even the President <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-AFL-CIO-convention-in-Pittsburg/">quickly took notice of the report</a> in his speech to the AFL-CIO today:</p><blockquote><p>In fact, a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation was released today showing that family premiums rose more than 130 percent over the last 10 years — three times faster than wages. They now average over $13,000 a year, the highest amount on record, which is why when you go in to negotiate, you can’t even think about negotiating for a salary — a wage increase because the whole negotiation is about trying to keep the benefits you already have. (Applause.)</p><p>That’s not just the fault of the employer, it’s the fault of a broken health care system that’s sucking up all the money. When are we going to stop it? (Applause.) When are we going to say enough is enough? How many more workers have to lose their coverage? How many more families have to go into the red for a sick loved one? (Applause.) How much longer are we going to have to wait? It can’t wait. (Applause.)</p><p>AUDIENCE: We can’t wait! We can’t wait! We can’t wait!</p><p>It’s not an idle threat to tell everyone that they will not have health insurance in ten years without reform. Heck, that’s why the insurance industry, while fighting anything that drains their profits, ostensibly supports reform. If the insurance market goes down the gutter, so do they. The opportunity exists for us to remake our health care system to remove the excess, the money that never goes toward care, the bloated salaries. Otherwise, even with a reformed system we could end up with the same people running the same system right into the ground.</p>

[Naturist Mark]

I realize inflation over the years has raised prices but how was it back then hospital and doctor bills were reasonable compared to today??

It used to be the all Hospitals and most health insurance were run as tax exempt non-profits. Their first duty was to their patients and enrollees - not to CEO's and shareholders.

What has the shift away from non-profit bought us? --> The high cost of “for-profit” medicine (http://moneyedpoliticians.net/2008/03/28/the-high-cost-of-for-profit-medicine/)

[Sanslines]

In 1965 when my first son was born I didn't have any sort of health insurance. Doctor bill was an even $100, the hospital bill was $265 and some odd cents. In 1968 my second son was born right after I'd switched jobs, again the doctor bill was $100 but the hospital bill was $283 and some odd cents. This was before health insurance was so widely pushed. Later in 1968 I took out the optional health insurance policy that was offered through my employer. As I recall, my whole family was covered for around $7 a month. Later that same year I was involved in an accident and couldn't work for a month and a half. .the insurance company paid ME $50 a month. Not a lot now but back then it paid the grocery bill for several weeks.

I realize inflation over the years has raised prices but how was it back then hospital and doctor bills were reasonable compared to today?? Could it be that the insurance companies in collusion with the medical field decided that medical bills/medical insurance could be big business?? Remember, a visit to the doctor's office around the same time would be the lordly cost of $2-$3 dollars. .about the same as I was earning hourly. And this wasn't some backwoods village where the doctor would sometimes take his pay in chickens or pigs, this was in Portland Oregon in the late 1960's.

Just wondering as I had a heart attack a several years ago. .hospital bill ran around $15,000 and the cardiologist alone was several thousand dollars. .for a half hour procedure of installing a stent. I sure wish my hourly wage was that high now:laugh:

There have been many changes in health care since the 1960's. Many procedures and treatments of today did not exist back then. There were many more generalists and family doctors back then. Today, there are many more specialists as the volume of knowledge and information has increased so much that no one person can know it all. The human population has exploded since then and the number of health care professionals has not increased to keep the patient - doctor ratio constant in all medical field specializations.

Pharmaceutical companies did not relentlessly advertise their name brand products day and night back then. Big business kept their hands off medicine and did not turn it into the cash cow that it is today. Medicine back in the 1960's was much more personal as doctors might not have had the knowledge that exists today, but they spent more time with their patients and offered them much better personal care then the 15 minutes or less that hospital administrators and business clones allow doctors to spend with patients today.

[Sanman]

Then how would programs such as Medicaid work? Would those on Medicaid be either denied access to the program because they never paid into the system or forced to work (regardless of whether they can or not) in order to qualify?
Medicaid can work for those who pay into the system. Those who never did can find some other way to pay for thier medical services. However, in an ideal world, there would be no social services at all. How did people survive for thousands of years without it before? CHARITY!!! There are plenty of charity organizations and churches that actuall do help out the less fortunate, and have done so for centuries with great results.


We all pay a myriad of road taxes - both state and local - and yet will will never travel on 99.99 percent of the roads that we pay for.

But we drive way more on the same roads over and over every day than what the taxes we pay for goes into that one particular section of road. Road tax is a fair and valid tax (usually paid through gasoline taxes).

[Sanslines]

Medicaid can work for those who pay into the system. Those who never did can find some other way to pay for thier medical services. However, in an ideal world, there would be no social services at all. How did people survive for thousands of years without it before? CHARITY!!! There are plenty of charity organizations and churches that actuall do help out the less fortunate, and have done so for centuries with great results.

Charity is fine but it is no solution to the problem of health care. Charity is inconsistent and is easily overwhelmed during tought economic times (such as now). Charity can not keep up with the exponentially increasing health care costs. Neither can government. That is why we must do something to bring down health care costs. The government can and should immediately ban all forms of pharmaceutical drug tv advertisements and demand that the untold millions of dollars that are subsequently saved be used to lower drug costs. The govenrment should open up the foreign drug market to americans and end the monopolistic stranglehold that domestice companies have on the captive american market.

Medicaid is not medicare. Medicaid is a means tested program for low income people who can not afford health care. Mediaid does not require anyone to pay into the 'system'. Medicaid is not the solution to our health care crisis unless we want to force everyone into poverty in order to be eligible for this program.

How did people survive for thousands of years before? Consider what people paid for health care until as recently as the early 1970's when business got their hands on medical care.

Back to charity, I suggest that you consider a hypothetical experiement. Consider having a $150,000 medical bill and how churches and charities would react to such a bill. I know of no charities that can pay off such a bill considering the numbers of people who have such bills. Also, given what we know about business' involvement in medical care, do we really want to transfer the extortion of money from individuals to charities to keep the business money coffers full?



But we drive way more on the same roads over and over every day than what the taxes we pay for goes into that one particular section of road. Road tax is a fair and valid tax (usually paid through gasoline taxes).

Road tax is definitely not a fair tax. Consider California for a minute. Consider that people who live in very small towns in Northern California (for example) who pay the same vehicle registration fees and gasoline taxes as those in Los Angeles (for example). The bulk of road tax money will be spent to build or maintain Los Angeles freeways and those in Northern California will have to make due with what little money is left over. Those in the Northern California towns are heavily subsidizing Los Angeles freeways and surface streets. That is not fair.

[BinCo]

Pharmaceutical companies did not relentlessly advertise their name brand products day and night back then.

As I recall they were not allowed to advertise prescription drugs by government regulations, only OTC drugs like aspirin and such.

[BinCo]

But we drive way more on the same roads over and over every day than what the taxes we pay for goes into that one particular section of road. Road tax is a fair and valid tax (usually paid through gasoline taxes).

I would agree that you and I do not pay for the area of road you are directly over at any given time. Truckers pay far more than the average person in fuel and tag taxes annually. They pay for the lion's share of the road. It depends on the road, but most interstates cost millions of dollars per mile. 5280ft/20ft (avg car length not including safety space)=264 cars per mile. At $1M/264 = $3787 per car. So, when factoring in safe distances and averaging in 25mpg in a car in Colorado (.225c/gal tax) I only pay a few hundred dollars a year in gas tax. Factor in road maintenance and you can see that the average person hardly pays for their space on the road.

[MeBNude]

As I recall they were not allowed to advertise prescription drugs by government regulations, only OTC drugs like aspirin and such.

That is correct, BinCo. The laws were changed in the mid 90s to allow advertising, after much lobbying of Congress by the pharmaceutical companies.

[Sanslines]

Truckers pay far more than the average person in fuel and tag taxes annually. They pay for the lion's share of the road.

They should pay for the lion's share of the road as they create the most wear and tear on the road. A semi with well balanced wheels will create as much wear and tear as 300 passenger autos. If the wheels are out of balance and basically jackhammer the road, then far more wear, tear, and damage will be caused.

[Naturist Mark]

Senate Republicans distribute fake "survey" that suggests that health care reform will create a lottery to determine who gets health care and that there will be a quota system based on age and race.

<object id="_ds_11665641" name="_ds_11665641" width="670" height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=11665641&mem_id=683130&doc_type=pdf&fullscreen=0" /><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object><br /><font size="1"><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11665641/NRSCsurvey1">NRSCsurvey1</a> - </font>

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-09-21-NRSC3.png
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-09-21-NRSC4.png

Last month the RNC did a similar "survey" (http://columbian.com/article/20090825/NEWS02/708259961/-1/NEWS) that suggested that the government would use voter registrations to determine your political party when "deciding" on health care rationing.

These are outright fear mongering lies being put out by the leadership of the GOP - no rogue extremists on the edges.

[nimrod]

However, in an ideal world, there would be no social services at all. How did people survive for thousands of years without it before?

There was a time when families were more tight nit then they are now and would take care of each other, but that has changed and for the most part the elderly have to fend for themselves. Also life expectantcy is twice what it used to be, and medical science has progressed, so that means that the infirm can survive longer creating more of a financial burden for the family. Medical costs have also been mentioned as to why things are different.

If you believe that we should take care of our fellow man through charity you should not have a problem with social services because that is what a charity is, a social service. In this country our government is supposed to be made up of the people working for the people, so any taxes that I pay that goes towards social services is charity in a sence. Is the problem that one is a tax and unavoidable, where the other is a personal choice?

[MeBNude]

Also life expectantcy is twice what it used to be, and medical science has progressed, so that means that the infirm can survive longer creating more of a financial burden.

Nimrod makes some very valid points. Hot of the press today, Per the report put out by Alzheimer's Disease International, the incidence of dementia around the world will almost double every 20 years, reaching 65.7 million in 2030 and 115.4 million in 2050

[Naturist Mark]

However, in an ideal world, there would be no social services at all. How did people survive for thousands of years without it before?

They had large numbers of children, a few of which lived to adulthood. A few of which were able to take care of their aging parents in their years of decline until they died of old age in their 40s.

Professional health care was largely nonexistent for the vast majority of ordinary people. How did they survive? Many didn't. Infant and childhood mortality were appallingly high. Adults rarely lived past their 40s. Only a few extraordinary people - outside of the wealthy elite - lived to true old age.

We can certainly go back to that - Russia did after the fall of communism - when the life expectancy of men fell to just 59 years (life expectancy for women is significantly higher, the major difference being vodka). Russia is only now slowly regaining a twentieth century (not twenty-first) level of health care.

So if we decided to forego all government social services, we'd need to start having a lot more kids, and build a lot more cemeteries for those who don't make it to adulthood. And we should probably outlaw vodka ...

[Naturist Mark]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/106291/thumbs/s-MEDICARE-large.jpg

[Sanman]

Healthcare realities...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJA1bDlOofg

and a little something extra...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-6qfW6tfv0

[Sanslines]

Last month the RNC did a similar "survey" (http://columbian.com/article/20090825/NEWS02/708259961/-1/NEWS) that suggested that the government would use voter registrations to determine your political party when "deciding" on health care rationing.

These are outright fear mongering lies being put out by the leadership of the GOP - no rogue extremists on the edges.

Hummm...............wonder what is the 'correct' political party that a person must belong in order to access health care under the rationing system.

Me thinks that people should wake up and demand that health care be rationed to those in the government who are actively promoting this.

[Naturist Mark]

<object width="627" height="402" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="movie" value="http://player.ordienetworks.com/flash/fodplayer.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=041b5acaf5" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="627" height="402" flashvars="key=041b5acaf5" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" src="http://player.ordienetworks.com/flash/fodplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object>

[wynotbnude]

Hummm...............wonder what is the 'correct' political party that a person must belong in order to access health care under the rationing system.

Me thinks that people should wake up and demand that health care be rationed to those in the government who are actively promoting this.

I, for one, do not know what to believe anymore. There is so much retoric from both sides of the floor. It is like any poll you would like to quote to prove your point. The numbers can be manipulated to prove whichever point you are trying to prove. I am thinking that this issue had become just like tv adverising, believe what you want to believe, but let the buyer beware! Even our elected officials don't know what all is in the bill. Our senator told the audience at a local town meeting that he had not read the bill.....it is over 400 pages, and who has the time. How many others that will be voting on it feel the same and really don't know what is in the bill.
Bills like this, any bill that affect the people as a whole, needs to be tabled immediatly, untill our congress passes a law stating that they will not be exempt from any law they pass. You want to fix Social Security, Medicare and Medicade, Health care..........demand that your representatives be in these programs.......they will be fixed in a heartbeat.
If the new health care bill can be funded with the savings from the fraud and waste in the current system, fix that first, then address if we need a new system or not. This bill is being pushed through way too fast for my comfort of knowing if it is the right thing or not.

[MoonShadow]

Good video, Mark!

[Sanslines]

If the new health care bill can be funded with the savings from the fraud and waste in the current system, fix that first, then address if we need a new system or not. This bill is being pushed through way too fast for my comfort of knowing if it is the right thing or not.

I am in the process of assisting some seniors with their health care bills. I deal with hospitals and Medicare. I can state first hand that health care will never be 'fixed' unless people take a much more active roll in protecting Medicare and demanding a new system where people are fairly billed for services provided.

The way the present system works is as follows:

A doctor's office or hospital generates a bill that is presented to medicare for payment. Medicare has a fee cap for the particular type of service. Medicare will then pay a portion of the total amount that medicare approves and the patient will pay the balance.

What is happening right now is a giant shell game of sorts where increased bills are presented to medicare, insurance companies, and patients. Medicare will do what they can to ensure that they pay for what the patient actually received but it is absolutely critical for the patient to work with Medicare to ensure that Medicare is billed accurately. If private insurance in involved, higher bills will be presented to the insurance companies in the hopes that such bills are not disputed and are paid off. Higher balances are also presented to patients in the form of very confusing billing procedures in the hopes that patients will just pay them off.

What is created in the end is a giant pool of money that is routinely used by hospitals and doctors to write off bad debt from those patients who can not afford or will not pay their medical bills. In effect, those who pay subsidize those who can not or do not pay. In the end, everyone who pays insurance premiums will pay higher premiums and those who pay into medicare will pay more to make up for the losses and waste. Sadly, I have found individuals who just don't care what their bill is as long as either Medicare or insurance pays the bills. They don't care that the higher costs are passed onto others. Such a 'I don't give a damn' attitude is wrong and is part of the problem with the present health care system.

Until more people start caring, nothing will change. People need to start respecting programs such as Medicare and work with them to ensure that money is properly spent then overlooking obvious waste.

The present debate about health care blows a smokescreen over the real problem with health care - and that problem is COST.

[Naturist Mark]

I, for one, do not know what to believe anymore.

OK, let's just look at a few of the claims and see if they seem reasonable.

Is it credible to claim that the government will set up death panels in order to deliberately hasten the death of the old and infirm?

Is it credible to believe that despite specific language in the proposed bills prohibiting use of government funds to pay for abortions, and the lack of any provisions to rescind the Hyde Amendment which prohibits it, that there are "secret provisions" to fund abortions with tax dollars?

Is it reasonable to believe that despite specific language prohibiting providing coverage to illegal aliens, that there are secret plans to insure illegal aliens?

Is it credible to believe that government panels will examine applicants voter registration, IRS and census data in order to use race, age and political affiliation to deny coverage?

Is it reasonable to say that the effort to make sure all Americans have quality health coverage is just like what Hitler did in Germany?

If these claims aren't reasonable or credible, what do you conclude about the people making them?

[Naturist Mark]

The present debate about health care blows a smokescreen over the real problem with health care - and that problem is COST.

Yep. And COST is why we can't stay with the status quo ... unless you know where the funds for the extra $5.66 trillion tax dollars and doubled premiums will come from.

The opposition to reform has settled on a strategy. They will be endlessly repeating the word "tax" in every discussion on Capitol Hill. They are going to make reform sound like it is too costly to attempt.

But of course the opposite is true. We have no way to pay for continuing the current system.

But there is a simple rejoinder to every invocation of "tax": <blockquote>If you really want to minimize the cost of health care, we can easily achieve that by going to a single payer system. It would be no more restrictive of services than Medicare is today, in fact it will be Medicare. We already have the program, the systems, and the bureaucracy, it is shovel ready and can be started right away. And it can be achieved for what we already pay in taxes and private insurance premiums - in fact we will be able to immediately reduce both. Reduce taxes, Reduce Premiums, Cover Everyone - and do it in just a year, not 5 years from now. If COST and TAXES are the problem, this is the solution."</blockquote>

[Sanman]

OK, let's just look at a few of the claims and see if they seem reasonable.

Is it credible to claim that the government will set up death panels in order to deliberately hasten the death of the old and infirm?

Is it credible to believe that despite specific language in the proposed bills prohibiting use of government funds to pay for abortions, and the lack of any provisions to rescind the Hyde Amendment which prohibits it, that there are "secret provisions" to fund abortions with tax dollars?

Is it reasonable to believe that despite specific language prohibiting providing coverage to illegal aliens, that there are secret plans to insure illegal aliens?

Is it credible to believe that government panels will examine applicants voter registration, IRS and census data in order to use race, age and political affiliation to deny coverage?

Is it reasonable to say that the effort to make sure all Americans have quality health coverage is just like what Hitler did in Germany?

If these claims aren't reasonable or credible, what do you conclude about the people making them?

Is it reasonable? Is it? Maybe, maybe not. It would not be the first time our government lied to us. Also, ever heard of "false flag" terrorism... violence perpetrated by our own government against ourselves and blame someone else? Remember Operation Northwoods?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Or the U.S.S. Liberty incident?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

[ki4kxq]

OK, let's just look at a few of the claims and see if they seem reasonable.

Is it credible to claim that the government will set up death panels in order to deliberately hasten the death of the old and infirm?

Is it credible to believe that despite specific language in the proposed bills prohibiting use of government funds to pay for abortions, and the lack of any provisions to rescind the Hyde Amendment which prohibits it, that there are "secret provisions" to fund abortions with tax dollars?

Is it reasonable to believe that despite specific language prohibiting providing coverage to illegal aliens, that there are secret plans to insure illegal aliens?

Is it credible to believe that government panels will examine applicants voter registration, IRS and census data in order to use race, age and political affiliation to deny coverage?

Is it reasonable to say that the effort to make sure all Americans have quality health coverage is just like what Hitler did in Germany?

If these claims aren't reasonable or credible, what do you conclude about the people making them?



Is it reasonable to understand that there will not be death panels to hasten the deaths of the elderly or infirm, but there will be only so much money to go around. That the money there is will be used to put the young in front of the elderly and the healthy in front of the infirm. That is a better return on investment. For example, saving the life of a 30 year old will net you more tax revenue than saving an 84 year old?

Is it reasonable to believe that although the language does say that illegal aliens will not be covered, and now they have decided to put in provisions to make people prove their eligibility, that with a few simple steps, those illegals will in fact be made legal thru amnesty? This is something that most dems have wanted, to grant the illegals amnesty?

Is it reasonable to believe that the bill HR3200 says that IRS data will be used to determine eligibility? If you must meet income requirements to be eligible, then yes, you must prove income. What better way than through the IRS?

Is it reasonable to believe that our President doesn't even know what's in the bill being discussed (Baucus bill) when he states that there will not be a tax for those who do not buy insurance, when the bill clearly states there will be an excise tax for those who do not comply?

[Boreas]

Is it reasonable to understand that there will not be death panels to hasten the deaths of the elderly or infirm, but there will be only so much money to go around. That the money there is will be used to put the young in front of the elderly and the healthy in front of the infirm. That is a better return on investment. For example, saving the life of a 30 year old will net you more tax revenue than saving an 84 year old?

Is it reasonable to believe that although the language does say that illegal aliens will not be covered, and now they have decided to put in provisions to make people prove their eligibility, that with a few simple steps, those illegals will in fact be made legal thru amnesty? This is something that most dems have wanted, to grant the illegals amnesty?



Are you aware that the US is one of the few western nations that does not have universal healthcare? Are you aware that Canada has so called "socialized medicine" that works quite well. Of course there are some glitches and things that could be improved, but the fact is, it and other countries have universal healthcare and manage to stay viable as countries. Of course, we do not put such an emphasis on military spending. Could that be a difference.

It is absolutely shameful that citizens of a country like the US can not be certain of receiving proper healthcare.....even if they ARE paying for insurance. Shame shame.

For the record, you as an American would get healthcare if you were a visitor here, and it would be at a reasonable cost. Heck, even if you were an "illegal alien" they would take care of you because you are a human being. Also, there are no death panels or similar here. Even with universal, government funded health care. Imagine that! shocked

[Fitz1980]

Is it reasonable to understand that there will not be death panels to hasten the deaths of the elderly or infirm, but there will be only so much money to go around. That the money there is will be used to put the young in front of the elderly and the healthy in front of the infirm. That is a better return on investment. For example, saving the life of a 30 year old will net you more tax revenue than saving an 84 year old?


You mean sort of like how insurance companies DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED because they are all about taking people's money and than denying coverage?

Is it reasonable to believe that although the language does say that illegal aliens will not be covered, and now they have decided to put in provisions to make people prove their eligibility, that with a few simple steps, those illegals will in fact be made legal thru amnesty? This is something that most dems have wanted, to grant the illegals amnesty?


And is that better or worse than the Rep(ugs) who like having them here, like paying them pennies on the dollar to do physical labor; but balk at them having a power base?


Is it reasonable to believe that the bill HR3200 says that IRS data will be used to determine eligibility? If you must meet income requirements to be eligible, then yes, you must prove income. What better way than through the IRS?


YOU just posted about illegals getting coverage and than flip out about using IRS data to make sure that people are eligible.........

Like, for serious?????? WTF, Mate??????????


Is it reasonable to believe that our President doesn't even know what's in the bill being discussed (Baucus bill) when he states that there will not be a tax for those who do not buy insurance, when the bill clearly states there will be an excise tax for those who do not comply?


Given that there's like 4 different bills floating around and all of your info comes from the right wing echo chamber who's whole mission is "we distort, you comply"; I'd say that the President knows more than you do about any of the bills.

Of course there are some glitches and things that could be improved, but the fact is, it and other countries have universal healthcare and manage to stay viable as countries. Of course, we do not put such an emphasis on military spending. Could that be a difference.


Ahh; well you see what will happen is that here in the US the mainstream media will give air time to some rich Canadian hypochondriac who didn't want to wait 3 weeks for treatment for some easy to treat non-life-threatening condition; all the while ignoring the millions of American who die from treatable conditions because of business as usual.

[Sanslines]

Is it reasonable to understand that there will not be death panels to hasten the deaths of the elderly or infirm, but there will be only so much money to go around. That the money there is will be used to put the young in front of the elderly and the healthy in front of the infirm. That is a better return on investment. For example, saving the life of a 30 year old will net you more tax revenue than saving an 84 year old?

There will be no death panels that deny coverage to anyone. You will never believe anything but this fairy tail in spite of any logical arguments that are presented. Why do so many people continue to steadfastly believe in the fairy tails that some are determined to keep presenting. What you actually described is the rational behind what insurance companies do. They think in terms of revenue and profit and obviously believe that they can make more money from a healthy 30 year old then a sickly 80 year old.

Is it reasonable to believe that although the language does say that illegal aliens will not be covered, and now they have decided to put in provisions to make people prove their eligibility, that with a few simple steps, those illegals will in fact be made legal thru amnesty? This is something that most dems have wanted, to grant the illegals amnesty?

First of all, amnesty has been offererd by the Repubs during past administrations and so this is not unique to Dems. Secondly, we definitely do need to have a policy that resolves the issue of illegals in this nation.

Is it reasonable to believe that the bill HR3200 says that IRS data will be used to determine eligibility? If you must meet income requirements to be eligible, then yes, you must prove income. What better way than through the IRS?

Would you rather have the govenrment just take anyone's word as to what their income is? What you just described is applicable to determining eligibility for most, if not all, existing programs. It is not unique to this program.

Is it reasonable to believe that our President doesn't even know what's in the bill being discussed (Baucus bill) when he states that there will not be a tax for those who do not buy insurance, when the bill clearly states there will be an excise tax for those who do not comply?

Your logic is completely flawed. You are trying to conclude what the President believes or does not believe based upon your own false interpretations and extrapolations of facts. Assuming that Obama states that he supports a bill does not mean that he supports a bill in it's entirety. He can and does routinely object to aspects of a bill. It is much more reasonable to believe, based upon a preponderance of evidence, that Obama does indeed understand the bill but does not support certain aspects of the bill.

[David77]

Video on health care;

http://pol.moveon.org/insurance_execs/?id=17291-14999993-xdqHT1x&t=2

[David77]

It is absolutely shameful that citizens of a country like the US can not be certain of receiving proper healthcare.....even if they ARE paying for insurance. Shame shame.


Boreas says it best.

Our very poor and partial health care system is a highly immoral, tragic situation.. Not providing the sick persons in our society with care and medication is shameful. I have seen first hand, from having been a social worker for 38 years, many sick, poor persons who did not have opportunity for health care and medication. This is our nation's shamefulness.

[Naturist Mark]

Is it reasonable to understand that there will not be death panels to hasten the deaths of the elderly or infirm, but there will be only so much money to go around. That the money there is will be used to put the young in front of the elderly and the healthy in front of the infirm. That is a better return on investment. For example, saving the life of a 30 year old will net you more tax revenue than saving an 84 year old? The government has been running a single payer health insurance program for the elderly for 45 years now. Medicare. Where are the death panels?

Is it reasonable to believe that although the language does say that illegal aliens will not be covered, and now they have decided to put in provisions to make people prove their eligibility, that with a few simple steps, those illegals will in fact be made legal thru amnesty? This is something that most dems have wanted, to grant the illegals amnesty? Nope. MOST DEMOCRATS have not wanted this. Only Republicans have granted "amnesty" to illegal aliens, and it did not in any way apply to health care. The ONLY federal laws extending free health care to illegals were passed by Reagan and GW Bush.
Is it reasonable to believe that the bill HR3200 says that IRS data will be used to determine eligibility? If you must meet income requirements to be eligible, then yes, you must prove income. What better way than through the IRS?And how does that become "the democrats will deny coverage for "white people" and "registered Republicans" as the fear mongers are suggesting. That is pure douchbaggery
Is it reasonable to believe that our President doesn't even know what's in the bill being discussed (Baucus bill) when he states that there will not be a tax for those who do not buy insurance, when the bill clearly states there will be an excise tax for those who do not comply?Nice strawman. Now where does Obama say that? I've heard him say quite the opposite - that healthy young people who think they are invulnerable and think they can do without coverage, but can end up getting into accidents and using "free" ER care on the public dime will have to pay a tax if they choose to go without insurance. And why is the "Baucus" bill being taken as the final bill when it has been universally rejected by just about everyone. There are 5 bills in congress, 4 not counting the "Baucus" bill which is incomplete and my never pass. Those bills will all be combined (reconciled) before we see the final plan.

[ki4kxq]

Yes, GW wanted amnesty as did the democratic legislature. It was only because the American people melted the phone lines in protest that we didn't get that. Does the immigration system need updating. Yes. However, people should come in the front door announcing who they are. It is then that I will treat you as a guest. If you sneak in my back door like a thief or a criminal, I will treat you as such.

What you all seem to not grasp, is that there is only so much money to go around. Yes, there will be preference given to some over others because there will be no other option. Btw, medicare does limit care to seniors. They pay only a certain amount for procedures. Because a lot of doctors think that this is not proper compensation for their time, effort and expertise, they refuse to take on medicare patients. That number of doctors that refuse medicare patients grows every year, making the problem worse every year. A survey in Business Daily reveals that some 40% of doctors say they will retire from medicine if a government option is passed in any form.

That is another thing some of you keep failing to realize. You can't force people to do anything just because you say. Doctors don't have to accept medicare or medicaid. They don't have to accept patients on a government option plan. If you try to force them they will quit. Then what? Are you going to force people into medical school? Also, most constitutional attorneys say that forcing people to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But then again, so is socialized medicine, so why bother with that pesky piece of paper anyway?

[Navigator]

A survey in Business Daily reveals that some 40% of doctors say they will retire from medicine if a government option is passed in any form.


Let's see...that would be the poll discussed and dismissed here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/eminvestors-business-dail_n_291680.html

As well as here:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/ibdtipp-doctors-poll-is-not-trustworthy.html

Right?

Aren't these the same pollsters who claimed Stephen Hawking would have been left to die (due to rationing) if he'd had to rely on British government run health care....without realizing that Mr. Hawking actually IS British and claims the British government run health care system saved his life?

[MeBNude]

What you all seem to not grasp, is that there is only so much money to go around.

I have not responded to this thread at least five times already.... that would be, type, but not send. I can't get to six without sending... and it is going to get personal, at least to me. I have contributed to everything that my government would let my taxes pay. I have contributed more to other causes when I have been able.

Yet, today, I find myself in this most unexpected position with health needs, and yet not able to afford... how does that work? Do I file for bankruptcy? I don't want to do that. And then there are all of the others who weren't as lucky as I to have health care to begin with.

Sobering thoughts. But still free and happy on the beach!:)

[Sanslines]

What you all seem to not grasp, is that there is only so much money to go around. Yes, there will be preference given to some over others because there will be no other option. Btw, medicare does limit care to seniors. They pay only a certain amount for procedures. Because a lot of doctors think that this is not proper compensation for their time, effort and expertise, they refuse to take on medicare patients. That number of doctors that refuse medicare patients grows every year, making the problem worse every year. A survey in Business Daily reveals that some 40% of doctors say they will retire from medicine if a government option is passed in any form.

That is another thing some of you keep failing to realize. You can't force people to do anything just because you say. Doctors don't have to accept medicare or medicaid. They don't have to accept patients on a government option plan. If you try to force them they will quit. Then what? Are you going to force people into medical school? Also, most constitutional attorneys say that forcing people to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But then again, so is socialized medicine, so why bother with that pesky piece of paper anyway?

You have offered no solutions to rising medical care costs. All that you do is to continue to parrot the misinformation about health care reform and attempt to discredit and destroy Obama's plan. Instead of non stop negativity and condemnation about someone who is trying to create positive change, why don't you offer realistic solutions as to how to drive medical costs down. The Repubs had a golden opportunity to create real health care reform but instead chose to turn a blind eye to the ever increasing numbers of uninsured and continued to allow big pharma and big med to continue unabated. The Repubs could have driven costs down by buying pharmaceuticals in bulk from any place in the world. This is a real free market at work. They instead chose to protect domestic profit potential and allowed a system to develop that is anything but free market.

The solution to your complaints is to obviously allow the numbers of uninsured to keep increasing as medical costs spiral upward well beyond inflation or any reasonable justification for such cost increases. I am sorry, but such a callous option that basically condemns those who can not afford medical insurance or to pay their bills to suffer and die is basically a crime against humanity.

[MoonShadow]

What you all seem to not grasp, is that there is only so much money to go around. Yes, there will be preference given to some over others because there will be no other option. Btw, medicare does limit care to seniors. They pay only a certain amount for procedures. Because a lot of doctors think that this is not proper compensation for their time, effort and expertise, they refuse to take on medicare patients. That number of doctors that refuse medicare patients grows every year, making the problem worse every year. A survey in Business Daily reveals that some 40% of doctors say they will retire from medicine if a government option is passed in any form.

That is another thing some of you keep failing to realize. You can't force people to do anything just because you say. Doctors don't have to accept medicare or medicaid. They don't have to accept patients on a government option plan. If you try to force them they will quit. Then what? Are you going to force people into medical school? Also, most constitutional attorneys say that forcing people to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But then again, so is socialized medicine, so why bother with that pesky piece of paper anyway?


And you know all of the above how?

[MoonShadow]

The Repubs had a golden opportunity to create real health care reform but instead chose to turn a blind eye to the ever increasing numbers of uninsured and continued to allow big pharma and big med to continue unabated. The Repubs could have driven costs down by buying pharmaceuticals in bulk from any place in the world. This is a real free market at work. They instead chose to protect domestic profit potential and allowed a system to develop that is anything but free market.

The solution to your complaints is to obviously allow the numbers of uninsured to keep increasing as medical costs spiral upward well beyond inflation or any reasonable justification for such cost increases. I am sorry, but such a callous option that basically condemns those who can not afford medical insurance or to pay their bills to suffer and die is basically a crime against humanity.


Yes, the republicans have had years to create a better health care system through reform in this country and they haven't. Costs continue to rise and they continue to fight for any health care reform. When they had control, reform wasn't even on their agenda.

You are right, Sanslines, the republicans of this country and those who align with them are condemning the uninsured from health care which IS an abominable "crime against humanity"!

[MeBNude]

One other detail for your contemplation, Sanslines...

I am 44 years old, and because of losing my job, this is the first time, since I was 18 years old, that I have not had insurance... I have definitely paid for others in the U.S. health system.

I like to be able to talk from the ivory/academic tower... I do a lot, actually. But when in the trenches (at least with health care at this point)... it feels a whole lot different.

[Boreas]

Well kix, all I can say is thank goodness I live in a country that has the structure to allow "socialised medicine". Apparently, if the current state of health care in the US is "constitutional" then the constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. I am sure though that the current state of US health care is not what your founding fathers envisioned for their new country.

MeBNude, I hope you can find proper solutions to your health concerns.

[Lord Drakkus]

Also, most constitutional attorneys say that forcing people to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But then again, so is socialized medicine, so why bother with that pesky piece of paper anyway?

US Constituation, Article 1 section 8:

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;
Government run health programs are unconstitutional? Really? Sounds like taking care of the "General Welfare" to me...

Wanna talk about something unconstitutional? Check out this, also Article 1, Section 8:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

[Sanslines]

One other detail for your contemplation, Sanslines...

I am 44 years old, and because of losing my job, this is the first time, since I was 18 years old, that I have not had insurance... I have definitely paid for others in the U.S. health system.

I like to be able to talk from the ivory/academic tower... I do a lot, actually. But when in the trenches (at least with health care at this point)... it feels a whole lot different.

You mention another problem with health care. Since employers provide the majority of health care, employers will routinely use the scare tactic loss of health care along with the job to pressure their employees to work harder. One major problem in our country is that people NEED STABILITY. People need to be reassured about basic things, such as there will not be some kind of catastrophic loss of food or health care coverage.

When you are in the trenches with health care, you will no doubt research a great many health care plans in your search to find affordable health care coverage. You will find plans that will charge extrememely high premiums and then put you are constant risk of losing your coverage due to 'discovered' pre existing conditions by your new insurance company. If you are not able to afford health insurance and must depend upon being self funded, you will find that your medical bills will be much higher then those charged to insurance companies.

[ki4kxq]

US Constituation, Article 1 section 8:
Government run health programs are unconstitutional? Really? Sounds like taking care of the "General Welfare" to me...

Wanna talk about something unconstitutional? Check out this, also Article 1, Section 8:

Maybe you should read that again Lord Drakkus. The constitution says PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE the general welfare. There is a big difference in those two words.

The constitution is set up so that STATES take care of these kinds of things. The federal government is supposed to do infrastructure, (roads, bridges etc) defense, and treaties. The states are left to do the rest. If you want socialized medicine, it should be done by the states.

As far as not offering any solutions, I have done it so many times I can't even count the number. As far as Business Net Daily, they are not the only ones that have gotten the same response from doctors. Does anybody remember the doctors and nurses marching on DC before the big tea party in protest to a government option. Of course you don't, you only see what's on MSNBC.

`

[Lord Drakkus]

Maybe you should read that again Lord Drakkus. The constitution says PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE the general welfare. There is a big difference in those two words.

Actually, that's just the introduction.
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.Maybe you should read it again yourself. Article 1, Section 8.

Does anybody remember the doctors and nurses marching on DC before the big tea party in protest to a government option. Of course you don't, you only see what's on MSNBC.

Actually, I tend to stay out of politics, and don't generally watch the news. So I know nothing about any of that. But, since I got very interested recently in what the constitution actually says with all the debate over things being "unconstitutional" and what-not, I thought I would read it. Turns out, what so many people like to call "Socialized medicine" isn't unconstitutional in the least. It's right there, in Article 1, Section 8.

[Sanslines]

The constitution is set up so that STATES take care of these kinds of things. The federal government is supposed to do infrastructure, (roads, bridges etc) defense, and treaties. The states are left to do the rest. If you want socialized medicine, it should be done by the states.

Oh give me a break! The states do not have the size and power that the federal government has to force pharmaceutical prices down by allowing government agencies to buy pharmaceuticals from anywhere in the world.


As far as not offering any solutions, I have done it so many times I can't even count the number. As far as Business Net Daily, they are not the only ones that have gotten the same response from doctors. Does anybody remember the doctors and nurses marching on DC before the big tea party in protest to a government option. Of course you don't, you only see what's on MSNBC.

Your solutions, such as allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines, are non solutions. Allowing for this will never drive down the cost of health care and you know it. Only the federal govenrment has the ability to stand up to big business and drive real change. You have also offered no real solution as to how to provide health care to the 30 million uninsured. You continue to promote the idea that due to lack of doctors, resources, etc the system can not handle an additional 30 million patients and doing so would lead to death panels and rationing of health care.

[Navigator]

As far as Business Net Daily, they are not the only ones that have gotten the same response from doctors.


Do you have a link to support that idea?

The numbers I'm seeing show that about 73% of Doctors support some form of public option. Many Doctors support a single payer government plan.

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

[MeBNude]

When you are in the trenches with health care, you will no doubt research a great many health care plans in your search to find affordable health care coverage. You will find plans that will charge extrememely high premiums and then put you are constant risk of losing your coverage due to 'discovered' pre existing conditions by your new insurance company. If you are not able to afford health insurance and must depend upon being self funded, you will find that your medical bills will be much higher then those charged to insurance companies.

You are absolutely right, Sanslines... hense the position in which I find myself. Difficult at best.

But I can still type and debate!!! :)

[Fitz1980]

Well kix, all I can say is thank goodness I live in a country that has the structure to allow "socialised medicine". Apparently, if the current state of health care in the US is "constitutional" then the constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. I am sure though that the current state of US health care is not what your founding fathers envisioned for their new country.

MeBNude, I hope you can find proper solutions to your health concerns.

Regarding the constitutional issue. The current Supreme court has 3 Justices appointed by Democrats and 6 by Republicans. That's only because Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed a few months back. Before that it was 2-Democrat and 7-Republican, and even that very conservative judicial body does not agree with ki4kxq on what is and is not constitutional.

[Boreas]

Regarding the constitutional issue. The current Supreme court has 3 Justices appointed by Democrats and 6 by Republicans. That's only because Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed a few months back. Before that it was 2-Democrat and 7-Republican, and even that very conservative judicial body does not agree with ki4kxq on what is and is not constitutional.

That is extremely reassuring. If it were are ki4kxq suggests, it would be very difficult to be free and healthy in the US.

[Naturist Mark]

Does anybody remember the doctors and nurses marching on DC before the big tea party in protest to a government option. Of course you don't, you only see what's on MSNBC.

I remember it. It was on the 10th, there were literally DOZENS of people at the rally. That was the morning after Obama's address to Congress, and the only story on most channels was Joe Wilson's bout of Tourette's syndrome. But I do remember hearing about a very small protest. Here's a site with lots of pictures: Doctors Against Obamacare – Rally in D.C. (http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/09/doctors-against-obamacare-rally-in-d-c/)

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/MG_0126.jpg

Wow, I could barely fit that crowd into my back yard ...

[ki4kxq]

Actually, that's just the introduction. Maybe you should read it again yourself. Article 1, Section 8.



Actually, I tend to stay out of politics, and don't generally watch the news. So I know nothing about any of that. But, since I got very interested recently in what the constitution actually says with all the debate over things being "unconstitutional" and what-not, I thought I would read it. Turns out, what so many people like to call "Socialized medicine" isn't unconstitutional in the least. It's right there, in Article 1, Section 8.

Ah, the sin of omission. Yes, Article I, Section 8

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.

Then the constitution actually goes further and gives what the common defence and general welfare contains.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States. To regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States. To establish Post Offices and post roads. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations. To declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. To raise and support Armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years. To provide and maintain a Navy. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States and to exercise the authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings and, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Hmm, nothing in there about providing a government run health care system. It also says in the final paragraph that the powers will be for the execution of the above things listed and those expressly vested by the constitution.

Yes we have things that are not constitutional. Just because one group of justices does not find something unconstitutional doesn't mean other justices see that something is unconstitutional. However, once a massive federal program is put in place, it is almost impossible to take it away. That is why those that understand the magnitude of the constitutional affront of these proposals for a government plan, are doing their best to make sure that it does not happen on a federal level.

[Boreas]

To borrow money on the credit of the United States. To regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States. To establish Post Offices and post roads. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations. To declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. To raise and support Armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years. To provide and maintain a Navy. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States and to exercise the authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings and, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Hmm, nothing in there about providing a government run health care system. It also says in the final paragraph that the powers will be for the execution of the above things listed and those expressly vested by the constitution.


The thing was written in the 1700s. Things have changed a touch since then. Oh, and what about the two year limit on spent on moneys appropriated for war? You never did answer that question before. Inquiring minds want to know.

[ki4kxq]

The thing was written in the 1700s. Things have changed a touch since then. Oh, and what about the two year limit on spent on moneys appropriated for war? You never did answer that question before. Inquiring minds want to know.

Here's your answer, Congress appropriates money on a yearly basis. It doesn't say that you cannot be in a war longer than 2 years. In fact, it doesn't mention war at all.

Also, the age doesn't matter. We have a constitution that we are supposed to be governed by. Why not say freedom of speech or freedom of religion is an outdated notion as well?

[Lord Drakkus]

Hmm, nothing in there about providing a government run health care system. It also says in the final paragraph that the powers will be for the execution of the above things listed and those expressly vested by the constitution.

Actually you're right. Yet again, screwed up by my incomplete understanding of some punctuation marks, namely the difference between colon (:) semicolon (;) and period. After finding the meaning of those things and reading back through it, my understanding is different.

According to the original draft of the constitution, that is NOT a power which was granted to the federal government. Since I'm not willing to look through all of the amendments to the constitution right now, I'm stepping back out of the debate.

(Edit)
Here's your answer, Congress appropriates money on a yearly basis. It doesn't say that you cannot be in a war longer than 2 years. In fact, it doesn't mention war at all.

NOPE! I'm back in! lol. Okay, actually what it states is that they may only appropriate monies for the raising and outfitting of an ARMY for a period of no longer than two years. "Congress appropriates money on a yearly basis" is just a loophole that some people seem to be okay with, even though it is quite obviously not what the wording intended.

This is completely off topic though, so not a valid point for this thread. Okay, stepping back out.

[Boreas]

Also, the age doesn't matter. We have a constitution that we are supposed to be governed by. Why not say freedom of speech or freedom of religion is an outdated notion as well?

For one thing, there was no such thing as "health care" in the 1770's. Your founding fathers would not have even imagined such a thing.

I agree with others who say that health care comes under the welfare of the citizens.

[Boreas]

NOPE! I'm back in! lol. Okay, actually what it states is that they may only appropriate monies for the raising and outfitting of an ARMY for a period of no longer than two years. "Congress appropriates money on a yearly basis" is just a loophole that some people seem to be okay with, even though it is quite obviously not what the wording intended.

This is completely off topic though, so not a valid point for this thread. Okay, stepping back out.

LOL. You will be back! :sneaky:

[Fitz1980]

There's also Article one, secton 8, clause 18:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

It's actually one of the more controversial clauses in the constitution. It's often paired with the interstate commerce clause to stretch the power of the Federal Government into areas where it previously didn't have a presence. In fact many scholars have called it the "elastic clause" for that very reason. It has been used to justify federal prohibition, previously of alcohol these days on narcotics and marijuana. It was used to justify the Federal Government getting involved in things like civil rights, with "states' rights" often being the rallying cry of racists who opposed The Civil Rights Act. Ironically many of those same people now want a Federal ban on gay marriage now that individual states have begun legalizing it.

As previously pointed out a lot has changed since the 1770s. The Constitution grants the government the power to "raise an Army and maintain a Navy" during time of war. Nothing about holding a large peacetime Army; in fact the Deceleration of Independence even lists the keeping of a large peacetime Army as one of the grievances against the King of England. Of course that was when most of the soldiers needed only learn basic rifle drills and it took months for people to reach the battlefields. These days governments can be toppled within a week and you don't want to be sending out the draft notices in the time it takes for the fighting to be over and the other guy to have already achieved his objective.

My only real point in this is that things change in 200+ years and interpretations of the Constitution also change through a thing called Case Law, which is how previous judges and appeals court rule in cases where there's a question of Constitutionality. Some said that the national interstate highway system was unconstitutional; I'd imagine that ki4kxq is not one of them, being a trucker and all.

[jagers]

I say the biggest problem with health care is the costs. In our state we many who CHOOSE not to have health care or go to FREE clinics for health issues when the problem is easily treatable. Instead they wait until the problem is a major full blown problem and go to the emergency room because it is FREE and will NOT be refused treatment for any reason illegal entry, criminal activity, already covered by insurance but don't pay, etc. (State Law).

Somebody has to recover those costs! We that pay for insurance end up paying for the hospital's outstanding bills. Remember they are a NON-PROFIT business run by schools or religious organizations at least in our state. We don't have state run hospitals. They are run by churches. Most people for get that.

That is MY opinion no need for your comments. I am just making a statement.;)

[MeBNude]

That is MY opinion no need for your comments. I am just making a statement.;)

When you post on a public forum... comments will naturally follow. In this thread... it would be me, first... who wanted health insurance and couldn't get it.

There are always two sides to every coin.

[maliakei]

One other detail for your contemplation, Sanslines...

I am 44 years old, and because of losing my job, this is the first time, since I was 18 years old, that I have not had insurance... I have definitely paid for others in the U.S. health system.

Really. I am 48 years old, got my first layoff in July'03 along with 2 other women, one in her early 40's, the other in her early 50's. Since then I've been doing odd jobs, found one but the co. closed due to low tourism. Over the course of this time I've noticed several of my friends & former co-workers losing their jobs -- all in their 40's & 50's. Coincidence or not? Something tells me this is no coincidence. It is cheaper for companies to keep younger workers because it's a fact it costs less to insure them. It's age discrimination for sure, but not an easy task to prove it.

Like you, I've Definitely paid for others in the US health care system. Over a year ago I got hired on at a bank where healthcare was a requirement. You either had to be covered with your own insurance -- filling a form to prove coverage. If you had none then it was required you pay into an HMO or PPO plan offered through the company. At $9/hr and only working p/t, my paycheck was next to nothing.

[maliakei]

You mention another problem with health care. Since employers provide the majority of health care, employers will routinely use the scare tactic loss of health care along with the job to pressure their employees to work harder. One major problem in our country is that people NEED STABILITY. People need to be reassured about basic things, such as there will not be some kind of catastrophic loss of food or health care coverage.

You're right. Many employers give there employees the option of HMO or PPO insurance, and one employer didn't like it when I chose the PPO plan. I was in my mid 30's at the time and told her it was my choice, like why debate with me about it?! I preferred the PPO plan because of greater flexibility, and had established longtime doctors, and happy with that. Besides setting aside $500 /mo savings that was my back-up plan for anything I needed for the future.

When you are in the trenches with health care, you will no doubt research a great many health care plans in your search to find affordable health care coverage.

That's true if you have no pre-existing conditions, otherwise forget it. People just won't have the money to buy insurance. Soooooooooo.... with more & more layoffs comes more & more people unable to afford health insurance which means less $ for insurance companies and more people unable to receive the care they need. Thank Goodness for volunteer organizations out there, if you can find them in time.. Sadly many end up dying..

If you are not able to afford health insurance and must depend upon being self funded, you will find that your medical bills will be much higher then those charged to insurance companies.

Not always. At least for me. Many places will gladly accept 100% cash payments upfront and give a discount.

[Lord Drakkus]

Not always. At least for me. Many places will gladly accept 100% cash payments upfront and give a discount.

I've noticed the same thing. I had a breathing test done that would've cost around $200 through insurance, but only ended up paying $90 with cash. A vasectomy would've cost around $500 through insurance, only $250 cash. Those are the only 2 medical things I've done in the past 4 years though, so I have no other personal references at the moment.

[maliakei]

I've noticed the same thing. I had a breathing test done that would've cost around $200 through insurance, but only ended up paying $90 with cash. A vasectomy would've cost around $500 through insurance, only $250 cash. Those are the only 2 medical things I've done in the past 4 years though, so I have no other personal references at the moment.

Really. You can see why this isn't all one-sided either. Many doctors don't want to deal with all the beaucracy from insurance companies like HMO's. In fact, one of my doctors said he refuses to deal with them because of all the hassle, time & money spent, besides needing the time to take care of patients.

[Fitz1980]

Not always. At least for me. Many places will gladly accept 100% cash payments upfront and give a discount.

That is true. I worked with a guy who ended up in the hospital when we worked construction. We were all independent contractors so he was basically on his own. When he was working on his bill and subsequent payment plan the documents listed some ridiculously inflated price that the insurance companies pay vs what he'd pay in cash installments. So basically the insurance deny coverage for as many things as they can and the hospitals overcharge insurance companies to make up for all of the "free" emergency treatment they are bound by law to provide.

Which leads to the question of why aren't they backing healthcare reform? The answer is that hospital administrators, insurance companies and their respective shareholders get to keep a big chunk of that money.

[maliakei]

That is true. I worked with a guy who ended up in the hospital when we worked construction. We were all independent contractors so he was basically on his own. When he was working on his bill and subsequent payment plan the documents listed some ridiculously inflated price that the insurance companies pay vs what he'd pay in cash installments. So basically the insurance deny coverage for as many things as they can and the hospitals overcharge insurance companies to make up for all of the "free" emergency treatment they are bound by law to provide.

Which leads to the question of why aren't they backing healthcare reform? The answer is that hospital administrators, insurance companies and their respective shareholders get to keep a big chunk of that money.

Yeah, really. It's too powerful -- the Big execs, Big businesses, Big insurance companies, and Wall Street. Obama is trying to figure out ways to make healthcare available to American citizens. Many of us can't afford it, working or not. And many who aren't working have lost our jobs and want to work. What a mess..

The frustration is not one-sided. Many doctors and health care providers are unhappy and downright angry. They hate the bureaucracy and demands of the insurance industry that drains staff time, pays them a fraction of what the service is worth, and takes them away from patients. What used to be a 20-30 minute check-up is now relegated to about 5-10 minutes.

No one can run a business and consistently lose money, so what are the alternatives? How do we take healthcare reform to Main Street? Many doctors are leaving insurance reimbursement behind and offering their services for direct payment. One option for general care is through 'concierge medicine.' Have you heard of this one yet? It is like an old-fashioned doc for a modern price.

People can't afford health care, and the entrepreneurial spirit will help us get there, both in big steps and small steps. It's time to tear down the walls and create a new marketplace for our health based on trust, experience, and fairness.

By the way..
If you are paying cash, ALWAYS get a receipt. Better yet, see about getting an itemized breakdown of services done for the record, incl. tax purposes.

[Sanslines]

Really. I am 48 years old, got my first layoff in July'03 along with 2 other women, one in her early 40's, the other in her early 50's. Since then I've been doing odd jobs, found one but the co. closed due to low tourism. Over the course of this time I've noticed several of my friends & former co-workers losing their jobs -- all in their 40's & 50's. Coincidence or not? Something tells me this is no coincidence. It is cheaper for companies to keep younger workers because it's a fact it costs less to insure them. It's age discrimination for sure, but not an easy task to prove it.

Like you, I've Definitely paid for others in the US health care system. Over a year ago I got hired on at a bank where healthcare was a requirement. You either had to be covered with your own insurance -- filling a form to prove coverage. If you had none then it was required you pay into an HMO or PPO plan offered through the company. At $9/hr and only working p/t, my paycheck was next to nothing.

It is not a coincidence that people in their 40's and 50's are being laid off. There are many reasons for this. Some are true and some are false. One perception is that older workers are more prone to serious illness and require expensive medical care more often then younger workers. Another perception is that older workers are routed in old technologies, are outdated, and will either require expensive retraining or are untrainable. A very valid but often unmentioned reason (not perception) is that older workers can not be as easily manipulated, fooled, or influenced as younger workers can due to perspectives of their life experiences.

[maliakei]

It is not a coincidence that people in their 40's and 50's are being laid off. There are many reasons for this. Some are true and some are false. One perception is that older workers are more prone to serious illness and require expensive medical care more often then younger workers. Another perception is that older workers are routed in old technologies, are outdated, and will either require expensive retraining or are untrainable. A very valid but often unmentioned reason (not perception) is that older workers can not be as easily manipulated, fooled, or influenced as younger workers can due to perspectives of their life experiences.

I figured that much. The 'perceptions' are not always perceived as being so -- just age. Companies fail to recognize the positives 'older' workers have such as experience, maturity, etc. They also fail to recognize other costs, like maternity leave, absenteeism, tardiness, day care needs, sick children, etc. 'younger' workers may incur. Now this isn't meant to say ALL under 40 workers are that way because I've known many hard-working, educated, physically, and mentally healthy people in their teens, 20's, & 30's. Heck, I was one of 'em!! Still hard-working and do my best to stay healthy -- just older and a bit wiser.

Sanslines: What are your thoughts on concierge doctor plans? Good idea or not?

[Kouak]

Talk about the overcharging hospitals do. When my first child was born, we asked for those cloth slippers (very cheaply made) because my wife's feet were cold. They charged $20 for them! All of those heated blankets were free! Go figure!

[Boreas]

When you post on a public forum... comments will naturally follow. In this thread... it would be me, first... who wanted health insurance and couldn't get it.

There are always two sides to every coin.

And then there are those who thought they had it. They paid for it. When they needed it, they found that they were not covered.

It is all very shameful for the most powerful and most "free" country in the world. Free schmee. You cannot be free if you cannot access health care, or if you are paying humungous medical bills.

[Sanslines]

I figured that much. The 'perceptions' are not always perceived as being so -- just age. Companies fail to recognize the positives 'older' workers have such as experience, maturity, etc. They also fail to recognize other costs, like maternity leave, absenteeism, tardiness, day care needs, sick children, etc. 'younger' workers may incur. Now this isn't meant to say ALL under 40 workers are that way because I've known many hard-working, educated, physically, and mentally healthy people in their teens, 20's, & 30's. Heck, I was one of 'em!! Still hard-working and do my best to stay healthy -- just older and a bit wiser.

Sanslines: What are your thoughts on concierge doctor plans? Good idea or not?

My thoughts are that the plans sound good in theory but some of the most important things to be considered include being absolutely certain of all costs and also the quality of the doctor. If the doctor is poor to begin with, then all the time in the world will not lead to better diagnosis or quality of care.

[Sanslines]

Imagine a modern day version of a 1960's commune. Imagine a place where people of all ages act like real neighbors and help each other regardless of age. Imagine a safe place where people share communal living space. Imagine a place where people communially grow foods free from poisons and toxins. Imagine a community where shallowness, self centerdness, and rampant materialism is rejected............where people are accepted for who they really are and not for what they look like. Imagine Ecovillage TREE:



http://www.tree.ecovillageithaca.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=91

[MoonShadow]

I can imagine, Sanslines. Once upon a time we had this very type of existence; it was called community where neighbors helped each other out, had neighborhood cook-outs, shared gardens, and help from anyone at almost anytime. We have lost our community.

Personally, I feel many will be forced back into this type of lifestyle. Noticed I said forced as too many of us live behind our four walls whether at home, the office or inside our vehicles.

One of the reasons I will be moving back east is for that community which seems to be on the rise especially in the Southeast.

Ecovillage would be a grand place to live in. Too far north, however. LOL

[Sanslines]

I can imagine, Sanslines. Once upon a time we had this very type of existence; it was called community where neighbors helped each other out, had neighborhood cook-outs, shared gardens, and help from anyone at almost anytime. We have lost our community.

Personally, I feel many will be forced back into this type of lifestyle. Noticed I said forced as too many of us live behind our four walls whether at home, the office or inside our vehicles.

One of the reasons I will be moving back east is for that community which seems to be on the rise especially in the Southeast.

Ecovillage would be a grand place to live in. Too far north, however. LOL

Well, if you are not able to move to Ecovillage, then perhaps you can come and stay at the Namgyal Monastery in Ithaca. This is the North American Seat of the Dalai Lama of Tibet.

http://www.namgyal.org/

Perhaps you will bump into ERC here.


Seriously, I don't think that people will be forced into communal living like Ecovillage. It takes a certain type of person to live in this kind of community. This type of community accepts everyone in a very honest and simple way. Yet, look at the realities of our society. We reject everyone. We reject obese and overweight people, handicapped people, sick people, old people, minorities, etc. This is our society. Everyone is on their own and real loneliness is a very serious problem -especially among the elderly.

I am so sick of it all that I will join the Peace Corps when I am able to do so later in life. Some South Pacific Island awaits me! That is if the Peace Corps still exists by then as some will no doubt want to eliminate such a government run social program.

[Boreas]

Ecovillage would be a grand place to live in. Too far north, however. LOL

Don't you mean too far south? ;) I mean it is pretty far south from my viewpoint! :)

[Naturist Mark]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Jj6pqajvB8&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/3Jj6pqajvB8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Boreas]

Selfish, selfish, selfish. "If I don't need it, it shouldn't be covered."

Good grief.

And I believe we have heard variations of that argument in this thread.

[Kouak]

Selfish, selfish, selfish. "If I don't need it, it shouldn't be covered."

Good grief.

And I believe we have heard variations of that argument in this thread.

Hey, let's not cover heart attacks since they are expensive.
When I have mine, they will be covered retroactively!:rolleyes:

[Fitz1980]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Jj6pqajvB8&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/3Jj6pqajvB8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

As somebody on another BB pointed out that the whole point of pooling risk is how things like healthcare are supposed to work. Hence young mothers are paying for his 60 year old prostate to get examined and he's paying for their maternal care.

[MoonShadow]

Don't you mean too far south? ;) I mean it is pretty far south from my viewpoint! :)


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!

[MoonShadow]

As somebody on another BB pointed out that the whole point of pooling risk is how things like healthcare are supposed to work. Hence young mothers are paying for his 60 year old prostate to get examined and he's paying for their maternal care.


You know, Fitz, people are amazing and will always amaze you with their thinking. For someone to sit and say they shouldn't pay for maternity care is insanity not to mention callous. In this case, this man will receive any type of treatment he needs, so why is he balking against others who get maternity care (which is women) and as you said, his prostate care is covered while the would be mothers are paying for that along with any other problems he may have concerning his health.

If the health insurance industry started doing "menu" policies can you imagine the horrendous upkeep to do so? And then where would it stop?

As you said, Boreas, this pure selfishness and self-centerness.

[MoonShadow]

LOL Sanslines, a monastery?!?!?!

Criminy, we have too many people now living like monks and most not wanting to.

As you said, 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.

[Kouak]

As somebody on another BB pointed out that the whole point of pooling risk is how things like healthcare are supposed to work. Hence young mothers are paying for his 60 year old prostate to get examined and he's paying for their maternal care.

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.