I knew this was coming & predicted it - watch out!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

Hey, where's the link to the Obama supporter that bit off a senior citizen's finger last week?

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/20...

Or the vandalism of CO Dem party headquarters by a Democrat 'activist'?

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_1...

Or the Obama posters that were supposedly made by some right-wing racists but were actually made by an Obama supporter?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=...

Or the arrest of the Dem activist that put the swastica on the Dem representative's sign? Remember - the swastica that I said was probably graffitied by a Dem and all you lefties said no way? Remember that one?

The fact that DEMOCRATS are purposely trashing Democratic offices in order to make it look like the GOP did it shows how truly pathetic they are. It's sickening.

http://www.truthout.org/090609Z?n

Did anyone see the middle-aged disabled women, sitting in her wheelchair being heckled while trying to explain her support of President Obama's plan?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opini...

computer that is.

If Darwin takes his compuetr apart it would void his Rent-A-Center agreement.

Darwin1 why don't you take your computer apart and fix the fan in it cause your typing a lot of hot air.

Darwin;"You and the other ignorant Conservatives are the only ones who want to go back in time." ---- its nice to know that we're done having to hear your rants about slaves & your constant version of what the Constitution says or doesnt say.

Pete, how ignorant can you be. Congress votes. Harry and Nancy don't vote singularly for the entire body. What you wrote is compeletely false. You talk about going back to the founding fathers, when slaves took care of them from cradle to grave, women had no rights and people died in their 40's. You and the other ignorant Conservatives are the only ones who want to go back in time.

The volumes are really picking up on Intrade.
The market says there is only a 33% chance a plan will pass with a public option in it, by the end of this year.
http://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/clo...
.
Pretty amazing that it's given only a about a 33% chance of passing, despite the Democrats having huge majorities in both houses. All you lefties who think this is a slam dunk, now's your chance to cash in. Grab all the $$$$ you can now before your governmnet gets a hold of it all later, haha.

pete; that about sums it up - nice comments

proartist; assuming your refering to the "right wing nut" that shot Dr. George Tiller - your right he was a nut so put away your broad brushes & get it right, Scott Roeder is NOT the poster boy for conservatives.

DiGriz:"...you didn't see Republicans or conservatives or anyone else NOT on the left side protesting much of anything"....Really?!?!? Just one example....doctors providing HEALTH care were killed because of all the political rhetoric and excessive clinic protests to oppose LEGAL medical procedures - "conservatives" and "Republicans" opposing an American "freedom from government tyranny" and actually encouraging the invasion of privacy to put politics and the government between a patient and doctor.

kinsohn; not to feed the fire, but dont they already do that in Florida for hurricanes - I think I heard somewhere that you paid the state for your flood or hurricane damage insurance. Insurance co's couldnt take the massive losses & as long as you brought it up, didn't State Farm also say they were done in FL in 2010 due to losses. Interesting we dont hear more about the raping & pilaging of this insurance industry. Maybe somebody knows & will chime in.

It's amazing that property and casualty insurance has survived this long without a government takeover. After all, the losses are much larger and much more unpredictable than health insurance.

Oops. Maybe I shouldn't give you lefties any more ideas, given we already run banks, car companies, student loans, and, if you have your way, health insurance companies.

T.E.A. (Totally Extreme Anarchists) Party....how lamentable for the PEOPLE of this nation while we have to see such ethnocentric fanatics play right into the hands of the corporate lobbyists to keep the culture wars unending, the status quo that is NOT working totally stable, and any actual progress stopped dead in its tracks because of lies and fearmongering.

Sorry, it is in Janesville.......I'm getting forgetful in my old age.......

Don't be Tardy to the Party!!!

Saturday at the lower court house park. 9am Till noon

T.E.A. Party (Taxed Enough Already)

Zoom, I'm not comparing medical care to food. I'm only saying that the natural market forces driving down the price of food are the same natural market forces that will drive down the price of anything. In this case, its healthcare. I only used food because it is even more essential to human survival than healthcare. Markets do a marvelous job of maintaining balance. If you are old enough to recall, compare the availability of food in the USA to that of the former Soviet Union. Remember, nobody risked their life climbing the wall into Soviet EAST Berlin. That wall was there to keep people from leaving! The Berlin wall provided irrefutable empirical evidence of what works and what doesn't work. That part is not an issue for debate.

Look at the food analogy from another perspective: Imagine we've had employer-paid food benefits for the past 60 years or so. You walk into a grocery store or restaurant, flash your insurance card and your employer-paid food insurance company picks up the tab. Full coverage. You never shell out a dime. What motivates that store or restaurant to hold down prices? ...or even publish prices for that matter. Why the heck would they when people are handing them blank checks? Would you, if you were them? So, with the cost of food totally irrelevant in the consumer market for food, what then must have happened to food prices over those past 60 years? I say MUST, not might or could, because the drive for profit always motivates prices to rise. The only force driving down price in any market is competition. The ONLY force. In this scenario, those without food insurance would eventually be unable to afford food.

Important to note here, with the tax credit offset part of my proposal, the transition from employer-paid to employee-paid would be virtually transparent. Unless, that is, said employee CHOOSES to make a change. Markets can't operate without choice. Phase I would open market choice on the demand side. Phase II would greatly expand those choices by opening the market on the supply side.

tired, what are you talking about? Try reading it again and getting your facts straight. If everyone buys it at once in an unregulated market or one without a public option, prices will skyrocket for health insurance plans.

Did you read the CBO? It said that prices would go up because people will live longer. If you wish to go back to a cheaper time when people died in their 30's, please go there. Talk about killing the elderly.

darwin; I'm not sure I get it. 1st Obama said health care for all 46 million and wouldnt cost a dime more - simply by negotiating medicare prices & as a whole costs would go down to "make up" for the underinsured that currently drive overall cost's up, then the CBO says it will cost over $1 trillion & now your saying when everyone buys it the cost will actually go up - which EXACTLY is it?! - I'll bet if you look real hard it'll say somewhere in the Constitution.

I don't like analogies. Food is a commodity. Prices are easy to determine. You can shop for beans at one store and milk the next. At no time will your individual need for food skyrocket due to some unforseen event.

Medical procedures are often combined in the same visit, and vary from ailment to ailment. How can you know what insurance plan to pick, based on the price of services, when you don't know what ailments you might have in the future?

Thanks, Darwin1! It's hard to imagine a better confirmation or bigger vote of confidence than what you just wrote... considering it came from you, that is.

Health Care is not the same as buying food. If food is bad you can return it. If your surgery goes bad you can't return it.

Everyone buying insurance at once is going to drive prices down? On what planet? When everyone is trying to buy gas at once does the price go up or down? Your basing your plan on a reality that does not exist. If your plan is so great sell it to someone, anyone. You couldn't give that plan away.

Thanks for the comments. All good points.

Zoom, I hear what you're saying. That issue isn't directly addressed in the first step but the problem you cite would be greatly lessened. The main goal of Phase I is to create an enormous wave of consumerism; the same sort of wave that drives down the price on all other consumer goods and services. Imagine every employer detached from health insurance Not just private industry, but all federal, state and municipal employees; USPS; police; and --most especially-- every elected official! In other words, every single American except active military. That's millions and millions of us in one ENORMOUS wave of free market consumerism. Scary? Not really. That's exactly how we all buy our food every day. How many Americans really and truly starve to death each year?

I predict the downward pressure on cost would be immediate and dramatic. Months before the transition, every supplier in the chain would begin aggressively competing for our business on a reasonably level playing field. (Leveling the playing field comes in Phase II.) Even before the transition, some provider or insurer would be the first to publish prices. This would start an avalanche of price competition. There would be numerous, innovative solutions that I can't even imagine, like that company Pastafarian linked. All of this would start happening BEFORE the transition. As a result, the number of people currently locked out of health care due to cost would drop precipitously. Would fewer people be insured than now? I wouldn't know, but fewer people would need insurance because they could afford more healthcare before going bankrupt.

I see two serious barriers. One is blind irrational partisan loyalties, so beautifully described in Buckyfan's link. Next would be virtually every lobbyist in Washington fighting this with everything they had. And, for the first time ever, most of them would be fighting on the same side. What does that tell you?

onedayatatime: kinsohn (per his/her posts) is an executive (in Indiana) for the fortune 50 parent company of Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Wisconsin. WellPoint owns BCBSWi.

FOTH, pretty good post, with one problem. We cannot allow people to go without health insurance, because we don't prevent people without it from receiving emergency care when they need it. Everyone gets sick eventually. If millions of people decide not to pay for health insurance, everyone else will simply pay more to cover their costs. This is what happens now.

The state trial idea is interesting, but is it too late to wait years to see which plan works best?

kinsohn; are you an insurance salesman? How much stock do you hold in insurance companies?
Your comment that insurance companies should be allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions because people wait until they get sick to buy insurance. Auto insurers don't deny you coverage before an accident but they are quick to drop people once they have an accident. I was insured when I was healthy, I lost my insurance when I lost my job, because of a pre-existing condition I am no longer insurable. I view insurance as legalized extortion, they are more than willing to cover healthy people but anyone who is not cost effective to cover is denied or dropped. You only have to read the paper or watch the news for numerous examples of people who have been more or less told to go home and die because they have exceeded their benefit amount, such as in the case of cancer patients. To answer your question "Is profit bad?" In the health industry YES. Profit is made by cutting cost. Costs are cut by denying payment for coverage. Again, something that is vital to the nation's economic and physical health cannot be profit based. Greed and corruption will always prevail. As far as deregulating the insurance industry.... that worked realy well with the banking industry..lol.

Here is one of many Cos. that arrange for medical services over-seas. This kind of competition is what is needed. www.worldmedassist.com/aboutus.htm
+
I don't begrudge a Co. from making a profit,but if they take my $, then I should get the services I purchased, in good faith that they would be there when I need them.
RAmen

FOTH, The free market is speaking,and it say's go over-seas.
.worldmedassist.com Most major surgeries 90% cheaper, some insurers even cover costs, RAmen

FOTH; great solution for the dilema I proposed. Makes sense & fair to all - the one change I would make is get the IRS out of the equation by abolishing the entire tax code & going to a much simpler plan. Most people agree the tax code is unbelievably complex & unfair - much like what is being proposed in this national h care debate - IF it were to pass as it stands, it would be a very short time before it was even more complex & "unfair" as the current tax code.

tiredofhearingit, some of the plans make my head spin. Employer-paid insurance is tax-sheltered income for those who receive it, while the rest of us have to take up the slack in the form of higher taxes. Of course unions love this. They're the ones responsible for employer-paid health insurance in the first place! That 8% is tied to financing some sort of government run public option plan, which I don't support. Instead, I propose something much simpler:

Do away with employer-paid insurance altogether. At the time of transition, employers would be required to convert the amount currently being paid to their health plan into regular income, while continuing to maintain that existing plan in force. In other words, the value of the existing insurance benefit would now show as regular income, with 100% of that automatically deducted as a voluntary contribution into said existing health plan. So, upon transition, all employees would still be be signed onto the same plan their employer had been quietly paying for on their behalf. The only difference is, upon transition, participation now becomes entirely VOLUNTARY. Each employee instantly becomes a true healthcare consumer --painfully aware of just how much full-coverage health care has REALLY been costing them. Yikes!

Some employees may continue with the status quo; others may buy high-deductible policies elsewhere; others may simply pocket that enormous pay raise and go without insurance. Of course, everyone's income taxes will go up upon transition. D'OH! This sudden tax hit would be softened via tax credits or allowances through the IRS, which of course would be fairly and equally offered to those of us not presently benefiting from the tax shelter of employer-paid health care.

Thus begins the important first step on the demand side of a transition to free market health care: All (paying) consumers are now playing on the same team and we're all mad as hell!

Here's an interesting story.

When I clicked on it, I thought it was going to be an insulting bash on those opposed to Obama's healthcare plan, but it turns out to be very insightful on why there is such animosity over the plan (and everything else).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/2009...

FOTH; I agree the cnn money piece is great. However, I think 1 very important item was incorrect. The article states "Now, under Obamacare, MM Inc. drops its plan. Suddenly, it's saving $10,500 a year on Harry. But Harry's company isn't likely to pass along that savings in his paycheck. In exchange for dropping its benefits, MM has to pay the 8% payroll tax." What this scenario neglects to mention is that a UNION co. will actually incurr a 8% INCREASE in cost. Why? logic says that unions are pushing the public option so hard that they will take it if passed, correct? so an employer would get hit with the 8% increase in payroll tax (penalty for taking the option)- well guess what; union contracts negotiate the entire package - wages & benefits = a total contract. Therefore, if the "benefits" portion of the package go down the money just shifts to the paycheck (no more health ins. cost because they took the public option) the total cost to the employer does not change except now they are also responsible for the additional 8% imposed by the Gov't for the public option - wait it gets even worse! Shifting that portion of the contract to the employees Base pay increases their per hour rate which also increases their portion of local, state & federal taxes as well as the matching amount paid by the employer into social security. This results in an approx increase in cost to union employers somewhere around 11-13%!!!!! Talk about a tax increase on the middle class - what ever happened to Obamas promise NOT to raise taxes on those earning less than 250k - unbelievable slide of hand. Be careful America for what you wish for!

...continues)

In my opinion, the deductible on any sort of insurance coverage, including health, is a highly individual decision with no single correct amount suitable for everyone. If the cost of medical care hadn't skyrocketed, I might still have very high deductible coverage today. But, as the health industry grew less and less economically efficient and I grew older, major illness health care became a luxury I could no longer afford. That reminds me... I need to get "do not resuscitate" tattooed on my forehead so I don't someday wake up involuntarily homeless in some ICU.

Bottom line, the cost of insurance is only a reflection of the risk it is covering. If the entire health care industry could become subjected to free market forces, it could then become economically accessible to nearly everyone, just as it was 60 years ago. Of course, I still wouldn't be able to afford the level of services that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet can afford. So what? I can't afford ANYTHING either of them can afford! More insurance, whether private or government, will only drive the total cost of health care even higher. It is time for an honest, non-partisan, national discussion of free market solutions. More shovels and less manure! (Thanks for grabbing a shovel, Buckyfan.)

The answer might be another so-called Feingold & Ryan Janesville Solution. Paul has some good ideas and Russ is now calling the situation like it is: http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?Se... I totally agree with a state by state experimental approach at this point. Why not let the most innovative, free market state have a shot at it?

(End soap box)

"...just slower to go there..." Yet another great phrase I'll surely want to recycle sometime, DiGriz. Wasn't the Social Security savings account concept the most recent proactive Republican effort? They have devolved into the party of the "unliberal": If every liberal on Earth suddenly dropped dead, they'd be totally speechless and without purpose. Maybe Paul Ryan and a few others can give them true purpose once again.

Back on topic... For 25 years or so my health plan consisted of cash and high-deductible insurance. For quite a while, that was the obvious solution in terms of cost-benefit. Wisconsin law may have since changed but, during those years, it was a little-known fact that insurance companies could dump an entire group without cause. (Individual policies were actually covered with other individuals in anonymous, blind groups.) Once any particular "group" started costing the company serious money, they simply dumped that entire group. They would then present all of the young, healthy members in that group a new alternative plan, while the sickly members (those in genuine, immediate need of medical care) never heard another word from them. That practice was (still is?) legal here. Was I immoral for participating in that scam? I think so.

Over the years, as the cost of health care climbed and I got older and more of a risk, insuring against catastrophic illness became totally unaffordable. Add to this the above mentioned risk and the all too real risk of rescission by an insurance company. (Rescission should be a criminal act, in my opinion.) During those three decades of being covered, I never received one penny in benefits. Naturally, my only regret today would be ever having had any sort of insurance coverage in the first place. Hindsight.

All insurance is a form of legalized gambling that goes like this: The insurer is wagering that nothing bad will happen to you, while you are wagering that something bad WILL happen. The problem with this wager is, the insurers are the ones employing the math genius actuaries and it is they who unilaterally decide when or if to pay out. All other forms of legal gambling are more highly regulated in this regard. The house can't decide the terms or change the odds in the middle of the game like insurance companies do. And, as it is in Las Vegas, only a fool believes they will beat the house in the long run. I'm sure an accounting of all my insurance "investments" would show a similar pattern of extraordinarily low ROI when analyzed in terms of present dollar value. I'd really rather not to think about it.

(Soap box rant continues..._

DiGriz:
Yes; the idea is a free market idea, and it's totally fair to say the Republicans are NOT a free market party any more. Just look at the MASSIVE expansion of governmnet they did when they had congress and the Presidency. Not to mention the endless bailouts Bush, his advisers (Paulson), and many in the party supported. The classic Bush quote was "we have to do stuff anti free market to save free markets"......UHHHH, OK.
.
There really is not much difference between the clowns running the show, do not kid yourself. The most powerful person outside the President, is of course, the FOMC chairman. Bush appointed Ben Bernancki "helicopter Ben" as I like to call him. An AWFUL choice that will rival Greenspan for how big of a disaster he has on the economy. Obama had the chance to offer true "change", but of course just kept the same country club insiders all together in the new oligarchy state, and reappointed helicopter Ben today!
.
Hey; at least now I might have a chance to go out side and catch some of the $$$$ when the big governmnet helicopter drops my way!

I agree NAFTA is a Republican thing, but don't kid yourself, Clinton was out there promoting it, and signed the bill when it came to his desk! I personally think it was a great thing, but that's just me. Clinton really did some great things when he followed the advice of political adviser, Dick Morris; and jumped aboard many of the Republican ideas in congress, and simply took credit for them when they worked.

So, dizzygirl your solution is that everyone should be just like you: isn't that a bit creepy. Are you now a Doctor too? The simple reality is that Doctor's order unnecessary tests because they are paid to and this is why there needs to be reform. Doctor's, like those in Minnesota, could grow a spine and refuse to give unnecessary drugs, perform unnecessary procedures, and prescribe unnecessary tests unlike those in the Miami area who do. I mention these two areas because the Medicare costs in Minnesota are much lower than those in the Miami area.

FOTH, I finally got around to reading that series you linked. I totally agree with everything he says.

Our company, for example, gives us a list of costs for all the medical facilities around us. I would venture to guess my co-workers don't use it (I know I haven't even with my HSA, but I haven't been in for a big-ticket expense yet).

I'd venture to guess if it was all my money (low-cost plan I buy myself, high deductible), I'd certainly be looking for the best deal!

I encourage everyone to read those columns (three, all linked). It might make a big impact on our local debate!
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/eco...

Another half-truth born out of ignorance. The issue is that because BCBSMI is not-for-profit, they are guaranteed issue, meaning that they are forced to insure people who wait to get sick before they buy health insurance. Unless there is a universal, enforceable mandate that everyone buy health insurance, then every health insurer, including non-profits, will have to jack rates continually if they are not allowed to reject people with pre-existing conditions. More arguments countering your own arguments!

No rational business model would force life insurers to insure you after your death, no P&C carrier after your loss, no auto insurer after an accident. But somehow health insurance companies that don't insure people that are already sick are seen as "villians." Another bowl please!

"It was, of course, Clinton, who was the big flag bear behind NAFTA."

No, G.H.W. Bush represented the U.S. in the initial NAFTA push with Canada and Mexico. NAFTA was later ratified by Clinton and a Republican Congress. NAFTA (i.e. free trade) is a tradition Republican ideal.

My bad, but I think the last line of BCBSMI say's it all.
"As long as Michigan laws allow all other insurance companies to reject the sick, Blue Cross will continue to lose tens of millions of dollars and premiums for Blue Cross individual products will continue to feel pressure," the company said in a media statement. Rejecting the sick, is sick,and parasitic, all in the name of profit. RAmen

BCBSMI is not for profit. It lost money, which should be good, right? No evil profits? Or is it bad? So confusing. Another serving please!

kinsohn The CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield made 1.8 million in 2008 They paid their board (34 people) 1.45 million all while losing 144.9 million
That is the reason for a 22% rate hike Oct 1st. 2009. PS Blue&Blue went for profit 3 years ago.
www.freep.com/article/20090821/BUSINESS0... RAmen

Kinsohn; ver well put - then added to your last sentence.... washed down with a big glass of Kool-Aid.

Herpes! LOL (Great metaphor. I'll have to remember that one.)

"Health insurance needs to be non-profit, otherwise people will get taken advantage of." Leaving aside the question as to why, then, we allow farms to make a profit and we don't have "public option" grocery stores, it's interesting to note that lots of health inurance is already non-profit: most Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans are, including MI, IL, and IA. Given this, could you please point out how they take advantage of people less than for-profit insurers? A fact or two would be appreciated.

Along those lines, the newest focus-group canard from the borg is that in lots of areas of the country (mostly rural), there is little competition. Well guess what - most of the insurance companies in those areas are NON-PROFIT! (Blues Plans) You don't know this as this fact does not help the borg.

"Health insurers only insure healthy people.". More ignorant fairy tales. At a typical insurer, 5pc of members incur 50pc of the costs, roughly the same as Medicare. How can that be true if they only insure healthy people?

Now, if you are one of a very small minority of people who gets their insurance through an individual policy (not through your employer), you will have a hard time getting health insurance if you are sick, much as you will have a hard time getting auto insurance for an accident that already occurred.

The solution? Get insurance when you are healthy. Once you have it, the insurers cannot raise your rates because you are sick. Again, as useful idiots, you don't know this as it doesn't help the borg.

What about pre-existing conditions? Well, the health insurance industry has agreed to cover these IF everyone is required to carry health insurance (the moral hazard of waiting until you're sick to get health insurance will be removed). Again, you probably don't know this as it is not consistent with the left-wing commissariats' party line.

If I were a liberal intellectual vassal like many of you on this thread and found out that my thought leaders knew these facts and purposely didn't tell me, I'd be irate. Unfortunately, for most of you, all it means is that you'll go back for another serving of standard left-wing gruel: half-truths and boogeymen.

I guess the DNC has officially changed it's position on free trade, and open boarders. It was, of course, Clinton, who was the big flag bear behind NAFTA. I guess as we move to the new state of oligarchy, via a mass merger of governmnet with corporate giants, old positions are scrapped, and we new ones "evolve"..haha

"Why not open the borders and allow free trade on insurance."

That's just another version of tinkle-down economics. Since consumer protections vary greatly from state to state, insurance companies would simply sell their plans from the least regulated state. This would effectively de-regulate the insurance market. The healthiest people would pay lower premiums, but everyone else would pay more. By separating the sick from the poor, de-regulation would make it even easier for insurance companies to reduce coverage when you need it. Take a recent lesson from the financial markets (and energy markets too). The last thing we need is de-regulated health insurance.

onedayatatime:"For any health care plan to work and be affordable, it has to be non-profit. Whenever there is the chance to make a profit, people will be taken advantage of."

I totally agree with you!

DiGriz, what puzzles me is why rational posters waste so much time responding to anyone whose comments resemble those of a six-grade dropout on psychotropic medication.

Lets pose this question....currently you have to buy insurance in the state you live. You cannt cross state lines it is a federal offence. Why not open the borders and allow free trade on insurance. Or what about the co-op option giving larger groups to reduce rates. All of these do not require goverment intervention other than allowance. What about these proposals? Why reinvent the wheel. Is the sacred cow so sacred that we can not look at other methods of providing adequate heath reform other than goverment control, that the politicians have stated today that they dont even want. Why do we have to have less than they. If they wont accept it why should I and I have great insurance, expensive yes but it does cover major illness for all of my family. HHHMMMMM Obama and his henchmen have alot of work to do, more than I believe they can acomplish in 10 years let alone 4

I have a general question being some of you think you have all the answers; I've read the Senate & House bill and cant seem to find this anywhere - if you know please let me know. Where will all the money that is in the unions health funds go IF the "public option" is passed & they decide their members should go on the public option. We're talking litterally billions & billions of dollars - so I think its worth asking. They cant possibly think they are going to give it back to the members - that is impossible, these funds have been around for in some cases decades & would technically belong to every memeber (dead or alive) that was ever in a particular union. I find this particularily interesting because unions have used the Health Card issue as a HUGE "recruiting tool" over the years & with the "public option" being pushed by them where does that leave their "organizing" in the future?

If this question cant be answered, doesnt this sound like a big payday for union bosses? Pay to Play - "endorse this public option & look what you'll have left over."

DiG, I bet he can't shut up about his stupidity, on that topic or any other.

Here is to you Darwin, the people you follow are brood parasites.

Birds are well known for their parental care, patiently incubating their eggs and then bringing food to their young until they are old enough to look after themselves. However, certain birds, known as "brood parasites," lay their eggs in the nests of other birds and do not provide any parental care for their own offspring. Care that the "hosts" provide to the young parasites is care denied to their own young. This often has a detrimental effect on the reproductive success of the hosts and may affect their population numbers as well.

No, andre, I am saying that the cost of health care, as reflected in the cost of health insurance, has spiraled so out of control in relation to all other costs that health insurance would roughly equal all of my other living expenses, combined. In other words, purchasing health insurance would cause my living expenses to double.

According to Adam Smith, markets only work when there is transparency and honesty. The health care markets are not and will not be until the government steps in one way or another.

I'm all for the free market and capitalism but unbridled capitalism will always be corrupted by man's inate tendancy of GREED. For any health care plan to work and be affordable, it has to be non-profit. Whenever there is the chance to make a profit, people will be taken advantage of. Why do you think private insurance companies are only willing to cover healthy people? There is no profit to be made if they actually have to pay out for someone. The physical as well as the financial health of our nation is being drained by the private health insurance industry. My husband and myself have recently lost our jobs and along with them our health insurance. My husband has found another job (@ 25% of his previous income) that offers health insurance, but if he would signup for it he would only be bringing home $75 per week. I am currently receiving unemployment. If I would continue on COBRA, I would have to choose between house payments and the COBRA payments. This suggestion was actually made to me, I face foreclosure and homelessness....but I will have medical insurance. We don't have a big screen T.V. or cable, my computer is 8 years old and we have cut our food budget to $40 per week. So I guess we are two of those that are sitting home on our asses expecting everything for free. We just want jobs! I'm assuming that the posters on this site who are so adamently against any change to the current system still have jobs and health insurance. GREED has over-powered man's ability to feel any empathy toward his fellow man. If I had a heart attack today, I would refuse to go to the hospital; a funeral is less expensive than a hospital stay. These are the choices people are making!

Because DizzyGirl as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, the founding fathers had slaves so what the hell do they know about social safety nets. They had slaves taking care of them their whole lives. Slavery was their social safety net. I don't know how many times I have to state this FACT before it sinks in.

Saying there is proof and actually providing it are two different things. The Supreme Court decides these interpretations and no one else so good luck with that.

fool-on-the-hill: Thanks, I will read it and get back to you.

andre-linoge: Maybe you had trouble comprehending what I was trying to say in my posting. These are people who cannot get private coverage due to past and/or chronic health issues. They are not asking for a handout and they do not live in luxury. Many have been advised to seek disability but refuse to because they want to continue working. They just want access to health coverage, even if they have to purchase it themselves. If not anywhere else, this part of the system needs to be reformed.

SarahB1, you are a nurse, right? I would like to hear your opinion of the alternative approach I linked below.

Andre, it sounds to me that SarahB1 is referring to folks more similar to me and my friends than to the sort of people you describe. I could live on the amount of money that health insurance would cost me.

MadeinUSA, I am going to assume you heard that from someone and didn't check the info for yourself. The truth is very different from what you claim. There are many web sites you can verify what all elected officials received; www.opensecrets.org being one of them.

During the period you quoted Ryan received $105,000 from insurance PAC's and much less overall than you stated.

The largest donors of money has always been the legal community. Tossing in over 1 billion dollars during the past twenty years...more than any other industry; why do you think tort reform has never happened and is not even on the table during this recent health care debate.

Sarah if we all had free homes, free utilities, free shopping at any store you want, free gas, free cars, on top of not working it would also qualify under domestic tranquility and prompting general welfare. Should that be added too? How about free cell phones and plasma TV’s…I know my kids would be happier, oops I mean they would feel their general welfare is better.

In the PAC [political action committee] funding reports Paul Ryan received over $875,000 in donations during the 2007-2008 reporting period. Most of it coming from BIG Insurance companies. Why would the insurance industry, who already holds this legal extortion racket game by the throat, be throwing around millions of dollars in Washington? It's a sale of goods. Right behind the insurance corp. donations are the ones from bif Pharma. like Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Follow the money.

DiGriz: What about the people who are working 40-plus hours a week and still do not have health coverage? I don't consider someone who has most or a good share of their health coverage covered by their employer as one who has sacrificed and worked extra hard to get to where they are in life. I know plenty of people with advanced degrees (master's degrees) who work more than 40 hours weekly and have no health care coverage. They do not run to the ER for help. Instead, they put off seeking medical care until their issues reach the point of becoming chronic problems. Then they seek out a doctor who is willing to take on a new patient (not always easy today) and pay for services at a higher rate than those with coverage. Many of these friends cannot get coverage because of a history of depression, diabetes, cardiac problems, multiple sclerosis and other chronic conditions. Also, I've seen those with work-provided coverage who seek out care for "sniffles," etc. Insurance has also led to higher prices for medical care. In today's job market, what are these hard-working folks to do?

Response to DiGriz from Denise Dennis opinion column: "To those who believe the Constitution does not include health care reform, I suggest that they re-read the preamble to the Constitution, which says that in order to form a more perfect union we must, '...insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,' and 'promote the general welfare...'

Access to affordable health care will help insure domestic tranquility, it will provide a common defense against illness and the exorbitant cost of health care, and it will indeed promote the general welfare. Nothing is more crucial to the general welfare of American citizens than their health and that requires access to affordable health care.

"In business, revenue is income that a company receives from it`s normal business activities." Wikipedia

"If you had made it past eighth grade you would realize if profit rates are based on total revenues(also called income)."

Revenues are not income. You can't write your own thoughts. Not that it would matter, as your knowledge is as faulty as your writing. A Dem for sure!

"Promote the general welfare..." is in the Constitution. It's in the very first part known as the Preamble. This will probably have to be repeated about 20 times for Conservatives to finally get it.

Those links I provided yesterday to Shawn Tully's proposed alternative healthcare plan are now 404. Here is the third installment of that series, with links to parts 1 and 2: http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/eco... Food for thought that isn't tainted with partisan bias.

Darwin,

What is your rationale for thinking that government must bear society's social problems?

andre you are the expert on stupid since you are allergic to facts and reality.

loco, I understand you Conservatives have comprehension problems but try reading the posts again and maybe, just maybe you might open your eyes to reality.

Darwhine,

Would it be safe to say that by you saying that Jefferson had slaves that the Constitution in an invalid document?

Now children................name calling is not nice.

andre how stupid can you be? Jefferson had slaves taking care of him - duh.

RetiredAirForce, the Senate HELP Committee has a chart that shows the health insurers monopoly state by state. kinsohn, please explain the 44% tax rate in your analysis ,if you can. Physicians For a National Health Program released a report in June of 2008 about the 45 states and DC being able to spend 75 cents or less on medical care. Premiums are not the only income health insurance companies have(investments, capital gains, fees), even if you were right about the 80 cents on every dollar, which you are not, all the taxes would not be part of the remaining 20 cents. If you had made it past eighth grade you would realize if profit rates are based on total revenues(also called income) then tax rates have to be also. Show me where it says 80 cents on every premium dollar has to be paid out in medical payments that is what you are claiming. Only a few states have anything over 75 cents.

Exactly, tiredofhearingit! Yet Americans continue to embrace the promise of Ponzi; as recently as Medicare Part D prescription coverage. Private industry seems to have learned the hard lesson of legacy costs but denial remains a powerful force in politics. Ironic that employer-paid health coverage was their response to union demands under government imposed wage and price controls.

(Thanks for not calling me "fool", though I do consider it a compliment when coming from certain other posters who shall remain nameless.)

A New World Order!

FOTH: (I like this better than calling you "fool", for short of course) I agree with your analogy - its my point exactly, IF we get single payer h care - this would do exactly the same thing. This is 1 huge reason GM had such problems -legacy costs. What workers paid in in an entire year 30-40 years ago might cover 1-2 months of "premiums" in todays market - yet they were contractually "guaranteed" to get these benefits. Same goes for what they paid into SSecurity. The entire system is designed to fail - how can anyone make promises when nobody knows the future costs.

tiredofhearingit, I've read different accounts on whether Social Security or Medicare constitutes the bigger Ponzi scheme of the two. My hunch would be Medicare because future liabilities are theoretically limitless. Consider the inflation rate of healthcare and the unknown of future technology. Let's say some spectacular prosthetic limbs and organs become available when I'm 89 years old. Won't I have the right to stick a gun to your head to make you help pay my $10 million medical bill so I can play center for the Lakers? Hey, I've been paying in with the promise of medical care in my old age! Ridiculous, yes, but where IS the line on future liabilities?

proartist; spoken like a true socialist. Actually I think those words were spoken by the King of England about 10 minutes before the Declaration of Independence was written.

Shouting out requires little self-restraint and even less respect of community. It is far easier to resent and fear a new and changing world culture - no matter how beneficial and positive the changes - than it is to find the courage to engage and adapt as society advances. The harder and far more valiant duty is to encourage progress and actively do the hard work to help it flourish.

fool; if we're sticking to facts - by definition, the largest ponzi scheme out there is a Gov't run plan called Social Security. Money in = money out. Well its the largest currently - if this bill passes it won't be!!!!!

Don't argue semantics: whether accounted for as admin costs or anything else, taxes make up the largest portion of the 20% you lefties complain about.

"When did 45 states and the District of Columbia change their rules and require health insurance companies to pay out 80% of premiums in medical payments, as of June of last year the rules were less than 75 cents." Never. You don't know what you're talking about.

"When Exxon has $460 billion in revenue, reports $46 billion as profit and claims that as 10%, $36 billion of $460 billion is less than 8% tax rate. Unless you try to claim that $36 billion from $82 of net income is 44% tax rate,( isn`t 35% maximum?) then $46 billion is a 56% profit margin, right?"

There is a reason they call it "income tax" and not "revenue tax," as companies are taxed on income, not revenue. Revenue is meaningless if you don't make money on it. This is 8th grade stuff!

To paraphrase Reagan, it's not that lefties aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know just isn't so. This thread is a shining example of that.

RetiredAirForce, don`t remember what site I was on, but there are numerous ones. They were citing an American Medical Association study.(If you are talking about the "monopolies)

"I mean, why not leverage a bankrupt system that we have no idea how to fix over all of the population while we're at it?"

That would probably be the main argument against expanding Medicare. However, bringing in new groups who pay 20% more in premiums than they receive in benefits might be the ONLY hope of saving it. (Transform it from a Ponzi scheme into a quasi-insurance plan.) This only strengthens my question. Why aren't those who praise Medicare as a shining example of government-run health coverage the ones proposing its expansion as the ideal, ready made "public option" plan? If they are sincere, then this is a perfectly reasonable question of them.

Pharm I would be interested in reading the study where your numbers of insurance comapnies having ? percentage of coverage per state.

kinsohn.....I just wanted to take a moment to say thanks for injecting a little bit of reality into this thread......I appreciate your insight.....

kinsohn, YOU are the one that said taxes were administrative expenses. YOU are the one that brought up mergers to counter 428% health insurance companies rise in profits, didn`t make sense then, doesn`t now. When did 45 states and the District of Columbia change their rules and require health insurance companies to pay out 80% of premiums in medical payments, as of June of last year the rules were less than 75 cents. When Exxon has $460 billion in revenue, reports $46 billion as profit and claims that as 10%, $36 billion of $460 billion is less than 8% tax rate. Unless you try to claim that $36 billion from $82 of net income is 44% tax rate,( isn`t 35% maximum?) then $46 billion is a 56% profit margin, right?

I mean, why not leverage a bankrupt system that we have no idea how to fix over all of the population while we're at it? Doesn't that make sense? I'm surprised helicopters are all you hear.

I don't know what makes a conspiracy theory "conservative", but one possibility is: that's been the real plan all along. I.e., introduce a terrifying decoy plan, one that's certain to get shot down, while keeping the "real" plan under wraps to be sold later as the far less objectionable compromise measure. (Like letting your kid talk you out of Brussels sprouts so he'll think eating peas is some sort of treat.) This will allow everyone to save face and go home "a winner" in the eyes of their constituents. Another possibility is: expanding Medicare would drag the bowels of that system out into the daylight, illuminating shadowy details that most folks in Washington would much prefer remained hidden. Are those theories cynical enough for you?

Gotta go... two black Ford sedans with tiny hubcaps just pulled into my driveway, plus it sounds like a helicopter is hovering over my hou

fool; you are correct, that does make too much sense. no drum roll here - Thats EXACTLY why I personally am so against this type of "reform" - why, what's the hidden adgenda behind it & dont start in with the conservative conspiracy theories either - I'm just questioning why? my GUESS (not theory) is this would certainly qualify as "creating" a ton of jobs (we'll forget about all those that will be lost when insuranc Co's go away) and this would result in 1000's of new gov't workers - who as we all know are overwhelmingly represented by unions who in turn definitively support demoratic candidates. JUST A GUESS so calm down profart & darwin.

tiredofhearingit, so the answer to my question might be, "That makes too much sense."?

Color me highly cynical but this reeks of hidden agenda. It's just too much of no-brainer to not have been considered by those orchestrating this health care overhaul. (Drum roll here in anticipation of comments re: "no brainer" from conservatives.)

fool; try this - I think someone beat you to the punch & look where it came from!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-saund...

Maybe one of the more knowledgeable reform advocates here can answer a question I've had for some time. (I am NOT advocating this, just curious.) If Medicare is considered to be such a success, why not simply create a so-called public option by eliminating the minimum age requirement on Medicare, then charge anyone under 62 the going per capita recipient cost, plus a percentage surcharge? In other words, what is the rationale behind creating a completely new and separate bureaucracy to provide everyone with what Medicare currently provides to those over some arbitrary age?

It never stops.

"Accounting 101, administrative costs do NOT include income taxes." No, but the 20% overhead all you lefties complain about does.

"Mergers do not make the total profit go up." Exactly. So why do you lefties include that effect in the 438% number? To deceive.

"Medicare is paying what a reasonable cost should be." Well, markets don't work that way. But even if we made you dictator for a day, how about we allow ALL insurance companies to pay medicare rates? It would both lower costs and allow for fairer competition. Such a bill wouldn't get one Dem vote because they know that their claim of competition is dishonest.

"When an insurance company makes $61 billion in a year and pays $2.4 billion in taxes , what rate is that? Hint, it`s less than the 5% you claim they only make as profit!"
What? You're arguing against yourself. But let's say you knew how to write what you were thinking: Villainous United Health made $2.9b on revenues of $81b. That's a 3.7% margin. And to think you were trying to lecture anyone on accounting. What a joke! http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/invest/...

"It`s like the oil companies making only ten percent profit, which is accurate, but what they don`t say is that they only pay an 8% tax rate."
What? Oil companies only pay an 8% tax rate? In 2008, Exxon had a profit of $82b and paid income taxes of $36b. That's 8%? If you don't do drugs you should start. http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/File...

"Yes, you should be able to cross state lines to buy health insurance because it would foster competition." Have you ever wondered, then, why the Democrats won't allow it? For the same reason they won't let you sue the government plan and the same reason they won't let everyone pay medicare rates. Please give up your willful ignorance.

Accounting 101, administrative costs do NOT include income taxes. Your merger post confirms even more the "monopoly" of health insurers. Mergers do not make the total profit go up, they only concentrate it in fewer companies.Hospitals/clinics/Drs. will cut their bills down for people with out insurance also, because they are overcharging to begin with. Medicare is paying what a reasonable cost should be. When an insurance company makes $61 billion in a year and pays $2.4 billion in taxes , what rate is that? Hint, it`s less than the 5% you claim they only make as profit!It`s like the oil companies making only ten percent profit, which is accurate, but what they don`t say is that they only pay an 8% tax rate. RetiredAirForce, yes, you should be able to cross state lines to buy health insurance because it would foster competition, so would a public option in reform. Right now in 24 states, one company has anywhere from 50-78% of the market, very little competition.

Proartist, some of us are concerned about all types of federal meddling and spending. Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples of how difficult it is to undo the consequences of hasty decisions.

Bush's security and Secret Service handcuffed an entire family in 2004 at a New Mexico campaign rally and detained them in a police van because the little daughter was found to have a John Kerry campaign card in her billfold. Fast-forward to 2009. In Arizona this week, 12 men with guns strapped to their sides and backs are allowed near an Obama event, one carrying a loaded assault rifle. I'll leave it to rational people to consider...is there a double standard? If 12 men would have been carrying weapons of any kind near Bush, would they now be locked up at GITMO forever? Or consider yet another of the hundreds of examples: http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archiv...

One more note about Medicare costs: the biggest concern health insurance companies have about the 'public option' is that the only way it can compete will be by paying providers medicare rates (i.e. below cost). As one of our lefty friends unwittingly pointed out below, this raises the costs for the rest of us. As more people are drawn to the public option because they pay hospitals below cost, the people left in commercial insurance will be paying even higher and higher rates, until everyone eventually goes into the government plan (which of course is the plan).

THEN, the hospitals start crumbling and rationing kicks in in earnest.

Those worried about cost of health care reform may have the right questions...but the wrong issue. Congress is very close to approving yet another $130 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for FY 2010. This comes on top of the approximately $73 billion for the two wars that was already included in the FY 2009 Supplemental. The cost of the Iraq war to date is more than $674 billion. The cost of the war in Afghanistan is over $244 billion. If anyone wants to worry about taxes and costs of a government program, they'd be better served to direct those financial concerns on the policy that will affect the most return.

More stories and half-truths that refute your own arguments.

"Taxes are not part of administrative costs, except for property taxes." No matter how you split it up, if you pay 80% of premium in health care costs, you pay all your taxes out of the remaining 20%.

"In a report from Families USA, they say some health insurance companies maintain loss ratios of only 60%, retaining 40% for administrative costs, marketing, profit." Great, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find such a company. All of the big villainous companies you complain about have their financials out on the web. You'll find such a company right next to the one that has insignificant legal expenses and the others that don't care about administrative costs.

As an aside, another leftie poster already put the lie to that stat by admitting it was 80%. Your arguments continue to refute your own arguments!

"From 2000 thru 2007, profits at 10 of the countries largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428% while consumers paid more for less coverage." Do you think those years were chosen at random? Did they account for the fact that there were huge mergers in that time (if two same size companies merge, the one company now has double the profits of the company remaining even though nothing really changed)? Of course not, as that's contrary to the government line and you are meant to be kept ignorant. While you're out there looking up financials, you'll see the average profit margin for health insurance companies is about 5%. If profits increased 428%, they were making almost no profit in 2000. Also, if you listen to the guidance being provided to Wall Street, very few health insurers are anticipating any increase in profits next year (also omitted by state-run media).

"The CBO report the on Medicare/Medicaid looming problem shows private health insurance costs rising at nearly twice the rate of those two programs." You are correct. In fact, you point to a huge problem: because the government only increases payments at perhaps 1/2 the medical inflation rate (Medicare rates are dictated by the government), providers are forced to raise prices disproportionately on health insurers. Thus, if medical inflation is 4% and the government gives a 2% increase in Medicare (at best), then the remaining 2% is added to health insurerers, so their costs rise 4% + 2% = 6%. It's called 'cost shift.' I have alluded to this in previous posts, and it shows how government irresponsibility is bankrupting not only Medicare but making health insurance too expensive for the rest of us.

Of course, as an unquestioning leftie, you are ignorant of this fact because your state-run media and leftist blogs don't want you to know this.

The truth will set you free!

Pharm, you do know that government sets mandatory minimum levels of covered items for each policy sold per state. Do you also realize that states continually add to this minimum level? How can policies become cheaper when more things must be covered? Why does current law forbid you from obtaining a cheaper policy from another state with fewer mandatory minimums?

There are many players and reasons for the costs of health care, currently government is part of the reason for the costs. Expecting them to solve the price issue after they have been involved in elevating it is hopeful at best; realistically with their track record of other government programs the price to the tax payer will only go up.

kinsohn, you obviously didn`t read the article I referenced about out of network non-payments, that doesn`t surprise me. I added the part about how many health insurance companies to show the monopoly of those companies. Taxes are not part of administrative costs, except for property taxes. In a report from Families USA, they say some health insurance companies maintain loss ratios of only 60%, retaining 40% for administrative costs, marketing, profit. From 2000 thru 2007, profits at 10 of the countries largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428% while consumers paid more for less coverage. While we are at it, the CBO report the on Medicare/Medicaid looming problem shows private health insurance costs rising at nearly twice the rate of those two programs. Is that sustainable? A family plan now costs over $13,000, by 2018 it will be over $25,000.

proartist; you are so correct; universal Gov't run health care will solve all this - right! Who is saying the current system is acceptable? - It needs regulation & change I agree but revamping the entire system & letting it be controlled, regulated AND operated by the same entity is crazy. Talk about fraud, corruption, and political "favors"- this creates a breeding ground for this. Its called a system of Checks & Balances - our entire Gov't was laid out around this - & now you want to put all in one basket- crazy.

You say our "complete inadequte education system" - you make my point! (assuming this is true) in YOUR words the education in this country is inadequate yet your willing to give Health Care to them. No Way.

Isn't it funny that the people who are protesting health care reform are the ones who are WITHOUT it?

Let's see here; leave the insurance companies to control healthcare or put it into the hands of Washington as we ALREADY DO with Medicare/Medicade and the Veteran's Administration. Why would you trust your healthcare options to an insurance company?

You guys sure do know how to manufacture stories quickly.

"Back in the early '90s, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent to pay claims. Last year, it was down to 80 percent." Really? Commissions alone were and are about 5% of premium. So the entire rest of every company worked for free and they paid no taxes! Please use your brains!

Also note that the 80% figure that is correct now (20% costs, biggest item taxes) puts the lie to the 40% cost figure you lefties made up earlier. More stories, more examples of your arguments countering your own arguments!

"They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so."

Think about it: what they're implying here is that Medicare has found a way to operate more efficiently than every last one of the 1,300 health plans mentioned below, some for profit, some not. Does anyone really, truly believe this?

No one has explained what function a government plan would perform more efficiently unless it eliminated all competition. Medicare is basically a check writing machine, which is why it operates cheaply and also why it's going bankrupt.

Paying close attention to medical loss ratios (a manufacturing company's cost of good sold) is exactly what insurance companies are supposed to do (and what Medicare doesn't do.) That's why Medicare is going bankrupt even though it pays less than cost for the services it pays for (unlike insurance companies.)

Also, insurance companies pay just as much attention to administrative costs as they do to medical costs because they both affect profits, but that's omitted from mention by lefties as that doesn't fit the party line. To follow leftie logic, the profit motive forces the insurance companies to pay too little in medical costs but too much in administrative costs. This is laughable!

The proportion of a market an insurer has has absolutely nothing to do with out of network payments. Nothing. More stories!

Keep this in mind: about half of all people with health insurance aren't insured by health insurance companies - they're insured by their employers. They insure themselves, using health insurance companies only for purposes of paying claims and accessing their networks.

Finally, health insurance companies are the only thing standing between you and even more outrageous hospital and doctor bills. Don't believe me? Look at your next bill for the difference between the amount billed and the amount allowed. You don't have to pay that difference. You are getting, in effect, a volume discount that insurers spend millions and millions of dollars negotiating (part of the 20%) with hospitals and doctors on behalf of members and employers. This is not reported by state-run media either, as it runs counter to the government line.

Brazil 1985: Not only did the government pass a constitution amendment of free health care, but also a college education! The 1990's were a economic disaster. After the government implemented a sound fiscal policy, the Brazilian economy got back on track.

tiredofhearingit: "how can the indoctrination begin BEFORE birth."......with completely inadequate education and lack of comprehensive, universal health care, of course, in a nation that glorifies sex but not sex education; in a nation where most minors - that includes teenagers - are not provided with universal health care; in a nation where health providers can hide under an excuse of personal morality to "opt out" of providing comprehensive access to all safe and legal reproductive medical care and procedures; in a national where some cannot afford the cost of their prescriptions; in a nation where quality prenatal care is available IF you have medical insurance and IF there is a physician available in their plan who is accepting new patients; and IF the family has adequate coverage for their health and well-being so they don't go bankrupt from premiums, related medical bills, or have coverage canceled for making a claim. Yes, I'd call that very ironic in the self-proclaimed "best" nation in the world and I'd also call it reprehensible that so many think this current "system" is acceptable.

fool-on-the-hill:
yes; I kind of mis stated my post saying they will "go bankrupt". The governmnet obviously never goes "bankrupt". I always get a laugh when I hear some of the conservative pundits say that. Obviously, they just print more $$$$$ when the go into the red. A strategy that is going to have catastrophic effects on the dollar in the very near future when all these programs can not be sustained without massive inflation of the currency.

That was Bernie Madoff's tragic flaw, kiowamohican! He'd have been set for life with a federal merger. Everyone knows that government-run Ponzi schemes never die. They simply print more money!

fool-on-the-hill:
Your dead on with those comments. Just like SS, medicare, medicade, and on down the list of governmnet programs. They start off with good intentions, and a lot of promises. By the time they are implemented, they are added on and onto with thousands of pages of bureaucracy, lawyers, agencies, ext. The program becomes bigger and bigger, costs more and more, and it will ultimately go bankrupt.
.
I would hardly same many of the insurance companies are opposing this. Sure you may find some smaller ones who will get hosed when the governmnet runs them over, but the giants who will get to merge with the governmnet will be sitting on a pot of gold. You may want to read some of the comments from the CEO's of a few of the giants. They love this idea, because they will be the next AIG, or Citi. A governmnet merger is the best thing you can possibly ask for as an executive at one of these companies. You have unlimited funds and never have to worry about turning a profit or going bankrupt. You never have to answer to share holders any longer, all the while you collect your multi million $$$$ salary, and bonus package; as you rubber stamp the governmnet agenda..It's a great gig!

Ezoner, Bill Moyers Journal has given voice to many (real) conservatives who have been silenced by MSM for nearly a decade.

Exposing what is really going on . . ."What seems ( to any intelligent outside observer ) like sheer stupidity and arrogance is in reality an almost inescapable indoctrination process that begins before you are born, and ends some time after you're dead. It is a system so complex and all encompassing that few can recognize any reality outside of it at all, and that of course is its intended purpose."...........Surely you see the irony in this piece (of crap)- we all KNOW life doesnt even begin until birth so how can the indoctrination begin BEFORE birth. Another brilliant article by yet another scholar - amazing.

Zoom, that was a good Moyers interview. Everyone should watch it. However, even if Potter is 100% honest and factual (I found him to be credible) that still does not support the argument for a government-run alternative based on cryptic legalese in yet another thousand pages of government meddling.

Two good reasons why those wanting to reform the healthcare industry should be very skeptical of governmental solutions:

First, the current reform plans call for an advisory board to be appointed by the President. We all know how American politics swings like a pendulum. Do you want someone like Dick Cheney appointing this board in four, eight or twelve years? How great would a government-run health care system be with someone like him (or worse) at the helm?

Second, are you absolutely certain that industry lobbyists won't be drafting the details of the final legislation? If so, what is the basis for such a belief? Certainly not recent history of any major legislation signed into law. Those who see government as some sort of benevolent, altruistic entity have very short memories.

At least consider the possibility that "both sides" have it wrong. Here is a good start for discussion of alternative solutions, including some elements I have repeatedly suggested on these boards: (Two parts)

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/14/news/eco...

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/18/news/eco...

Ok -- I see the NYT and Bill Moyer quoted here. They are not left wing are they?? I stopped trusting that rag and the bias from Moyer a long time ago. No-one has said no changes are needed. The discussion is what change is required. Starting from scratch with socialized medicine and a government that has proven total fiscal irresponsibility is not the way to go.

kinsohn, an article in yesterdays New York Times, "Tackling The Mystery Of How Much It Costs," will settle your "baloney" comment about out of network non-payments. There are 1300 health insurance companies( maybe, the count includes companies with multiple plans), in 24 states one company has over 50%(some up to 78%) of the insurance coverage.( America`s Health Insurance Plans) I seem to hear a lot about taking responsibility for your own health care, only 5% of insured people in this country buy their own health care, while 58% get it from their employers, the rest get it from Medicare/Medicaid, or not at all.

"don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are"

I'd like to see that.

Notes from an interview with an ex-insurance industry insider:

"BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

BILL MOYERS: You told Congress that the industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street. You said, "I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." How do they satisfy their Wall Street investors?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.

For example, if one company's medical loss ratio was 77.9 percent, for example, in one quarter, and the next quarter, it was 78.2 percent. It seems like a small movement. But investors will think that's ridiculous. And it's horrible."
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/071020...

Exposing what is really going on . . ."What seems ( to any intelligent outside observer ) like sheer stupidity and arrogance is in reality an almost inescapable indoctrination process that begins before you are born, and ends some time after you're dead. It is a system so complex and all encompassing that few can recognize any reality outside of it at all, and that of course is its intended purpose."
http://billnoxid.wordpress.com/

kinsohn; sorry, had your name in my head because your mentioned so many times by others. Your doing great - don't stop.

Please stop the friendly fire. Read my posts.

kinsohn; really - single payer is the answer huh? Have you ever heard the term "too big to fail"? What happens when this goes WAY over budget? - which it will just like every other program the Gov't has ever tried or condidered. Oh, we'll just RAISE TAXES or steal from this fund or that fund - none of us will have a choice but accept it at that point. Better yet, lets just raid SS AGAIN.

You guys go back and forth: there's thousands of health insurance companies that lead to inefficiencies so we need a single payer to be more efficient, then there are too few companies making for not enough competition. It's impossible to have a rational debate with you - this is the biggest whack-a-mole exercise I've ever seen!

Vader,

Thanks for the comments... You should note that I view the philosophy of the current proposal submitted for healthcare mirrors that of cash for clunkers and other programs. They are all about creation of GDP, but destroy assets, which provides absolutely no growth. At best it extends or delays the pain. The healthcare proposals will destroy the current system, they will remove $$ from the marketplace and put it into the hands of government, providing government with increased power and concentrating the nations wealth at the federal level as opposed to the individuals wealth.

This is true socialism and people seem blinded by the discussions, they seem to not understand that progrssives and liberals, do not understand or do not like the creation of wealth for individuals in America and want to detroy capitalism.

ARRGHLY TRUTH, Health insurance companies are parasites. RAmen

kinsohn, your very first blog post says you work for the company that owns Blue Cross of Wisconsin. Why not just fess up that you work for the insurance industry?

It doesn't matter how many insurance companies exist when the power is consolidated at the top. About 21% of non-Medicare/Medicaid health care dollars travel through just 7 companies.
A recent American Medical Association survey found that a SINGLE private health insurance company controlled more than HALF the market for insurance in 16 states and ONE THIRD of the market in 38 states.

Taxes are not included in the 20-40%. You're right - it's in the 20%. I challenge you to find one publicly traded company that spends even close to 40% of its premium dollars on SG&A. There is none. Note one. More stories.

In the current US system, there are literally tens of thousands of different health care organizations. Oops - I thought there wasn't enough competition! I guess we need a ten thousandth and first to REALLY have competition. Your arguments refute your own arguments. It's laughable!

Not WellPoint - nice try, although I have negotiated against them. I'm not sure why that matters anyway. I probably wouldn't be qualified because I haven't gotten my Masters degree in "villainy" yet, according to all you lefties who need boogeymen to make your arguments.

According to this recent report by the Commonwealth Fund, in 2008 the government paid Medicare Advantage plans 12.4 percent more per enrollee than it expended to administer traditional Medicare benefits. The key word being traditional medicare benefits. They paid more because medicare advantage has better benefits (which mostly benefit the poor Dems always say they care about). If you control for benefits (apples to apples), commercial plans do better. Not reported by state-run media, however.

While you're fruitlessly trying to find an insurance company that spends 40% of premium on SG&A, look at legal expenses at any of them. You'll see plenty of people sue them all the time - more proof your inmplication that you can't sue insurance companies is baloney.

Another day, more stories to make up!

3% to administer huh? - ok, if that's what you think it will actually cost. How long do you think it will take Obama & Co. to implement a union into the whole mess. How many gov't employees are non union now - think about it.

Remember, kiowamohican, these are the same folks who sincerely believe that spending an ADDITIONAL $1,000,000,000,000 will REDUCE the total cost of medical care... somehow. (Who do they think will be cashing those additional trillion dollars worth of checks?) They sincerely believe that piling ANOTHER 1,000 pages on top of the existing mountain of legislation will fix everything... somehow. Blind faith is a fascinating force. Oligarchy couldn't exist without it.

The only way to reduce the total cost of medical care is to roll back the layers upon layers of government prohibitions and mandates that created this mess in the first place.

I'd be curious to see how many of the protesters are audited by the IRS next year. The Gazette should really do a follow up on this! I'd give odds that the people at this rally have AT LEAST a 10x higher chance of being audited by the IRS now!
.
I still also get a good laugh at the Democrats on these discussions who think this plan will really stick it to the evil insurance giants. Don't know what realm your living in, but it will be the insurance companies who benefit the most. Much the same as the banks benefited the most when the governmnet merged with them. And that is what this will be, one massive merger. There will be no competition between private companies and the governmnet. The private companies will MERGE with the governmnet. The new state of oligarchy baby! Get on the train....Buy your health insurance stocks if you haven't all ready. Not like most are all ready up 40-50% the last couple months.

kinsohn is an executive that works for the company that owns Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Wisconsin...Indianapolis based WellPoint Inc., I presume.

"WENDELL POTTER: The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern."
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/071020...

Kinsohn still hasn't told us which insurance company he works for ...

janesvlle mom,you are using the either or logic. There has to be options. It's not just black and white.

"Perhaps the most obvious advantage of public insurance is that it is inexpensive to administer. The public Medicare plan’s administrative overhead costs (in the range of 3 percent) are well below the overhead costs of large companies that are self-insured (5 to 10 percent of premiums), companies in the small group market (25 to 27 percent of premiums), and individual insurance (40 percent of premiums).
http://institute.ourfuture.org/files/Jac...
*
Here is a documented source for the 40% of premiums. This is NOT fairy tales!

As for Medicare Advantage:
According to this recent report by the Commonwealth Fund, in 2008 the government paid Medicare Advantage plans 12.4 percent more per enrollee than it expended to administer traditional Medicare benefits (see this lengthy postby Maggie Mahar that lists the myriad ways Medicare Advantage amounts to an insurance company scam).
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...

Here's your answer kinsohn:
In the current US system, there are literally tens of thousands of different health care organizations—HMOs, billing agencies, etc. By having so many different payers of health care fees, there is an enormous amount of administrative waste generated in the system. (Just imagine how complex billing must be in a doctor’s office, when each insurance company requires a different form to be completed, has a different billing system, different billing contacts and phone numbers—it’s very confusing.) In a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers would bill one entity for their services. This alone reduces administrative waste greatly, and saves money, which can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don’t have it.
Source:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what_is_single...

I have had employer paid insurance, I have had great private insurance (just like a company paid plan, but it was affordable 10 years ago), and for the past 8+ years, I've had high deductible, HSA/MSA plans (health savings account, medical savings account). Our current plan is a PPO, hence they dictate who they will pay for and if I go out of network, not only will they not pay but a small percentage of it, they won't even count what I have to pay towards my deductible.
*
I have also worked where I had to collect payments (private, medicaid, state-paid services, and insurance). The insurance was the worst. Every plan was different, some covered, some didn't (mental health). The worst was when the person had been receiving services while waiting for a decision from their insurer only to be denied and then get stuck with bills they had not planned on having to pay. Medicaid was the simplest, and although we got a lower rate, it was worth it because of the amount of time we saved on the billing end.

It is my insurance and it has been denied for being out of network. You are right , if it is an emergency it will not be denied, it might not be paid 100% either. Taxes are not included in the 20-40%. Sue an insurance company, you are dreaming! In an HMO/PPO you can have your choice of Doctor, either A,B,C,D, E, oh wait a minute, A and B are not accepting new patients! The insurance I have is not accepted by all Dr.s/clinics/hospitals, but you go ahead and tell me different after I`ve had it for years!

You guys are great story tellers!

People scream about the tax rate ,top 35%, for corporations, but the real tax rate is 24% in this country. Really? The tax folks at the nation's health insurers have an opening for you: they're clearly idiots for paying 35%.

You are not in a PPO or HMO, but they denied your claim because it was not in network. That, I'm sorry to say, is baloney also. The claim may have been denied for other reasons, but no state allows claims to be denied for out of netwrok if it's not HMO. Even if it is HMO, you can go to out of network facilities if it is an emergency - in all 50 states.

Insurance companies take 20-40% (including profits) to administer their programs, medicare takes 4%. This is comparing apples and oranges: Medicare has no competition, so must pay no commissions, provide no return on capital, provide no medical management, and does not have to negotiate with providers, not to mention it has no tax department (taxes are BY FAR the largest portion of the 20% figure thrown out there - 40% is more fairy tales). All Medicare is is a check-writing machine. That's why it's going bankrupt even while paying providers less than it costs to treat patients! (Medicaid is even worse). And that's why commercial rates go up so fast: hospitals and docs increase their prices to commercial insurers to make up for the fact that the government underpays (another fact not reported by state-run media). What exactly do you think will happen when every provider gets paid medicare with a larger volume of business? Hospitals will literally start crumbling. (That's why hospitals, 80% of which are non-profit, will be opposing this.)

Commercial insurers do a better job of medical management than the government does, as indicated by Medicare Advantage losses: for the same benefits, losses are lower through Medicare Advantage plans (all of which are managed by villainous insurance companies) than traditional Medicare.

I'll throw the challenge out again: please name one function that the government will do more efficiently than commercial insurers that doesn't involve eliminating competition. Nobody has done it yet.

Instead of millions of people, all I am asking for is one person who has been denied a referral or had their doctor chosen for them by the insurance company or had their claims denied because the insurer decided it wanted more profit. Yes, claims are denied for things like medical policy, but they're all agreed to in your contract and you can sue if they breach it. Ask yourself why the government would bar you from suing it for the same thing! Wake up! These are basically all wives' tales!

I have also had a pre-existing condition rider as has my husband, where our insurance would not cover anything related to a minor previous issue. (I had one uterine fibroid when I was pg with my first child and when we changed insurance they put a rider on excluding coverage of anything related to fibroid tumors). NOT made up stories! I'm not sure how (unless you are a hermit) you could have avoided hearing MANY horror stories about insurance and health care in the US. I have many more of my own, and we have been very healthy!

kinsohn, We changed insurance companies after our rates went up 700% and the new company won't cover Dean (my primary care doctor was with Dean) so now I don't have any choice other than Mercy and I have to find a new doctor unless I want to pay out-of-pocket to see my doctor (who I'd established a relationship with over 5 years). This kind of stuff happens all the time. Our insurance company also has done underwriting and medical history reviews meaning that they have read EVERY medical record for my entire family. That is crazy that our medical records are not private if we want insurance. Almost every "fear" that people have about change, is ALREADY happening in the current system! I'd rather that a public servant was between me and my doctor than an insurance company trying to profit off of denying coverage! How can you not see which of these is truly scary?
*
I'm also wondering what insurance company you work for!

As for tax revenues, over 65% of companies in the US don`t pay any! This was before the recession, so that is not the reason. People scream about the tax rate ,top 35%, for corporations, but the real tax rate is 24% in this country. Over the past thirty years corporations have paid less and less of our total tax bill, and the individual taxpayer makes up the difference.

kinsohn, insurance companies take 20-40% (including profits) to administer their programs, medicare takes 4%. I don`t have an HMO/PPO and if I don`t go to a network provider, they don`t pay, personal experience. I have also been bounced out of the hospital by the insurance company even against the Doctors wishes. I could have stayed if I wanted to foot the bill myself.

kinsohn: Which insurance company do you work for anyway?

kinsohn: "I'll take it that your contentions that you couldn't pick your doctor, that your referrals were rationing your care, and that your insurance company was denying your care to make more profit were also made-up stories."

Sadly and a national disgrace, there are far more millions of the employer-based INSURED who can verify this is their current coverage and access situation than those would question it's validity. Be careful for if there is no public option reform, this could someday also be your situation...or worse.

There is enough money, $2.5 trillion, being spent every year for health care to cover every person in the US if there were no insurance companies to take 20-40% off the top.

This is more baloney dreamed up on your hookah pipe. If this were true, you'd not need any trillion dollar tax increases. If you eliminated all insurance companies' profits, you'd take 1 cent from every dollar of medical costs in the country, and a third of that would be lost tax revenue that would have to be made up through higher taxes anyway.

People have to go to a network recognized clinic/Dr. or your insurance does not pay.

Mostly baloney, as this is only true for HMOs, which constitute about 10-20% of the commercial market depending on geography.

I'll take it that your contentions that you couldn't pick your doctor, that your referrals were rationing your care, and that your insurance company was denying your care to make more profit were also made-up stories.

Obama Joke poster creator was a Dennis Kucinich supporter. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washingt...

Back to the pipe!

"Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage"

(http://www.iom.edu/?id=17848)

*

But then again, why would we listen to the experts or acknowledge the existing models throughout the developed world, when the all-knowing Glen Beck has all the answers.

tired - But what would politics be without corruption, greed, and partisanship! ;) This sure has been a hot topic, as seen by how everyone has been affected some way. Since reform has been stalled for the last 8 years, maybe it took the threat of totally redoing it to get people off their butt to make the changes needed.

vader - I agree politics is way too into this. Too bad we can't just get Washington to treat this as a jury & go through a jury selection process & eliminate the far left & far right congressmen(women) & senators - sit down & come to some rational agreement. One catch though - who ever is chosen can NEVER run again for public office nor lobby for anything - ever. Done. No future favors owed - no paybacks nothing. Ever. Oh, and they HAVE to have themselves & their families on the plan for the rest of their lives - whatever they come up with.

Does anyone consider...a good deal of the reform amendments that the GOP insisted must be in the reform bills are now being opposed by those very same legislators? How ironic ... and so similar to the recently passed Wisconsin State Budget antics.

Ezoner - That is a good perspective on what is going on in this country. The divisiveness does nothing but add delay and waste in our political system. But, unlike what tiredofhearingit says, I do believe most people get it. Most people have been affected by the health care mess. While you bring up very good points for changes, unfortunately this issue is to expansive to confine to a few changes. And many politicians will just disagree to follow the party line, a hindrance to a equitable solution to all this.

kinsohn- your pathetic attempt at insulting everyone by calling them lefities is very childish. Many people want reform. When people say something has to be done, it means that this should be fixed using bipartisanship for the good of the country, not sitting back and criticizing everyone's ideas.
And the liberal plant thing .. you are just a Rush Limbaugh tool. LMAO !
And as for One more left-wing mole: "4 million people lost h care insurance in the last week.", well that tidbit was from one of your ilk's post. I am LMAO again!

ezoner: good luck - I've been trying to tell these people this for weeks & they just dont get it! You are 100% correct.

janesvillemom; really do you type just to hear yourself - go back to 7:54 AM today - I've actually been saying it for months! the system we have needs to be fixed NOT reinvented and certainly not ran by the Gov't!!!!

I'll let all those people who have been laid off in the past couple years know that you won't help them because they are lazy, incompetant, freeloaders who ride the system. And if you ever get sick and lose your job, you won't want anyone to help you, right? Listen, NOT all fall under this category like you seem to think - besides if the Mesiah's Stimulus Plan works like he promised they'll all be back to work before you know it. WHAT ever happened to personal responsibility? What happens when they get sick and lose their jobs and the auto loan or morgage comes due - do we all "pitch in" for that too! Wait, we already did & it sure is working out so far. Where do you draw the line at socialism? - cut all the strings that are attached to this thing and get the Gov't ran portion OUT & maybe it could stand a chance.

: =)

I read the posts on this page and have come to the conclusion that people on both sides are so blinded by what they are told vs what they are experiencing that there is no way that a new system could, should or would be put in place.

The reality of Urgent care and from my personal experience is that we used that as opposed to emergency room care on weekends or holidays when our Doc's were unavailable, in other words after hours etc. They care given, although was not an emergency, allowed piece of mind, and the access to care at a higher cost , but not nealry the cost of an emergency room. Urgent care in my opinion is actually a way of reducing costs, when that is used over emergency room care at the hospital.

I also see any government run plan as a potential disaster economically, that will lead to a decline in the American lifestyle and our quality of life.

My feeling is that we are discussing the wrong subjects. What we should be discussing is illegal imigration, access to drugs available internationally (make the companies compete), tort reform (to reduce malpractice insurance and potential exposure by drug companies).

He is a real example. I was taking medication. 1/2 of 1% of the people taking the meds had a reaction. The drugs were pulled by the FDA. I had no say in the matter. This was not the FDA's fault, nor the doctors fault, it was lawyers and complaintants. It was the threat of litigation. I would have signed whatever they put in front of me to get the meds. But no, the threat of legal action caused the meds to be pulled for all even though such a small group had a reaction. We need regulation, tort reform, basically some additional rules. Not a start from scratch.

Who said "free health care" but you kinsohn? There will be a price. We can only hope at sometime in the future to get a single -payer system, but that is not what is being put forward now, is it? There is enough money, $2.5 trillion, being spent every year for health care to cover every person in the US if there were no insurance companies to take 20-40% off the top. If you are covered by an HMO/PPO you can only go to selected clinics, with selected Doctors, some who are not taking new patients. You mentioned networks, you are right, people have top go to a network recognized clinic/Dr. or your insurance does not pay. If people are having "unnecessary" surgery, that is a clinic/Dr./hospital committing fraud, isn`t it? People don`t operate on themselves! There was an article a couple of months ago about three people in Texas who had gone to the emergency rooms and ran up bills of almost $3 million over a few years, and the anti-reform people jumped all over that. I ask you, what did those emergency rooms do every visit to get to a bill of over $1000 a visit? Were those people in an emergency situation? If not the emergency rooms committed fraud, not the patients. Electronic record keeping will help stop these kinds of things, thankfully there was money in the Stimulus package to begin doing it.

This place is a misconception factory 24/7.

"Why aren't the people who get 'Cadillac coverage' lining up for constant doctors visits, and unnecessary surgery, it's free to them." Uh, they are. That's why utilization and costs are so high for companies with "Cadillac" plans, mostly unionized companies. Those costs as much as anything have put them out of business. Others giving employees more of a stake in their healthcare have experienced much slower growth in costs. Note the Whole Foods CEO's piece in the WSJ a few days ago. Again, this piece did not follow the government story line, and consequently lefties have attacked the CEO as a stooge and tried to boycott Whole Foods. All in the name of diversity of opinion and bringing people together, of course.

http://atlanticwire.theatlantic.com/read...

I can't choose my clinic. Really? Some clinics may not be in your network, but a majority are.

my doctor. Really? Your insurance company chooses your doctor? I've never heard of such a system. What company is that?

Can't see a specialist without a referral. The vast majority of plans have no such requirement, and those that do approve over 98% of referrals, so there's really no rationing going on. I would be shocked if you told me you've been denied a referral even once.

And the insurance company is that middle-man making profit vs. health decisions for me. Really? I'm surprised your contract with the insurance company allows them to deny you care whenever they feel like it. What company is that again? The nice thing about the current system is you can sue your insurance company if they don't fulfill the contract. Not surprisingly, you won't be able to sue the government plan (not reported by state-run media).

I have no vision coverage. That's too bad, but you could go out and buy some if you wanted to. Or you could mooch off of someone else by having the government give it to you for "free."

I need to make appointments far in advance (presumably with the doctor your insurance company chose for you, at the clinic they chose for you, to set up care the insurance company denies anyway, no doubt). Regardless, if you think the wait's bad now, you'll really like it when everyone has free healthcare and the same number of docs!

Keep 'em comin!

So you are saying that we ALREADY have long waits? And that employer paid insurance causes people to use urgent care unneccesarily? SO you agree that the current system is broken?
*
I'll let all those people who have been laid off in the past couple years know that you won't help them because they are lazy, incompetant, freeloaders who ride the system. And if you ever get sick and lose your job, you won't want anyone to help you, right?

janesvillemom; that's just stupid - nobody ever said there would be people getting unnecessary surgeries! No waiting - really?! call right now & see how long the wait is for say a gyno appt or any other specialty Doc. is - I'll bet you cant get in for atleast 2-4 weeks & much longer in most cases. Its called supply & demand.
Also - you brought up GM so here is an example. They have/had cadillac plan as you call it. I know for a fact that several employees would go to Urgent Care just because they wouldnt wait to get in to see their doctor. What do you think this does to the cost? Point being when its a "free health care" to the "employee" it WILL get abused & we all will get to pay yet again. What ever happened to personal responsibility! I shouldnt have to pay for lazy, incompetant, freeloaders to ride the system.

kinsohn: "This is rationing care, which is what you'd have if insurance companies went out of business. "
....Isn't that what we ALREADY have? I know I can't choose my clinic, my doctor, can't see a specialist without a referral, and the insurance company is that middle-man making profit vs. health decisions for me. I have no vision coverage, need to make appointments far in advance, and I know I can't under-go the already rationed (insurance won't apply) but basic labs the physician recommends even with supposedly good employer-based medical insurance. Rationed care is already here and quite the opposite that some would have you believe, it's a complete fallacy that care rationing is worse, costs are higher, euthanasia is mandated for the elderly and infirm, and care diminished with single-payer public insurance in other nations. To live in a nation where children and millions of others have no access to real health - let alone sickness - care and adequate insurance is absolutely shameful and MUST be dealt with as quickly, comprehensively, and powerfully as the crisis we all live with every day.

There are two issues being mixed together, single payer and the actual plans that are being created by the House and Senate.
Single payer would shift employer expenses from insurance to taxes, probably costing them LESS. The current plans do not change employer plans unless they increase competition and cut costs, lowering the price companies pay for insurance. Both would be GOOD for employers who are going bankrupt (GM for example) because of the skyrocketing cost of health care.

Some of the arguments on here are for or against single payer plans and some for or against the proposed plans, but these are VERY different things. Seems to be causing some confusion since no one is sure what exactly they are arguing for or against!

Question: If free health care will cause over usage, long lines, rationing, etc. then how come this hasn't been caused by employer paid insurance? It is free health care to the employee. Why aren't the people who get "Cadillac coverage" lining up for constant doctors visits, and unnecessary surgery, it's free to them.

Please step away from the afternoon crack pipe: "Businesses will no longer have to pay for health insurance."

Really, which plan says businesses that currently offer health insurance won't offer it any more? I have heard many contentions by the lefties on this thread that that is absolutely not the case.

Similarly: "True taxes will go up, but those are offset by the reduction in insurance expenses."

Again, what plan is that and what page is that on?

It is ironic you deride Palin for falsehoods and then sit around all afternoon making up stories.

85% of the uninsured are citizens, National Coalition On Health Care. Illegals will not get more than they get now, emergency care, unless they buy insurance like everyone else. Ryans plan is voluntary, no state or insurance company HAS to participate if they don`t want to.

kinsohn, your statement is false. If the government provides health-care, the government is subsidizing business as businesses will no longer have to pay for health insurance. True taxes will go up, but those are offset by the reduction in insurance expenses. My hope for this plan is that health care expenses overally will drop therebye resulting in a net gain for business. If expenses stay the same it'll be a wash.

ladystardust...thanks for the link.

One more left-wing mole: "4 million people lost h care insurance in the last week."

A classic left-wing canard: those people lost health care because they lost their jobs. Putting a trillion dollars in more taxes on businesses will actually destroy even more jobs. Of course, this will make people even more dependent on the government for healthcare, which is all part of the plan as detailed by Obama/Frank/ect.

It is funny to check in on this left-wing echo chamber. I have 5 minutes, so let's take a few more whacks at the left-wing moles that keep popping up:

British Columbia's medical costs rose only 4%. Maybe because the BC government has had to cut surgeries to meet its budget. http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print....

This is rationing care, which is what you'd have if insurance companies went out of business. If you happened to be on those waiting lists, you'll have to suffer! All in the name of the greater good. As Palin would say, this is evil.

Don't bother asking anyone on this string about what the government plan would do more efficiently than commercial plans: I tried that. The only answer was a government plan wouldn't have to spend money competing with anyone, which belied government option supporters' contentions that they don't want to eliminate all competition and there isn't enough competition in health insurance.

45,000,000 couldn't vote on a plan because a large portion of them aren't US citizens. Of course, you are not told this by state-run media, as this isn't consistent with the government story.

Re: the Obama/Hitler stuff. Most of the perps are liberal plants, the latest being the Obama Joker poster creator being a left-wing Palestinian. Again, this has not been widely reported by the state-run media as it is not consistent with the government line.

I love it when lefties say, as they have on this string, "Something has to be done to fix the health care system. The one we have now is not working." When they resort to this, you know they've nothing left to stand on, as they are in effect yelling "Our plan is better than nothing!"

janesvillemom; Apparently about 4 million people lost h care insurance in the last week.
"Cutting costs and extending health benefits to 50 million Americans who don't have it should be key goals of the legislation" Quote from Sen Herb kohl @ Rotary meeting monday Source: Janesville Gazette, 8/18/09

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/about.h...

janesvillemom; your right I "read into" the statements I keep hearing from Pelosi & Co. "provide health care to the 46,000,000 unisured americans" - I guess they ALL have jobs & actually want it. Here's a quick test, that all don't want it or wont choose it. Take a poll of college kids in Madison who would pay say $100 a month for h ins or take that $100 and buy beer. Guess which 1 most would choose? Oh, wait they actually get penalized for Not getting insurance come April 15th. My point: this is way too controlling & the Gov't is way too involved. In principal, this plan may sound great to you - but why all the strings attached?

Yeah, why do people listen to idiots like Glenn Blech? Of course, without these court jesters shows like the Daily Show would not have anyone to joust with.

classic political hypocrisy highlighted by john stewart...

http://www.hulu.com/watch/89817/the-dail...

why think; ok - I thought about it. Here goes:
Private k-12 is doing just fine. Why? the vast majority are religious schools - dont pay taxes. The one's that are not are through the roof in cost - ask Obama, his daughters go to one - once again, politicians telling us one thing is good BUT not using it themselves. And because they dont have teachers unions to run their costs through the roof - but I'll leave that one alone for now
Public Education - You are referring to basic education (k-12) in todays world I think you would agree thats a basic education. Correct? Speaking of which, what's next: "affordable" college for everyone. We Have basic h care - anyone that goes to an ER is covered today by law.
I agree with your statement of "bottom line" - but why not regulate rather than recreate - thats all I'm trying to say with things like Tort reform & thinking outside the box.

Your last statement " BTW, if the government puts private insurance out of business doesn't that mean they simply provided a better quality, more affordable alternative." - where do you get this? who says its "better quality"?

I know 1st hand how gov't h care works. When I was in the Army & went to "sick call" they used a flow chart to diagnose you - seriously, if you could read, you were qualified to "administer health care" what a joke!

Aruba: I'm done with you - you dont want a civil debate - Actually Glenn Beck is a baboon & way too extreme for me. But I guess if anyone disagrees with you "loons" (as Bill O calls you) then I get classified as whatever.

Whythink--your comment--"BTW, if the government puts private insurance out of business doesn't that mean they simply provided a better quality, more affordable alternative."
This makes absolutely no sense! History has proven to us that the United States government is the absolute worst at running a "company" efficiently and effectively. USPS--broke, Amtrak--broke, Medicare--broke, Social Security--broke. Could they undercut the insurance companies from price points?--Absolutely.....but in no way would it be due to their outstanding business savvy. Cost reduction at the doctor/patient level would have everything to do with having access to an endless pool of cash(taxpayer dollars) to finance their mess of a program. Please don't compare with a small savings on the front end of a government option vs. insurance companies. You're going to pay for that and much more though increased taxes to subsidize the massive amount of fraud and waste which is sure to overwhelm this newest government "business".....

Even though I know it would never happen, I would be more than happy to see the insurance companies go out of business.

Under the current system of health insurance everyone that has it is a number on an actuarial table. If you cost the insurance company too much, they just cut you out and stick you with the bill. Thanks for your years of insurance premiums, but we can't provide coverage for you anymore. It's hurting our bottom line. The CEO has to pay for his golden toilet.

tiredofhearingit:"Gov't run just doesnt make sense. NOTHING is free - the goal should be to make h care affordable for all - not free!"
*
The current bill does not provide FREE health care. The public option is an insurance plan that you must BUY, just like private insurance. Not sure where you are getting the idea that they are making healthcare free? They are doing just what you suggest, making it affordable for all by creating a public option to COMPETE with private care to help keep the costs down with competition. No FREE healthcare has been proposed. I guess it doesn't make sense when you totally misunderstand it!

whythink...excellent post!

tired....Must be a Glenn Beck fan!

There is no evidence that all insurance companies will go out of business. Even the CBO doesn't think so. Some will, but that happens with competition. The insurance companies haven't had real competition in a very long time.

Wow, British Columbia's insurance costs went up only 4% last year. We could be so lucky.

tiredofhearingit,
.
Respectfully, maybe that is the problem. The profits, taxes and millions being paid to the CEO while Americans are seeing their payments increase.
.
Think of this. What if there was no K-12 public education system? What if this discussion was about the rising costs of tuition and how millions of americans were going broke or bankrupt because of education costs? What if millions of american children weren't being educated because it cost too much?
.
Private, K-12 education is doing just fine even though public education is an option. For those who want private education for their children they can choose that and the bills that come with it, for the rest of us, our children are given a quality "free" public education.
.
Nobody is left beind (Right GW), and nobody if forced to go broke because of their child's education.
.
I support a government option because I believe the insurance companies are corrupt and way too greedy. Health insurance, should it really be for profit. When a "bottom line" is involved I am not sure I want to be the one dealing with cancer, major surgery. I certainly don't want a life altering diseas like Diabetes.
.
For profit health insurance, doesn't that just sound wrong considering the mess we are currently in. I am all for profits but health insurance...doesn't make sense to me.
.
BTW, if the government puts private insurance out of business doesn't that mean they simply provided a better quality, more affordable alternative.
.
Wouldn't that be a good thing?

I just took a poll of the people that don't have health insurance. It turns out that they voted 45,000,000 to 0 in favor of the gov. option. I guess it just depends on who you poll.

Aruba - You still dont get it - I use the frickin Post office but they have their problems too! A Dr.Bill would be voluntary - JUST LIKE THE MILITARY! if you dont want it - dont join. and dont give me that crap about h care Gov't option being voluntary as well - within a very short period of time the insurance co's will be out of business and we wont have a choice. Lets see, insurance co's pay property taxes, taxes on income AND actually have to worry about a profit to shareholders - ALL of which make it an unfair playing field against the endless money supply of the gov't option - if they dont have it, they'll get it from somewhere else or raise taxes. Yes, they say we can keep our current plan if we so choose, but at what cost?!
As far as long waits - you ARE crazy. Hey, "free" always means the numbers show up thats a fact.
Why dont you try this link from an article TODAY. http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print....

vatoloco
Aug 17, 2009 at 9:18 p.m.
Suggest removal Hey Aruba,

Nobosycares about Canada. Move there if you want. One less anti American we have to deal with.
.
I am impressed, I haven't read any post but this is the first "love it or leave it" you "ANTI_AMERICAN" post but a conservative nut.
.
Funny, conservatives attempt to accuse the Obama administration of suppressing free speech but as soon as they get the chance, or run out of ideas, they play the "anti-american, love it or leave it" and my personal favorite, "the Hate America First Crowd".
.
None of those labels would ever supress free speech, right?
.
Freakin Hypocrites!

Interesting debate on this issue, however, I don't want anything that our legislators don't want. If they are exempting themselves, it should be a real clue about how this will be delivered, however, if you look at all the agencies involved and the new regulatory agencies which will be set up to monitor it and make policy, how much money will really be used for healthcare of individuals? How much money will go to the administration by government agencies? How much money will be "lost" in the process, just as money from TARP and the Stimulus Package were "lost". Which legislators, who are exempt, will benefit from passing the legislation? Too many questions and no real answers from the powers that be. Another Obama campaign promise falls with the rest of his house of cards. He promised us "his" healthcare. He already said, in essence, that he won't sign up for his proposed healthcare.

tired...Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I was against tort reform, nor did I say health care should be free. And where did you acquire your powers that allow you to see into the future. How do you know that everyone will be waiting longer to see a doctor? Also, it seems you contradict yourself stating the GI Bill works, but a Government run health care won't. Isn't the GI bill a Government run program? Maybe you should read the link I posted earlier from the Canadian doctor. I guess right wingers here in the US know more about the Canadian health system than a Canadian doctor who has first hand knowledge? Again, more lies perpetuated by the right. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-o...

aruba; your missing the point of us "right wing nuts" - not all of us that disagree with Gov't run h care think the current system is flawless we (I) just know nothing is "free" and this proposed Gov't run h care is wrong. Why not look at other ideas like TORT reform - you have a problem with someone that works all year making $14 mil - what about the dumba** that spills coffee in their lap & gets $12.8 mil! extreem I know, but you should see my point. All business' & doctors have to protect themselves from these lawsuits - which cost all of us money. Why, if you loose a limb, finger, use of a joint etc while at work, Workmans Comp has a set fee schedule you get paid for; yet when a Doctor makes an error - he/she pays millions (paid by their insurance Co.) - guess what?, if a claim is not paid out for that year, thats called profit (oh, sorry thats a curse word to you).
How about a Dr.Bill - goto school & get your degree on the Gov't dime then you go to work at a set salary for a period of time to repay your education. This works quite well in the military it called the GI Bill.
Why is it that when you want to make an appointment today its a 4-6 week wait (or more) for most doctors. What do alot of people do; they take whoever to the Urgent Care or ER for his/her fever, runny nose etc. As a parent I understand this BUT who pays the additional cost? We ALL do. If you think 4-6 weeks is bad now & a 1-2 hr wait is bad in urgent care/ER - just wait, with "free" h care you better plan on being sick in say Feb & make your appointment now if you want to see your Doc. This is where the Dr.Bill could be ready & waiting - at the same charge or less as what you would pay your regular Dr.
There, now you have a suggestion from a "right wing nut" - you people always say "we" never give any ideas. Also why dont you try reading Paul Ryans plan http://www.house.gov/ryan/
he has many more that make sense - Gov't run just doesnt make sense. NOTHING is free - the goal should be to make h care affordable for all - not free!

The government, especially the federal government, has no duty or right constitutionally to be involved in health care. Everyone should become familiar with a couple of documents (even if they were not taught to you in a government, i.e. public school) - The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
.
Read these documents FOR YOUR SELF and the House version of the health care bill - found here - http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-Bill... , and then try to reconcile how, in the name of God, this bill is even being considered.
.
I reject premise that we should even be debating government sponsored, controlled, and run single payer health care in this country.

"GEICO just saved a bunch of money by not advertising on Fox’s Glenn Beck. GEICO has decided it no longer feels comfortable financing fearmongering paranoia and has pulled its ads from Glenn Beck’s Fox News program"

Other companies pulling advertising from the right wing mouthpiece known as Glenn Beck include: Proctor & Gamble, Lawyers.com, ConAgra Foods, Men’s Wearhouse, State Farm Insurance, Sargento, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, SC Johnson, RadioShack, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Walmart, Best Buy, CVS, and GMAC, & Travelocity.

vatoloco: Thanks, now I am stuck with that darn song in my head all day. (LOL!)

VAT-O-LOCO...Your name says it all. Like I said, typical right wing nut has nothing of value to add to add to the debate. Now go shave your back you Neanderthal.

Aruba, jamaica, come on pretty mama. Key largo, Montego,

Way down in Kokomo!

“Why should the people in the articles wait in long lines for rationed care in this great nation?”
-
Good question. There should not be rationed care. Care should be provided when and where it is needed, this we agree. It is the plan to get us there we are in disagreement over. As I have said many times we can learn much from what government has already done, not in what politicians say. Three separate states are great examples of health care reform.

1. Hawaii. Less than one year after starting their expanded care for children, it folded. Why? The politicians failed to gauge the responsiveness of the public. Many families dropped their children from their family plan, cheaper for them, to enroll them in the state plan. The budget exploded for the program and had to be scrapped.

2. Massachusetts. After putting in place their state run health care system they now have the longest waiting times than any other state for common services.

3. Oregon. This state has by far the most rationing in regards to a state plan. All care is given a number rating starting at 1 and going to ???. The budget decides how much of each item it can afford; any care required after a certain number is not allowed.

I am in favor of each state having a plan to spend state tax dollars as they see fit. With this if you are a resident and don’t like it you can leave. When the federal government puts a plan in place you will not have the option to get out of it if you don’t like it. With the examples given of just these three states I can’t see a federal plan being any better.

I don't think anyone would stand in line all night for a tooth extraction just because it was free! They do that because they NEED it and they can't afford it. Medical care isn't fun, it's not like a free chicken dinner or something. In fact a 12-year-old boy in Maryland DIED from not getting a tooth extraction in 2007 when the infection spread to his brain. People in America are suffering, in pain, because they cannot afford to go to the doctor or dentist. WHY? Why can't everyone get health care when they need it? Why should any child or adult in the US have to suffer because they cannot afford BASIC medical services? Why should the people in the articles wait in long lines for rationed care in this great nation? There is a health care CRISIS, here and now.

Not to busrt your bubble, any time something is offered free lines develop and people come out of the wood work...

According to Americans the United States does not have the best health care in the world. Most see our health care as average (32%) or below average (27%) when compared with health care in other industrialized countries.

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynum...

The image of the United States has improved markedly in most parts of the world reflecting global confidence in Barack Obama. In many countries, opinions of the U.S. are now about as positive as they were at the beginning of the decade before George W. Bush took office.

http://pewglobal.org/

Is this the America you want? Seems like a third world country where the people stand in line for days to see a doctor or dentist...but this is happening in the richest country in the world!!! This is where we are headed and here is the proof. Where is the proof that socialized medicine will lead to long lines, rationing, euthanasia, death panels, or any other scary thing? Wake up and see the reality in THIS country!
*
2000 people lined up for days at a fairgrounds in VA to receive free health care.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009...
*
Over 1500 people lined up and waited all night to get a CHANCE at free health care in Los Angeles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health...
*
People were turned away from both events.
*
Janesville's very own HealthNet has seen a 71% increase in people seeking services.
http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/dec/11/...

Shows how uninformed you are. It's the right wing that keeps fomenting and propagating lies about the Canadian health care system in order to scare the American public. The right wing nuts are running ads featuring a Canadian complaining about their system. But when there is a Canadian with FACTS that discredit the right wing lies, then as you state "who cares about Canada" I would rather have a Government official between me and my doctor (which wouldn't be the case, unless you believe the lies you hear) rather than some corporate fat cat elitist, deciding whether if I live or die is good for the bottom line. That's the problem with the right wing, they feel the Government "Of the People" should be beholden to the right wing "Corporate Gods". Then you launch a personal attack against me because you have nothing of value to add to the debate. Typical Right Wing NUT!

Hey Aruba,

Nobosycares about Canada. Move there if you want. One less anti American we have to deal with.

What does bin Laden have to do with health care? Obviously the right wing doesn't have anything to add to the health care debate unless the airhead Sarah "The Quitter" Palin or Phlem Beck spoon feeds some lies to them.

well said gonefishin

To TheAnswerls42.......you are more than welcome to come to the next T.E.A. party and express your views there. the T.E.A. party is suppose to be about taxes and the way the government is spending money as if there is never going to be a next day. Being able to go out and do these protests is what makes this country what it is. It is called freedom......Everyone has a right to state their opinion in a peaceful and respectful manner.
The news media showed people shouting at some of the town hall meetings because they the people in the crowd didn't have microphones like the "speakers" had so they had to yell a little so they could be heard. and the media only exploited what they wanted the public to see. So the concerned citizens were labeled an angry mob. Go figure. So come on down and hey if we disagree on something no big deal. I never heard about the military doing what you said and I take your stand on that issue as well. If you don't do anything you can't complain. If you do something even if it didn't get the results you wanted....hey at least you did something

aruba, thanks for the link. Excellent article. Also the reason I'm afraid that the current plans are too little, too late to stop impending crash of the American health care system.

Here is a worthwhile read, by a Canadian doctor.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-o...

"No one provided any facts or meaningful details as to why they believe what they believe"

So you were there, huh Darwin?

The US Government recently released that they had discussed using the military to arrest US Citizens. Why aren't their any protests about that? If these people are concerned about our freedoms why don't they care about that?

I drove by the small group and to me instead of raising our American Flag they were hiding behind it.

JMHO

totellthetruth: Your username is hilarious since you are not telling the truth here: The death panel myth has been struck down so move on to another one.

Oh great Darwin is back. (eyes rolling)

I second that janesvillemom. Actually I didn't know they could get a parrot to type.

I read the comments by the protesters and they are all just sensational catch phrases. No one provided any facts or meaningful details as to why they believe what they believe. They say our freedoms are being taken away but then never state what freedoms. Some complain about violating the Constitution but fail to state exactly which part of the Constitution. The one women said she lived in France where education and health care were free but people lived in smaller houses because of taxes. However, smaller houses use less energy thus saving money, contribute less to green house gases all while French people are healthier and live longer. Yes, this is what we voted for in November but evidently that voting doesn't count and protesters do?

Make sure you don't miss the nexty T.E.A. Party !! Another chance to see our President of the United States with a "Hitler" moustache & other derogatory markings !! Death Panel accusations which were voted for by the same Republicans who criticize the President now. Just which side of your mouth are you shouting out obscenities against our honestly elected President?????

O This is your brain on badgrss.

There are already people deciding who will live and who will die---they are called insurance companies who approve or deny who gets coverage. And how much $$ do their executives get?? And how much $$ do they "contribute" to your congressperson? Check it out at www.opensecrets.org.

A. LIBERAL

B. COMMUNIST

C. DEATH PANEL MEMBER

D. ALL THE ABOVE

pure evil, huh? And what does that make Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz , or Amy Whinehouse for that matter then? Dude, you need a refund on your grss.

Some people protest their tax money being spent on guns, bombs, fighter planes, occupations of other countries and unjust wars that kill innocent people.
*
Some people protest their tax money being spent on providing health care to Americans.
*
It's a free country, protest away!

Comparing Obama to Hilter is not accurate, actually the Rolling Stones come a lot closer in Sympathy for the Devil. I think people need to wake up and realize that we do not have a benevolent government or benevolent leader in the Liberals or in Obama and we don't need to guess the nature of their game. It is nothing short of pure evil.

So Sarah Palin can see Russia from Alaska and everybody is cool with that..Bush can blow taxpayers' money playing "Where's Waldo- The Bin Laden Version" and that's fine, but President Obama wants to ensure health care for our people and that's a problem...Welcome to America...

vatoloco - While the Hitler stuff on both sides is just a wierd attention getter, I must say that the last picture with Cheney in German garb did look eerily natural.

916 - I was pointing out there are other programs that fit others view of what "socialism" is, and yes they are cost effective. You, like others, like to group everything under the socialism banner. And please point out where I said that the health care reform solution you are talking about would be cost effective. My statement was that there are some programs run by the government, that fit your template for socialism, that are actually cost effective. And by the way, we already pony up for "free" health care. They can't turn away patients at the ER for lack of insurance. I know you like to argue, but quit referencing people to things they did not say.

All this Hitler talk, check out this website.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612...

I'm sorry--I meant $400 billion in my previous post.......

Can you tell me which countries with actual socialized medicine have kangaroo courts that decide who lives and who dies? Where do they have euthanasia of not only the elderly, the mentally ill and those with birth defects who cannot be productive members of society?
If this is such a real possibility can you show me some examples of modern countries with socialized medicine where this is occurring?

Chad Vader......You can't honestly compare having access to a public drinking fountain or a state park to having free health care.....As far as the "cost effective" comment--It wouldn't be--their own figures have proven this. Those figures are based on implementing this flawlessly. Once you add in the fraud and waste inherent in a government run "company" it would be scary to see what the taxpayer would have to pony up for "free" health care. Medicare reform legislation passed with an estimated cost of $400 million--by the time the dust had settled the price tag was over $700 billion and counting. An estimated 1/3 of medicare claims were suspected of being fraudulent. I honestly don't know what the answer is, but keeping the government from having a vested interest in the program is something that I am absolutely sure needs to take place. Giving them access to $1.6 trillion taxpayer dollars and 1/6 of our economy is NOT the right way to resolve this problem.

Has everyone figured out what you are having dinner tonight? Burgers sound good.

I am more afraid of the people protesting healthcare reform than healthcare reform itself. It doesn't matter what stance you take on the issue, comparing Obama to Hitler is irresponsible and completely absurd.
~
I suppose I can understand one's fear in losing "quality" health care, but I'd be more afraid of losing access to adiquate health care because I cannot afford it altogether. I know sick people drowning in debt because of medical bills. When you are sick, you usually cannot work, or you eventually lose your job along with the company's health care benefits. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world and it is sad that the poor do not get the same access to healthcare and medicines as the rich. The problem only continues to worsen.

totellthetruth, I have no problem with profits when they are made in a legitimate way. I don't consider overcharging sick people legitimate. I think it is great that Bill Gates created and marketed his product so successfully...it is not a product that I HAVE to buy so he can charge what he wants and make his profits how he wants (assuming that he is doing this within the laws). What I don't like is my insurance rates going up 700% in seven years while the CEO of my insurance company is making multi-millions. See the difference?

janesvillemom why is it so bad that someone makes a profit. Do you want to work for free, how about let ME decide what your job is worth, what hours your will work and what education you get... Sorry that is communism, is that what you are suggesting. I hope not, but that is the way that we are going to go with this ill-thought health care plan. Just wait until kangaroo courts decide which lives should be lived and which ones should not be lived. As Stan Milam was saying to day, this already occurs, but it will occur on a larger scale if the health care bill passes. Then we will see the euthanasia of not only the elderly, the mentally ill and those with birth defects who cannot be productive members of society. It will happen if this bill passes.

916WI -Not everyone pays taxes, yet they still enjoy the roads and state parks we pay for. Not everyone pays for the city water to be treated, yet I have seen visitors to our city drink the water. Even in a capitalistic society, sometimes using what some consider socialistic methods (a term way overused) are actually cost effective. I agree there is too many handouts ( or they should be regulated better), but if we made health care more affordable and had more jobs available to pay for such health care, then the problem would be much less.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/17/news/eco...
*
This model would be cheaper and better than buying private insurance. Of course it wouldn't fix all of the problems, but it would be a good option for people who are already buying private insurance.

Well, I found some number about the CEO of Mercy, 14.4 MILLION in 2002! That was a big year for him, but he routinely makes over a million dollars a year. No wonder an eye exam costs almost 3 times more at Mercy than at an independent optometrist! He is getting rich off of the sick people in this community. And this is only ONE person. Multiply that by all of the health care systems, the insurance companies, etc. and you will know why it costs so much to get sick!
*
From Mercy web site:
"Since 1989, total patient visits have increased tenfold, employees/partners have grown by more than 700 percent, and revenues have increased 2,300 percent." REVENUES (that is how much we all PAY THEM) has increased 2,300 percent!

It's unfortunate we have absolutely no frame of reference in this country when it comes to making rational public policy decisions. One political party heavily relies on this lack of awareness. Republican representatives are able to say "a public system won't work/can't work" and people will take them at their word.... even though a national system is in place in every other developed country (and some 'developing' countries) and in most cases works much more efficiently, and at a lower net cost than our current 'system'. Most of us should find this embarrassing.
*
I am in no way against protest and demonstration, but it seems time could be spent more wisely in this case with a little independent thinking... or at least spread the skepticism to both political parties.
*
Some like to think Obama's motivation to reform health care is to boost his own ego or legacy... maybe so, he is a politician! The fact of the matter is, our system is atrocious and shameful at best and needs to change.

Basically what it comes down to is selling socialism in the US is a hard sale, people are beginning to wake up and see through all of the sensationalized sales slogans for it.
So long as only some pay and everyone benefits, the system will be seriously flawed. You cannot and should not expect a contracting segment of the population that pays for everything will continue to do so and get no benefit from it.
There are far too many people living on public hand outs. The system is warped. Many states have learned the lesson the hard way attempting to be "morally responsible" by providing for their "have-nots" creating a largely apathetic segment of their population while going broke in the process. Health care reform isn't a bad idea, but spending insane amounts of taxpayer dollars covering segments of the 42 million uninsured that have no desire to contribute to that same tax base(illegals, welfare cases, etc.) isn't fair to those that are going to be picking up the tab for this mess......I am so glad to see that people are finally starting to stand up and draw a line in the sand.......

evansvillehousewife: It is very easy to find the plan on the internet. Google HR 3200 for the more-than-1,000 page document (House version). I haven't looked for the Senate version yet, but a past comment said it was available for viewing. If you can't locate the information through this route, google Congress or health care reform, etc., and you can probably find a copy.

Um, the TEA parties and town hall meetings are totally separate issues. One is a forum to discuss health care, the other is 100% protest.
I thought the same thing when I read that- there were no TEA party protestors arrested at any TEA Party- there WERE, however, counter-protestors arrested at a LA TEA party when they attacked the Republicans.
The health care issue has alarmed many- what I want to know is why have we not seen the plan. Why have citizens not been given easy access to the plan that Obama is pushing?
I too have been in countries with nationalized plans. Canada is a nightmare- Ireland has dismal cancer survival rates- there are pros and cons to both systems. Personally I would like to see a system where current insurance companies are allowed to do business as usual, but with a government plan assured to all citizens as well.

The signs were NOT cheerful and pleasant. Something has to be done to fix the health care system. The one we have now is not working. The Republicans had 8 years to come with something and they didn't and they still don't have a good suggestion.

“truth1, these people are making sure that other people will not receive medical care that they need.”
-
Wow, more whopper lies from the peanut gallery. “These people” are expressing their first amendment rights, how does that make sure others don’t receive anything? Talk about paranoia. If you don’t like what they have to say fine, speak against them with facts not some fear mongering nonsensical babble.

THANK YOU RAF!!!!!!

haveconcerns, you left out the "free speech zones" where protesters were moved to out of the way locations so no one would see them!

Hmmm...let me get this right... according to Jackmarien when Bush was in office people who didn't agree with him were given a voice?! What about the whole, "If you aren't with us, you are against us." Or the Patriot Act, or the implication that if you were against the war in Iraq that you were "Un-American?" That doesn't seem like much of a voice. The government was very intimidating for quite sometime under the Bush Administration.
I don't like all of the Hitler comparisons (on either side). My question is: If Obama is like Hitler, what group are you implying he trying to eliminate?
I think some history lessons are in order. I have heard plenty of news about protests...and I rarely pollute my mind with the crap on Fox...so it must be on other news stations as well. However, I will tell you that I rarely heard protests to the war in Iraq given any voice in the first months of our attacks.

Hitler? Seriously? Anyone who compares Obama, or Bush, to Hitler is a complete idiot. Hitler EXTERMINATED OVER 6 MILLION PEOPLE. If you seriously think reforming health care is going to lead to that, you're a tool. I'm wondering why the tea-baggers would allow themselves to be associated with that.

Earth to fellow Janesvillian waving the flag on Milton Avenue, You are not free. I am all for socialized healthcare because working in exchange for healthcare is akin to slavery. You don't have freedom in this country when they have you over a barrel like that..I would love to be able to stay at home and parent my kids and just consume less so we could get by on my husband's income (alas he has no health coverage through his work). I was making more selling on ebay during my maternity leaves than I do at my work, but unfortunately the family needs healthcare. Let freedom ring!

Moby - I assume she was talking about other rallies at the town hall meetings that turned ugly, not specifically TEA parties. At least that is the way I read it.

Jacmarien - Thanks. It is really a wonder that anything gets accomplished because both the right and the left have extremists, and those are the ones to usually get their 15 min of fame in the media. Meanwhile, those more conservative usually wait on the sideline till all the finger pointing gets over with, from fear that if they do voice an opinion they will be tagged as an extremist.Protesting is a vital right to Americans, and there are those who make a mockery of that important tool in a Democracy. But, at the end of the day, those who wield the money still seem to hold influence in politics.

>>>>>>>Some of the rallies notoriously have turned violent, but the group gathered in Janesville was cheerful and friendly.<<<<<

I haven't heard of any notoriously violent T.E.A. parties,,perhaps Ann Marie could enlighten me as to where these violent parties took place??
And as soon as the American people realize that our problems are not Dem or Rep specific, but Career Politician specific, the quicker reform in all areas will become a reality!!!

Chad, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I really appreciate it. I don't know why others compare Obama to Hitler. I guess everyone is different. Any comparison to Hitler is by definition taking a leap, because no one has death camps or is invading Poland. People take leaps because they want to make sure it doesn't get that far. People will sit and wonder, why in the world did the German people let that happen? The reason is because the change was incremental and because people were intimidated by the government and were afraid to voice their dissent. Where there is no dissent, the powers that be run rampant. I didn't like or agree with the Bush dissent, but at least I knew what the arguments were because those protesters were given attention in the news. If it weren't for FOX News, I don't think there would be any discussion of the arguments of opponents.

The government only makes the rules for the post office, it does not run it. They receive no government(tax) money. It is not supposed to be a money maker, but it shouldn`t lose like it has lately either.

Pay Up Republicans for the mistake you've all made by electing BUSH period.

Right wingers do not understand that sharing some costs sometimes makes it more cost effective, not a socialist state. Unless they don't use the highways/streets /water/ state parks and other items we all share in the cost of.

Jacmarien - I think people are upset because the reference there was to compare Hitler and Obama to the Death Panel and Death Camps. First of all, the death panel thing is a total fabrication, and comparison to the atrocities of the Hitler regime are very, very far fetched. Yes, we want to keep that from happening again. But it is demeaning to even try to add substance to this death panel lie by comparing it to an actual fact. But, what to expect from a Lyndon LaRoach fan.

"For those who think government run health care would be so great. They also run the Post Office, need I say any more?"

They also run the greatest military on the planet. I find it interesting that the same right wing arguments against a public healthcare option fall flat against the face of billions upon billions spent on a military industrial complex.

For those who think this extends the nanny state, think about that anytime you call 911 and expect someone to help you.

The Lyndon LaRouche supporter with the Obama as Hitler sign did nothing but stand quietly with his sign (as far as I could see). I think anyone who is willing to publicly share their opinion is brave. There have been countless references of Bush as Hitler even to this day (and on this post). What's so bad about making comparisons to Hitler? Don't we all want to make sure nothing like that happens again?

So when does Obama plan to invade Poland and France?

Jacmarien
.
You told the guy we was "brave" for using a poster making Obama look like Hitler.
.
WOW! I certainly wouldn't have fit in at this protest. I don't care what President it is or what policy it is, comparing him to Hitler is pretty cowardly.
.
I wonder, if it was an anti-war protest and it was Bush looking like Hitler would you have told him he was "brave."
.
That guy, and people who call him brave, is exactly what is wrong with this debate. Both sides are guilty because neither side really cares about the American people.
.
Hitler signs at a health care reform rally = brave.
.
Yep, welcome to America!

It didn't look like anyone responded to the first post about the Obama Hitler sign. My family and I were at that protest. The person with that sign was a Lyndon LaRouche supporter. I don't know much about Lyndon LaRouche other than he is an economist and a Democrat and he keeps running for president. I was disappointed to see the sign there, because I wouldn't have used that sign, even though I feel a lot of the progressive liberal policies are nationalist and socialist. I told the guy I thought he was brave for using the poster, considering all the flack protesters have gotten for using nazi references. Everyone at these protests are individuals. We all protest for our own reasons and we all have our own opinions. Too bad you didn't talk to someone there to find out why we are so afraid of where our country is headed. There were at least 100 other people there that did not have a nazi reference on their signs.

If these people would have done their homework they would have known that a Military event was to be held at this location from 10:00am-11:00am on Saturday morning. They hold this rally on a regular basis. Because the military participants didn't want to be associated with this group they moved their rally to Creston Park.

ya know what? Bush screwed this country sideways and all I have to say is EAT IT!! The CROOKED republicans? It's about time they start paying up period. The republican party is a dying breed trust me. You might not see it exist anymore in 100 yrs from now.

Well, I think if you have a smile on your face while holding a sarcastic, hate filled signs, then you are "cheerful and friendly". The fear mongering signs about killing Grandma, and the like, just distort any good input they may have been trying to propose. Makes for good air time, but not good discussion.

oh and RAF, be sure to mention the "government takeover of health care multiple times with the word SOCIALIST or SOCIALISM attached to it.
.
Another favorite conservative funfact.
.
This debate is full of misinformation from both sides. It is actually a pathetic example of how politics, specifically the special interests in Washington DC control everything.
.
Too many lies about such an important and yes, expensive issue. If the politicans on either side really cared about his something would get done.
.
It does not make sense, in a country as rich as the USA, that any American would go bankrupt because he/she got sick. It does not make sense, in a country as rich as the USA that any American would choose to NOT see a Dr. because of cost.
.
It does not make sense, with insurance companies and their record profits, that any American with insurance would be denied for any reason.
.
And it does not make sense, considering the salaries of the CEO's of the insurance companies that any American can't afford health insurance.
.
I put this argument with the public education argument. No family should go broke because of a basic K-12 education and no family should go broke because of health.
.
Those should be fundamental principles for all Americans. IMO

The Gazette has a weird definition of "cheerful and friendly."
When I drove by I saw a picture of the President with a "Hitler style" mustache drawn upon his face and signs saying that he was going to kill my grandma. Neither message portrayed either cheerfulness nor a friendly message. In fact it was comical and funny. It was neat to see this people performing like monkeys for all to see. I don't remember the Gazette covering any of the Anti-war or Anti-Bush protests with praises of "cheerful and friendly." If I am wrong, I would enjoy a link to the article to prove it.

RetiredAirForce
Aug 16, 2009 at 9:55 p.m.
Suggest removal “truth1, these people are making sure that other people will not receive medical care that they need.”
-
Wow, more whopper lies from the peanut gallery. “These people” are expressing their first amendment rights, how does that make sure others don’t receive anything? Talk about paranoia. If you don’t like what they have to say fine, speak against them with facts not some fear mongering nonsensical babble.
.
Right, do as the conservatives in this country do, speak with facts.
.
Be sure to mention the death panels though, can't forget that favorite conservative fact.

lol

Chad perhaps you and the puppets should read the long version of rules under the User Policy Agreement; more specifically were is says

"Users agree NOT to: create multiple user accounts...on this site. http://gazettextra.com/UserPolicy/

Wrong again RAF

Can you recommend your therapist?

Ahhh I have an admirer, a puppeteer. Sad though it possibly shows a possible illness, you might want to seek help from a professional.

Here's what i found when I Googled RetiredAirForce , you look snappy
http://api.ning.com/files/sWRVOAVqdcT99d...

Sorry RAF...Don't give Chad credit for my work.

Nice picture Chad

mustache on bush could only have improved his looks. I don't remember bush ever, ever, going out of the white house and campaigning for anything once his lazy xxxx got in office.

Oh yeah.. except the war. Then he did not leave the white house grounds.

Where were these people for the last 8 years? They all claim to be thankful for being better informed, but many of the things they're complaining about happened when President Bush was in office. The U.S. has been losing jobs overseas since long before President Obama took office.
*
I know this health care overhaul isn't perfect, but things need to be changed to make healthcare affordable and available to everyone. For the most part, those of us who are lucky enough to have healthcare are happy with it. We will not have to give up our current healthcare and accept the government option.

This one even looks better!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3488/3829...

SNUBA: The article fails to mention the very distasteful picture of Obama where some idiot drew a Hitler moustache on his face. That's very mature!! I was initially interested in seeing what these people had to say, but after seeing that it was a real turnoff.

I felt the same way when they did that with Bush too but not wanting to be shallow and judge a book by its cover I asked (not shouted) questions. I am now a better informed voter because of it.

Morning sock puppet #2

Right wing nut jobs are plentiful, and stupid!

I thought the little mustache on Obama looked pretty good on him.

It looked like most of the protesters by the post office appeared to be behind the side walk. Those other protesters down by big lots should try to be more like them.

For those who think government run health care would be so great. They also run the Post Office, need I say any more?

Those in DC should give us the same health care plan they have or stop flapping there jaw's

these people on Sat who were protesting are morons. They had no clue what they were talking about and it showed. They looked like fools. They embarrassed them selves. Its one thing to protest something when you know what the facts are but they were doing their best to distort the facts. The one guy could not even answer a simple question. Morons.

"The debate on Health Care Reform is raging, but how can we really know what is being proposed? While the country’s debate is becoming more and more sensationalized, the facts are what we need to make an informed decision."
http://bit.ly/hcrin200words

"The white-hot debate over health care reform has spawned a flurry of allegations by ObamaCare opponents. Some are legitimate concerns; others simply ludicrous."
http://bit.ly/MteqJ

For those who are bashing the protesters, why are you perceiving that just because they voice their opinion means that they don't want healthcare for everyone? Such an erroneous thing to say.

"At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies." -- Nobel Prize in Economics recipient Paul Krugman
http://bit.ly/1xtmkt

i hope you all lose your health insurance and cant go to the doctor like so mant others. Then I hope you all get cancer and cant afford to get treatment. Wake up how can people actually think that it is ok for hospitals and pharmaceutical companys to get rich off of people getting sick. Why would they want to find cures for anything.

Sara Shea sounds like the embodiment of everything I pray to never be and that my children never be. The fact that her biggest concern is taxes & not having a giant home and that that outweighs the fact that 42 MILLION people can't get basic medical care is the screaming EPITOMy of self-absorbed.

I will gladly have fewer "things" if it means that another person gets to LIVE. If you are so morally wacked that you think material things matter more than life and health, then, yes, you are definitely evil.

And, though I am not the OP, a Hitler mustache on ANYONE is incredibly offensive. It is an insult to the millions that died in the holocaust to liken their suffering to that of a president not agreeing with you on a political topic.

Another example of how our country values property over people. Bigger houses are more important to us than taking care of each other. Sad. Very, very sad. I am quite certain that most of the people valuing their things over their fellow man are also calling themselves Christians. I am also certain that Christ wouldn't share those values.

"Ignorant" No moral compass". Please. Being aprehensive and voicing your opinion about a plan that could affect how you choose your healthcare is ignorant and shows you have no morality? Wow! People have a right to protest ideas that they disagree with.

Most of us agree that reform is needed. But to sit back and let others decide what's best for us is not right. Obama has now backed off because he has now finally realized the damage he is causing. And, we now have James Carville advocating a philibuster to "show up" who is opposing these measures so people can find out who they are. Wow!

Since there is no culling and no economic advantage to working harder, socialistic systems provide no inherent incentive to participate. This makes socialism internally unstable.
Due to a lack of incentives, socialistic systems tend not to be competitive, making them externally unstable.
In times of plenty, immigrants are drawn to the free resources offered by socialistic systems, while potentially adding nothing economically productive.
In times of scarcity, resentment of non-economically-productive members of society increases, causing a destabilizing effect on the society and economy.

These people are so ignorant. I lived in a country with national health care and it was wonderful. Never to worry about paying your insurance, losing your job, not even seeing a doctor's bill. Getting into the Doctor right away, the doctor's doing house calls. You don't know what your missing. The United States is the richest country in the world with one of the worst health care systems, and the most expensive by far. You are being fed lies and propaganda by the huge pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies. You need national health care now!

RetiredAirForce, you've got the VA. We are talking about people who have nothing, nothing but the emergency room. Nobody's first amendment rights are being damaged by my telling them they have a broken moral compass.

"There is just way too many of our healthcare dollars going to overhead, administration, etc."

1. Administration-True. It costs a lot of money to administer healthcare. Billions. Not sure how much but it's a lot.
2.Malpractice suits drives costs up also. When people sue, the many has to come from somwhere to cover these costs.
3. Too many medical procedures being done. Many of us seek uneeded medical treatments.
4. Unhealthy habits-Obesity, smoking, drinking,heart disease, diabetes etc. Consequently, we have to go to the doctor more often.

“truth1, these people are making sure that other people will not receive medical care that they need.”
-
Wow, more whopper lies from the peanut gallery. “These people” are expressing their first amendment rights, how does that make sure others don’t receive anything? Talk about paranoia. If you don’t like what they have to say fine, speak against them with facts not some fear mongering nonsensical babble.

truth1, these people are making sure that other people will not receive medical care that they need. That is ... I don't know if there are words for how despicable that is.
.
If you were there, shame on you, and if you have health insurance that you like, double shame on you. Your insurance was never going to be taken away. For the love of God, stop listening to proven liars.
.
Kilgor720, there is a website from the Obama administration that outlines many of the issues and proposals.
http://www.healthreform.gov/

It is sounding like the Dems are going to cave on the public option. They may go with a co-op thing instead. My biggest worry is cost. If they mandate minimum standards and eliminate cherry picking clients, then the rates are going to go up. I fear this bill will end up being too little, too late and we will still end up with a complete healthcare disaster in the future when only the rich can afford healthcare.
*
What ever happened to private practice medicine anyway? Everything has to go through Dean or Mercy now. In another part of the state a few years ago, we went to a private practice dr and he charged $65 for all office visits. We moved here and the rates were over $100. Took my kids to an independent optometrist last summer for $40 each, went to Mercy eye clinic optometrist and it was $115 for one kid!!!!! Seems like the CEO of the healthcare system has to get his/her cut so they can have their $$$$$$$$$$ salary! There is just way too many of our healthcare dollars going to overhead, administration, etc.

Is there a website that outlines how the Govt trying to reform the health care system? I would like more info before making an opinion on Govt run health care vs what I have now. But I do have to admit, even with my health insurance, I STILL can't afford to go to a Dr if I need to with all the co-pays and stuff. So I wonder sometimes whats the point of having it if I can't afford to use it?

One of the biggest contributors to the bankruptcy of GM is the cost of providing healthcare to half a million retirees. The sadistic side of me hopes that nothing is done to change the status quo. Because if nothing is done it won't be too long before only the very wealthy will be able to afford health care. Like a "Tale of Two Cities" the American Royalty will be telling the rest of the country, "let them eat cake". And I say the rest of the country deserves to get what it wants - nothing.

Obama wants to defeat this 800 pound gorilla as part of his legacy.

Protesters,"worst people in the world".....?
.
Ummm, no, I don't think so.

Didn't Obama say he had the votes to pass this monstrosity without any Republican help? If he does why all the hoopla in these townhalls? Let him pass it - if he can.

no sunny Glen Beck didn't tell me to come. I have my own brain to use and I and only I made the decision to show up there and protest. I was NOT paid by anyone ......some people just don't get it .........

I thought it was a car wash at first when I went by.
Here's a funny protest picture:
http://imgur.com/SeWaG.jpg

I was there and I'm not really sure how many of us "Angry Mobsters" where there but I think at least 200 if not more of course I'm not a very good judge of crowds. There is another one coming Saturday the 29th at the lower court house park. 9am till noon. Don't be tardy to the party!! If you really care about your tax dollars come out and find out what a Tea Party is. Don't just sit on the side lines come on down and ask questions. This one was my first one and I know it won't be my last one. I learned a lot by going and asking questions and I met some really concerned people who do care about our country.

Do these protesters know they are being used as shills by the big insurance companies and drug companies? Have these protesters actually read the various bills in Congress or the Senate on health care reform or are they here because Limbaugh and Beck told them to? Get a brain and see for yourself, to continue on our current path, eventually, health care will be affordable only for the rich.

I guess that if it would have been a protest of Bush as Hitler, it would have been funny tho right?

This article leaves out one critical piece of information about this event: how many people were there? I'm genuinely curious about what kind of turn out an event like this had, and that would seem to be quite basic to include.

These people are the worst people in the world, no doubt about it.

BTW, if you want to research which of your legislators are getting big campaign donations from insurance companies, drug companies and other health care special interests, go to www.opensecrets.org.

One of the reasons for loss of jobs is the cost of healthcare on American industries.

The article fails to mention the very distasteful picture of Obama where some idiot drew a Hitler moustache on his face. That's very mature!! I was initially interested in seeing what these people had to say, but after seeing that it was a real turnoff.