"RAF, evidently you and andre can't tell when someone is being sarcastic. Oh my god I told an inaccurate joke"
+
You've never said anything that was accurate whether it was a joke or not.

Darwin -- you are close -- let me help you out. Double digit inflation is what we will have once the our trading partners quit investing in our debt, 100,000 patients (elderly most) dying while they wait at home for a visit or surgery, kids dying waiting for the opportunity to see a doctor, kids and others lose hearing/eyesight waiting to get a doctor to prescribe the appropriate medication or the appointed government board dictating treatment based on some absurd criteria based upon average patient reactions. Not to mention the corruption you mention in a capitalistic system now on steroids with government pay-offs that make the italian and other national governments look like mother tereasa. Your agruements don't make sense nor hold water. I didnt get any of that from a news media source. It obvious to me, as I have traveled the world, been to these places and have seen what happens. The American capitalist system with alls its faults, is significantly better as is healthcare in the US. The real message here is healthcare needs a tweak, not a takeover. Illegals need to apply for citizenship, with a 30 day wait prior to sending them home. I am all about treating people fairly, but not exclusively giving them more when I FOLLOW THE LAWS, only to watch others prosper when they do not. I have no pity on what happens to them, nor do I care where they go as long as they go, nor do I care where they came from. If they follow the rules, I would support them in any way I can. On the other hand. You believe hat ALL have a right to the same treatment regardless of how they have achieved their current pposition, I do not. I see them as starting anew. Let's push reset and have them apply legally and those that do not from this point forward will be sent home and denied access in the future. Cut off from all public support.

RAF, evidently you and andre can't tell when someone is being sarcastic. Oh my god I told an inaccurate joke - the sky must be falling.

"Currently, he his trying to figure out how to buy groceries without paying sales tax."
---
Another lie from advanced degree boy. Who pays taxes on groceries in Wisconsin?

truth hurt you darwin?

You can't find anyone against "A" positive change. Most don't want the whole system changed to make "A" positive change.

Healthcare in the US is very expensive and should be reformed. Why don't you let Obama make a positive change?

darwin, a person like you with an "advanced degree" shouldn't have to have anyone proof read for them. Besides that, if you are using illegals for any purpose, you are contributing to the problem, which doesn't surprise me. People here illegally have already shown that have no respect for the laws of this country. Deportation is all they are entitled to. I know why you feel they you do about this issue, you have the entitlement mentality. Socialist always want the government to provide for them, it's their way. Here is a site for an organization that I am sure you would like to join, assuming you are not already a member.
+
http://dsausa.org/dsa.html

Sorry, the undocumented immigrant I hired to proofread my comments screwed up. So, I punched him and now he has to go to the ER for some tax payer funded care. His one eye was swollen shut so I let him take my uninsured car. He was worried he would have to pay but I told him he can just declare bankruptcy and someone else will pay. He then pointed out that we do have health care for everyone. I said, "Some people never think of that." Then, I felt bad so I took his kids to public school. Its a good thing his family sleeps in a tent in my backyard otherwise they would have to pay taxes. Currently, he his trying to figure out how to buy groceries without paying sales tax.

Too bad this isn't a grammar blog and is instead a blog about government policy - duh. You made a complete series of false statements as told to by the brown shirts on the radio, Fox and CNN. You are right though you are not stupid. A stupid person wouldn't be so callous.

"Did you think of that all on your own andre? You are the expert on losers. Duh, refers to your stupidity which apparently your too stupid to realize - duh"
+
You are finally right about something darwin! I am an expert on losers, and I spotted you a long time ago. As a loser, you could be the poster child! How many times do you have to be told, it is "you're" not "your" in the instance you're using it. "Your" is possessive. "You're" is a contraction short for "you are". If you are going to try an show that someone else is "stupid", it would be better to not highlight your own stupidity while doing so.

"Most voting Americans want health care reform so why don't you move to some 3rd world dictatorship if you don't respect democracy."
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I "hear" you ranting about how unfair it is for someone to tell someone else (you) to move to another country if they don't like it here more than once before?? But it's ok for you to tell others to do that now?? Why the change? Explain that please.... And a third world dictatorship like what?....Cuba? In the past, you said they had better health care than we do ala that fat slob of a retard Michael Moore. I would think that would be a good thing IYO, not a negative.

You would think that the Gazette could get at least the headline right.... They forgot the "T" after the first letter of the last word.... Don't they have proofreaders?

the government has no business running our health care. look at medicare. it is almost broke. maybe the government should monitor the insurance companies, drug companies and hospitals.(look at a hospital bill and see how much they charged you for a q-tip!) Get this country on its feet and create jobs.

RAF:
Yes, it's pretty scary when the government starts to give signs of oppressing free speech and assembly. This administration is looking more and more oppressive by the day, now that they are running into huge political opposition. It will be interesting if they go the route of Clinton and Nixon who's administrations were BEYOND obsessed with their opposition. Those administrations went by the Sun Tzu philosophy of "know your enemy, and know yourself", and became obsessed with their political opponents. Obama has many of the old Clintonestas running the show, so I would not be surprised one bit at some of the shroud and tawdry political tactics you will see employed.
.
In this administration you have, what is it now, 39 czars? With the green czar being a proud communist. All who are accountable to no voters (something many Democrats have objected to, to their credit). It's rather funny because when Bush was in office, you had Hillary out there literally screaming how: "descent is the highest form of patriotism" . Now, descent is being classified as a goon squad, or angry mob.
.
The thing that is really scaring the DNC (who are obsessed by poll #;s) is just how much support this has lost among senior citizens. It's now around a 20 point gap of approve to disapprove among them. That's not a group you ever want to loose, because they are the most loyal voter block of all. In that they always show up to vote, and your political strategists all know this. They have lost the seniors despite endorsements from the AARP, unions, insurance companies, and right on down the line. Now it's being made even worse in the the seniors are being insulted in being passed off as not knowing what they are talking about in their opposition. Like they are to stupid to figure out what these proposals are really all about. The political tide brewing on this issue is really something; and it's by in large the seniors creating the storm.

Yes Darwin1 we know through your own words, wanting to vote on health care, you know nothing of many things, to include government or the legal system. But to your credit you do understand how a socialist economy works.

Red I guess you missed the Memo.

The Presidents goons found through polling data the American public is very afraid of “Health Care Reform”. So, to calm people’s minds they changed the words to “Health Insurance Reform”---but all the legislation is the same!

Makes me proud they can respond to polling data, yet, cry foul when real voters voice opposition to their intended policies.

Did you think of that all on your own andre? You are the expert on losers. Duh, refers to your stupidity which apparently your too stupid to realize - duh.

My names andre and I don't know the difference between an economic system and a legal system.

darwin, is duh a new word that you have just learned recently? You are such a pathetic little loser.

darwin1: And the health care bill would reduce medical mistake death how? And please stop trying to lump all Republicans in one catagory that fits your mood at the time.

1) I thought it was called "HEALTHCARE REFORM" not Obama Care. Anyone calling it Obama Care immediately loses all credibility in my book.
2) The drug companies have promised all politicians a free lifetime supply of Viagra if they are successfull in keeping the status quo
3) The physicians lobby has promised male enhancement surgery to all politicians who successfully defeat any kind of reform.

Double-digit inflation rates, over 100,000 people dying each year from medical mistakes, people dying in emergency rooms and we have the best care? Maybe on the planet of the cognitively impaired Republicans.

You make some bigoted absurd claim about liberals and you are in the middle. You are delusional. Most voting Americans want health care reform so why don't you move to some 3rd world dictatorship if you don't respect democracy. China is communist - duh. Under your definition of socialism most of export surplus Europe is socialist. Russia is a dictatorship.

Your called followers for a reason.

Darwin -- Actually you are the one generalising here. I feel most liberals as repubs are somewhere in the middle. We have the far right and the far left. The president and his henchmen are far left and those as well as Pelosi, Frank and others see this eutopian society. Most people take healthcare very personally. The US has the best healthcare in the world, and a complete overhall of the system scares the hell outta people. Most people are overall satisfied with their care, just not the cost. So cost needs to be addressed and what tweaks are required to the existing system. Enough of the ideologies and socialsm vs capitalism.

However, the goverment taking over a significant portion of the economy (via healthcare) by definition is a significant shift towards socialism, that s really un-deniable.

So now we know where you stand, the radical left. I am in the middle and thats where most americans are. Move to China or Russia if you want socialism.

Capitalism works as long as the economy is growing. When the economy falters, suddenly those "capitalists" have their hands out for a bailout, or worse, they threaten to plung is into a depression if they fail. I'm willing to allow capitalism to screw up everything but my health care. Health is simply not worth the risk.

Ezoner you and the brown shirt goon squads are the only ones that think that liberals have a vision of a perfect society - WE DON'T. So, shut up already with the speech about how you know what it is like to be a liberal unless of course you are one or you can magically read minds.

Radical reform? Every industrialized nation in the world has some form of universal coverage. Many of them export more and are in much better shape then we are.

It baffles me that people cling to idealoogy for some vision of a perfect society that all are taken care of by the government. I see zoom and others that are blindly following these ideologies, forget there's not 1 instance where they have been successfully implemented. Whereas -- capitalizm and competition have been proven. Why do you think that Obama and the far left want such radical change, they want to completely change our society, our value system, our economic system and control our lives. It was obvious to me when he ran for office and I really can't understand why others cannot see that. Hoenstly, I cannot see Clinton doing this. This is the pinacle of ideology. People that have written about and discussed what they feel a perfect society would be.

In the end -- we need to look back our constitution and what the people wrote it had intended. What would they do now. It certainly would not include a large government structure and massive taxes.

We've been trhough this: health insurers' profits are flat and their stocks are down about 50% from last year. If you think they're such a great deal, buy some stock or better yet some calls on them.

If you eliminated every penny of health insurers' profits it would take about 1 penny out of cost for every dollar spent on healthcare in the country. In return, you'd get the fiscal solvency, innovation, and cost controls that have Medicare in such a good place.

Please stop throwing up the threadbare left-winged canards.

Currently, there are three states that allow you to set up a corporation without identification to avoid paying taxes. It is improbably that immigrants would know how to set up a dummy corporation. Illegal immigrants pays sales and property taxes if they rent or own property so please stop blaming them for everything. You people sound like a bunch of brown shirts.

916WI,

You probably correct. They just set their deductions to pay as little as humanly possible. So some income tax is collected, but likely not their fair share. I stand corrected. I was assuming they were honest, but then again they are here illegally... oops.

Lou Dobbs? This is the same guy who had a guest host debunk the "birthers" and then the next day talked about the questions and brought it back. Lou Dobbs is NOT a reliable source. In a court of law he would NOT be considered a reliable witness. Try someone with a brain.

It is illegal for an emergency room to deny care - duh.

Fine. Fix those issues...don't throw a big blanket of money out there and assume it will fix all healthcare problems. Come up with a formulary of costs and minimum benefits, and pair it up with verification of legal status, increased fraud enforcement (returns 3 bucks for every dollar spent on it), and malpractice reform, especially for cosmetic procedures. Go after the biggest abuses of the industry and not the whole industry...and remember a lot of INDIVIDUALS cost all of us a lot of money with their lifestyle choices and fake maladies for which they get tons of meds to sell and abuse.

does anyone care the health insurance compaines are making record profits?
.
does anyone see this as a problem?
.
does anyone wonder why health insurance compaines are for profit?

Oh, I forgot the other clincher AGAINST ObamaCare...ILLEGAL ALIENS WOULD GET FREE HEALTHCARE UNDER OBAMACARE! How horrible that Obama wants to hand EVEN MORE of our tax dollars to illegal aliens when they already leech plenty away from us!

Lou Dobbs broke the 46 million down to 8 million very nicely. And,...

"A study by the Center for Immigration Studies, using census data, calculated in 2007 that immigrants and their U.S.-born children accounted for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989."

Before you attack those sources, remember each organization used the GOVERNMENT's OWN NUMBERS for the breakdown! And, I don't consider U.S.-born children of immigrants to be U.S. citizens unless both parents have naturalized themselves before the birth. America needs to start doing the same as a matter of law, like every other civilized country does.

ICEman where did you get your numbers?

The numbers that have swayed me are as follows: 71 percent of the increase in uninsured over the last 20 years is solely due to IMMIGRANTS; legal and illegal. And, once you take out people who happen to be uninsured but are not in any crisis of coverage or could easily have coverage, and those who aren't here in the U.S. legally, the "46 million" number the administration is using is revealed as actually being ONLY 8 MILLION, hardly a crisis.

This health thing is too much, too fast, and too obviously a power grab by Dems for their constituencies.

The point of the protests is to give the appearance of being in the majority when in actuality they are not. Basically, you have a bunch of cognitively impaired conservatives acting like a bunch of 60's hippies - irony. As I have said before, Republican'ts love America, democracy and voting only when they get their way otherwise they stomp their feet and whine about tyranny and socialism like a bunch of cry babies.

Yeah, Zoom and whythink you are so easily duped by organizations representing working class people with jobs and families. Families don't teach family values, soulless corporations do.

Peggy Noonan shares her perspective on the protests:

"What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

RAF, slow day for you?
.
Have nothing better to do than follow me around on the gazette and question my intelligence.
.
Memo = insturction manual
People acting as instructed in memo/manual.
.
2+2=4

whythink you are so easily duped, as easy as Zoom.

Try looking at who is organizing some of these get together, like service employees international union. How about the AFLCIO saying how they are organizing in support of the administrations plan.

I guess in your eyes it is not the organizing it is the views of those that are organizing you have a problem with.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uplo....
.
THis is why some bleieve these protests are staged.
.
SOme, are following an instruction manual on how to disrupt the democrats message.
.
Something you won't see on Fox New or hear discussed by Rush.
.
How real can it be if it comes with an instruction manual?
.

The dog reference is several days old already.

President Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do. Health care reform was the biggest issue in our country until the economy went into the toilet. We can't have a sound economy in the long term without reform.

The Democrats are not supporting a corporate agenda when they send out emails to organize supporters. Those organizing against insurance reform all have a direct, vested interest in the insurance industry, and the people believing their lies are being duped. Marching or rallying are one thing, but disrupting a public forum is something different. While it's free speech, suppression of public discourse ultimately hurts everyone. That's a tactic the Democrat organisers did not use to get Obama elected.

Obama takes six months to decide on the type of dog he wants, but he can re-make 1/6 of the nation's economy in 8 weeks.

It is ironic to hear our chief community organizer complain about the community organizing that's going on. Democrats have absolutely no shame.

Careful Kiowamohican, someone might just drop this whole blog in an e-mail and send it to the new spy agency; uh I mean information office, at the White House. You know the one that wants you, the American citizen, to report on other American citizens at flag@whitehouse.gov.

I am sure this is all on the up-and-up and in now way will information obtained by this new spy agency, oops information office, be used to go after law abiding citizens.

RAF:
It is rather amusing the left gets so riled over over a protest, when they are the ones who are the true masters of it. That, of course, goes back to the anti war protests the left orchestrated in masses during the 60's. I personally don't see anything wrong with a protest on either side, if it's done in a civil way. And it's laughable to hear these are all "organized"..Yeah, like what kind of a protest isn't? I tell you one thing though, if anyone plans on going to one of those, I'd be riding my bike, or taking public transportation! This administration is looking a lot like Nixon, and Clinton. Where they have operatives/surveillance at these protests. They will take down license plate numbers, and low and behold, you get hounded by the IRS! Think I am paranoid? I have seen it done 1st hand when I use to work in one of these corrupt machines.

packerfan1:
That is exactly what is ALL READY happening. Most do not mind paying taxes as long as they know their tax $$$'s are going to reasonably sound public policy. Now it has come to the point where many are just saying; forget it. The number of people cheating on their taxes or finding loop holes in the tax code is exploding. If you don't believe me on that, there is plenty of studies out there you can google which document that. Tax revenues to the treasury are WAY WAY down, and will only continue to decline as unemployment sky rockets, and more and more people just cheat the system. It was Margret Thatcher who had the great quote of "socialism is a great thing, until you run out of everyone else's money".
.
See the big problem that the CBO, and many of these "analysts" don't take into account when they project numbers, is the concept of rational expectations. As soon as policy is created, or a tax passed, people are not just drones. They make adjustments around the policy and or tax. The "millionaire tax" that will supposedly finance this whole health care fiasco will just mean more people with millions of $$$'s will move their money off shore, spread it out into bogus front business names, ext. Human behavior is hard to calculate into any projection, but in this case it's fairly easy to predict. More and more are just going to say enough is enough, and will cheat the system. In which case the deficit will continue to explode higher and higher, and you'll eventually just come to the tipping point where where the extreme leveraging of debt will cause the dollar to crash, and just demolish the entire economy.

Would you believe the left, the media, and a wacko here are declaring “astroturfing” the reason behind the opposition for health care reform, uh I mean health insurance reform.

To be honest, astroturfing was devised and perfected by the democrats. So perfected in fact that the President's senior White House advisor, David Axelrod, founded a firm that did just that for his clients.

So with the proof of this administration sending out e-mails asking for people to go door-to-door and talk up the support of health care reform, which is organizing (i.e. astroturfing). The new defense by the same administration against a real grass roots effort of opposition is to “cry” astroturfing and declare a vast conspiracy of funded resources is behind it---without a shred of proof?

It is time people open their eyes to what is really going on. The American people have had their fill of those in government with a philosophy of “never let a serious crisis go to waste”.

I say we cut them off by not paying taxes

Zoom......You can throw out your claim of everything the right says to counter socialized health care as a red herring--they're all diversions--but you would have to be a complete idiot to say that they are not tangents which directly tie to valid concerns of the government's ability to handle a program of this magnitude. The government can't even efficiently manage a $1 billion "Cars for Clunkers" program--actually the tab on that one is now $3 billion--surprise, surprise!!!!(I know- another red herring:)) And you want to let them loose with $1.6 trillion of our dollars and let them have a go at something as complicated and vital as our nation's health care? You seriously cannot be that foolish.....Can you?

Zoom....Just as many red herrings from the right!

Ezoner.....Incorrect--Illegals pay very little income tax. They max out their exemptions so very little is withheld from their paycheck. The only tax that they cannot get around is sales tax. The revenue contributed by illegals though sales tax pale in comparison the burden they our on our social services/programs......

The first problem I have with this is that nobody has any solid numbers. Even if a government plan is passed, it won't be free. That is a huge misconception. Not only will you have to pay for the government plan, but you'll also subsidize it with taxes. Once the independent providers go out of business, what options will people have if they can't wait for a doctor? People from Canada come to the Mayo Clinic regularly, because either A the government won't continue treatment or B they can't get into the doctor soon enough. If you are too old are they still going to treat you? It's easy for the politicians to say "Yeah we'll treat you," but once the systems clogs up they'll be more selective. Right now anyone can get treatment. Granted, they might go in dept, but they'll get treatment. In addition, are they going to dictate how much doctors can charge? Is that really ideal for innovation? What about lawsuits? Now they're forcing our already burdened doctors to handle more patients for less money, but no tort reform? I can see the commercials already. Have you been hurt by doctor neglect? Call Shmingle, Shyster, and Bamboozle. Sorry, but this plan is hollow and not well thought out. It's like saying "I'm for world peace." We'd all love to see it, but in reality it's not going to happen. If it takes us two years to come up with a good answer, I'm fine with that. I'd rather the house and senate take their time and come up with a good bipartisan plan then to rush it through before mid term elections. That is the only reason there is so much pressure on this getting done. It's pure politics. Our government can't even run a cash for clunkers plan without problems does anyone really think they'll be able to handle health care?

Janesvillian,

Illegals pay income taxes, they don not however, pay property taxes. They may not even pay income taxes if they recieve cash payment for their work. So you are wrong, they may pay a small percentage of the taxes they owe, but they certainly do not pay what they owe as a total. The key here is to me, those that choose to be here legally, follow the laws, pay their fair share, are also being cheated by the illegals. So I am also arguing in favor of those that choose the legal path to immigration.

janesvillian, what part of being here illegally don't you understand? They are entitled to nothing, except deportation.

darwin, you have a lot of nerve talking about our laws when you have admitted you love socialism, don't try to lecture someone else about our laws and the constitution. You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. You make off the wall statements with NOTHING to back them up. Now you quit listening to those left wing nut jobs on msnbc and the rest of the media that resides in obamas hip pocket.

"The people against health care reform/socialism evidently live in a fantasy world where private businesses don't waste money or commit fraud." Maybe but I have a choice whether or not I do business with any of those private businesses. Maybe what we need to do is stop paying federal income tax if we don't agree with the communist takeover of our banks, auto industry and health care system. They can't jail us all. The libs don't have any money!

Most illegal immigrants pay taxes.
http://reason.org/news/show/122411.html

andre, how many times are you going to spew your bigotry. Immigrants as well as foreign tourists pay sales taxes - duh. If they rent or own property they pay property taxes - duh. The Constitution provides no protections for wealth - duh. In fact, it clearly states we are to "..promote the general Welfare..." Stop listening to Rush he doesn't know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Do you know anything about our laws? Our laws tell you what you can't do, not what you can do. They specifically say you can't torture people - duh.

More red herrings from the right.

Where exactly in the constitution does it say that the federal government can tax the people to pay for health care, even for people that pay NO taxes at all or people that are in the country illegally? This group that is "leading" the country are trashing the constitution on a daily basis. When the left had a problem with Bush supposedly over stepping his bounds, they were squealing like stuck pigs, now, they just think what the socialist democrats are doing is just fine. These people need to wake up real soon.

You would think with all this talk of the terrible insurance companies this would be a tremendous opportunity for “reformers” to start their own company and provide the service they say is so needed…after all they know the right way to run these companies and by their continued cries the demand is overwhelming; why not take the leap and make it happen?

usaret, the system you described is no different than what we have now with PRIVATE INSURANCE companies.

Where does the legislation say "financial ABILITY to pay"? The legislation says financial OBLIGATION, which means, what you will have to pay for the procedure. How many Hospitals or insurance companies now can tell you what a procedure will cost you BEFORE it's performed? Knowing your out-of-pocket cost up front is a goood thing. It helps you to be a better consumer of health care.

ELIGABILITY is a description of the coverage you have, from the insurance plan you have chosen in the exchange. Does your current private insurance cover every possible procedure? Of course not. Some insurance company employee in an office somewhere decides what they will pay for, while still making a PROFIT. Just changed jobs? Forget about that pre-existing condition though if you have private insurance.

Remember, you are reading LEGISLATION, written by LAWYERS. After legislation is passed, the language will be dumbed down for everybody to understand. Medicare recipiants don't read the legislation to figure out what their benefits are. You could also talk to your local representative to explain the legislation. Just don't go to a rally and expect your legitimate questions to be heard over the shouting.

kinsohn, on what planet do you live? Dead people can't sue. The people against health care reform/socialism evidently live in a fantasy world where private businesses don't waste money or commit fraud. The very money you carry in your pockets is from a monetary system run solely by the government. Not government run, but run by a separate branch of government that has no outside oversite. However, I hear you hypocrits always complaining about giving up your socialist money.

Republican't: "I could clearly hear Rush on the publicly owned, licensed, government regulated airwaves complaining about how the government can't do anything right while driving down the Interstate system, paying tolls with government money, in my air bagged, anti-locked braked car."

Your called followers for a reason.

Health insurance companies have contracts with their customers: if they break them, they can be sued. Thus, by and large, the stories you hear about health insurance companies cancelling a policy when someone is sick are just that: stories. They routinely pay for million dollar procedures and don't cancel policies, all because they have contractual obligations.

Do you really think the government will let you sue the government plan? Please.

zoot. Eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility. Do you really want your treatment based on financial ability to pay for it? What part of a by-pass surgery do they stop at to fit in with your financial ability to pay? Yes, you and the Doctor may make a decision but is that decision based on making you well or the financial guidelines set by some government bureaucracy? Does this also mean that some one who is considered poor would get the same treatment as one who is middle-class? Does one who is middle-class get the the same treatment as one who is considered rich? Are you willing to let your health and life be determined by a government worker who's major responsibility is too save money? We need health care reformed but we need to eliminate waste and fraud. If there must be new rules and regulations at least make them less confusing and adding more administrative paperwork which means more goes into the admin side rather then into health care.

userat, thank you for the posting! What you copied is a process to tell you if a Doctor and facility can perform a specific procedure, and your COST (financial responsibility) of that procedure, even before you actually receive the procedure! Wow, an actual PRICE! How horrible!

TRUTH: Medical decisions will be between you and your doctor, as always.

These so called protester's arguments come straight from Fox. In one case they booed the guy introducing people. They're the neo-brown shirts. Blaming the DNC now? The ALL POWERFUL DNC is using mind control. Nobody spin crap better than Republicans that's for sure.

But insurance companies ARE the bad guys. Who else would take your money for years and years and then say "Whoops, sorry" the day that your life depends on it? Then turn around and give that money to shareholders and proclaim how well they are running the business of strategically denying care.
.
Health care reform is under attack by an astroturf campaign bankrolled by the insurance industry and one of the richest men in the world. They feed people conspiracy theories and bus them to town halls and listening sessions. People are being lied to and used by an industry bent on its own highly profitable survival.
.
Yes, it is nameless, faceless bureaucrats running the health care industry we have RIGHT NOW and they will not give up power without a fight. They have the money and they have the will to scuttle what Americans need.
http://codycodester.blogspot.com/2009/08...

The spin on insurance companies is two-fold.

The first is polling. The administration and the DNC found the term health care reform scared the crap out of people but the softer term insurance reform was acceptable; hence the wording and message changes over the past few weeks from those pushing the plans.

Second, giving insurance companies the bad guy label, in the eyes of the public further supports the new phrase “insurance reform”--- really government run health care, shhhh don’t tell anyone.

dub:
That's just classic political spin from the DNC, and quite frankly sounds like desperation to me. I got a real good kick when I heard from the DNC spin machine, was these town hall meetings were paid protesters from the insurance companies!! Now that's a good one, considering as I mentioned before that the insurance companies are all for this legislation/governmnet merger. I mean you could at least spin it by saying that Rush, Hannity, ext have scared uninformed seniors into a frenzy, but claiming that the protesters are fake, and somehow big insurance (who's CEO's have all ready put out statements that they fully support all this) is behind it, is laughable.

The big problem is that once you get these programs in place, they never go away, no matter who is elected, re-elected, or voted out of office. Not do they just never go away, they are often just EXPANDED upon no matter how bad they are failing or going broke. Look at medicare, medicade, and social security. All programs with good intentions, but all programs that are broke, and will require TRILLIONS of $$$'s to bail out when they finally do collapse.

H.R.3200
PAGE 58
(D)
enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card.

Now, who do you think is making the determination of what you can receive for health care? You? The Doctor? The Government?

Wrong link. this is the one.
http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesyke...

Obamacare would be law if it wouldn't have been stalled. Now that PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE TIME TO READ IT, it will fail miserably. Then you know what I'm gonna do?
I'm gonna say "Ha ha, we won, you lost, get over it!"
--
Look at what the White House is doing to get it passed, they are calling people who disagree with Obamacare, a "mob". A true sign of a weak minded strategy for a losing party. They claim the people standing up at recent town hall meetings, are "an angry mob" and "organized". Oh my! Not organized! Obama is a community ORGANIZER! Don't believe me? Read all about it here.
http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesyke...

Correct, 916WI. By contrast, does anyone know how much government intervention was responsible for the explosion of the telecommunications industry, including wireless phones and the Internet? In particular, there has been almost unanimous support for a hands-off approach to the Internet in terms of taxes or regulations. Compare the precipitous decline in cost of computers and communication technology over the last 15 years or so. During that same period of declining cost, there has been dramatic improvement in quality, features and performance. What percentage of Americans had cell phones and home computers with Internet access in 1994?

Too funny Zoom--The proposed system has more potential is right.....Much more potential for waste, abuse, and fraud.......As far as future cost increases not being based on fact, but opinion--I would disagree with you there. Historically, when has the government ever come in under budget on any program they have been involved in. For any one anomaly there are fifty examples where they have made an absolute mess of things. I don't know what the answer is, but allowing them to "compete" in a market segment this large backed by $1.6 trillion of our taxpayer dollars is definitely NOT the answer......

He'll get reelected, the sheeple will see to it.

"eight year election cycle"? Presidential elections occur quadrennially which means consisting of or lasting for four years or occurring or being done every four years. No way One Big Ass Mistake America gets reelected.

I do empathize, Concerned. Your situation is all too common. If faced with the need for critical medical care of a bankrupting amount myself, I will die. (Literally, that is.) On the other hand, had I maintained private health insurance, I could very conceivably be homeless right now.

The difference is that our current system is actual, and a reformed system is potential. The fact is, even the CBO can't predict true costs past about 10 years, so claims that a reformed system will end up costing more in the long run are not based on logic, but on unsubstantiated opinion.

I would prefere a single payer system also, but with the insurance companies holding so much power ($$$) over the media and our elected representatives, they don't have the will to make that drastic a change. So, we'll end up with a watered down plan that won't survive past the eight year election cycle to prove that it works. The ironic part is that insurance companies are run by people, and the people will lose in the long run of nothing is done.

FOTH, I see your view as better than status quo or current "reform," at least with a truly free market, maybe I could think about affording some of the services that currently just add to my mounting medical debt (~$25,000 and counting.)

Do you think anyone is listening, Kiowamohican? Proponents are right that doing nothing will allow the present situation to worsen. Opposition is right that the current approaches to reform will only make the present situation worse. Is there anyone (besides the single payer crowd) out there willing to at least consider the possibility that BOTH are wrong?

RAF, those plans sound great compared to what is available for me, which is nothing, and yes I do work full time.

The people on the right touting this ludicrous line of "government take over" are on drugs. It's hardly a take over, and my term government MERGER is much more accurate. The companies being merged with are very willing participants. In the world of business most smaller companies love to be merged with by a bigger company (their stock will usually exploded over night on a merger rumor). If I'm running a company, my dream would be a government merger. I would not have to answer to any of my share holders, and my high paying executive position in the company would be secure forever; as long as I do what the government asks of me, of course!

Concerned, your 7 friends in Canada all have different coverage and plans; Canadian plans are provided by the provinces and each has separate services. For instance in Saskatchewan there is no coverage for orthotics. In Ontario there is a $150 per year maximum for chiropractor visits. Alberta has no coverage for ambulance service (air or ground) and dental care is almost non-existent.

Doesn’t sound like the type of care I would be happy with.

ARRRGH! Insurance companies are parasites! RAmen

What is funny is that these "evil" insurance companies will be the ones who benefit even more; hence why most are actually endorsing the bill! It's rather amusing how these corporate giants are punching bags in the political arena, but in reality they be the ones getting the most out of it all. It's really a great political strategy. Set up the "evil" insurance company as the villain, but in reality the giant insurance companies will get rich of it. I sure didn't see AIG or any bank opposed to TARP (a massive government merger scheme). All this is is once massive merger of corporate giants with the government. Fool On The Hill (the poster) wrote something of the "iron law of oligarchy", and that is where you are going. A system where corporate giants simply merge with the government, and form a ruling class that will control literally everything. It's laughable to hear people actually believe that this new administration is going to stick it to these "evil" corporations. Most of these corporate giants are loving this (and gave MASSIVE amounts of $$$ to the ones proposing all this legislation)! A government merger gives them unlimited funds, makes them UNaccountable to any shareholders, and secures them forever (well for as long as the government is in power).

"If there was competition health care prices would not have been going up at doube-digit rates of inflation."

Well, you were right about one thing, Darwin1, and it's high time we start letting the free market prove it works in health care, too.

RAF, I have asked my friends in Canada, about 7 of them. 4 in Ontario, 2 in Alberta and 1 in Saskatchewan. All say that their Healthcare is not perfect, but adequate, and they could not imagine having a system like ours. I also asked a 73 year old vetran what he thought of the VA, and he indicated that he was very happy with his care and his doctors in Madison, but that he had heard things aren't as good in Chicago. I guess you'd call that a mixed review.

Also, I cover the cost of my healthcare. I go to the doctor, I don't pay. They sue me, then they steal the money out of my pay check and tax returns, not sure where people get the idea that the government covers the uninsured's costs.

Concerned it is relevant, simply ask your friends in Canada about the “extra” insurance most people purchase to cover the gap expenses and services that the single payer program does not cover to include the costs not paid by the single payer plans. The idea that a single payer option covers everyone for all illnesses is delusional; just ask a veteran in this country what the VA system is like.

Without insurance companies offering these services who will cover your costs?

kinsohn, the answer to your question is that it won't, it will cost more money. Which is why I don't support it, I support Canadian style single payer healthcare.

RAF the numbers you are citing refer to life insurance and private heath insurance companies. They provide life insurance and provide secondary health insurance above what Canada's single payer health system provides. They are not contacted providers for Canada's Heath system.

I was referring to hospitals, doctors, labs, etc. They data on that website and which you provided is interesting, but it is completely irrelevant to Single Payer heathcare.

For all the whining about the 5% profit margins that insurance companies make, eliminating them would maybe save 1 penny from annual healthcare expenditures across the country. And a third of those savings would come out of state and federal government taxes that the insurance companies pay, which would have to be made up somehow.

Regardless, the government pulling an immediate Hugo Chavez takeover of 1/6 of the economy in the interest of efficiency and fairness isn't on the table. Thus, I'm still waiting on an answer to my question as to how spending more money on healthcare (as the Dems are proposing) will solve the problem of us spending too much on healthcare.

Darwin1 please explain how service will increase? What we know, more people will be “insured/covered” (supposedly) yet there is no increase in care providers or networks.

Increased demand with stagnant supply will decrease service not increase.

Concerned, it slowly is going that way, check out the facts. In the past ~20 years there has been a drop of over 30% in the number of insurance companies. During the same time period 5 companies are now insuring almost 60% of the population.

Nothing happens over night…but the facts speak for themselves.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/toc/2001/health_-en...

Competition in a marketplace is a false assumption. In most cases marketplaces lead to collusion not competition. If there was competition health care prices would not have been going up at doube-digit rates of inflation. Notice that contracts between supposed competitors are the same.

Since most of you claim to know how the future of reformed health will play out, I was wondering if I could get the lottery numbers for tonight's drawing.

Service will improve and widen because the government won't be spending money on tests and services that are not effective. Evidently, you consider using science as some great evil.

RAF, if that is the assured outcome, why is that not the case in Canada?

Concerned there will be no such panacea of public payment and private providers. If all the rates are the same there is no competition, providers will have no incentive to be involved…leaving only a government entity. What then happens to the system?

Concerned: All monopolies share certain characteristics, regardless of who runs them. Costs tend to rise naturally. When a monopoly is subjected to external cost controls, the result will be shortages. It doesn't matter if that monopoly is run by government bureaucrats or entrepreneurs. Neither form is inherently more evil or benign than the other. To believe otherwise is Utopian illusion.

The most effective means to improve quality and drive down cost is competition, which can thrive only when everyone and anyone is allowed to trade freely in an open market. This means government, which is a monopoly, must never give anyone a "leg up".

What makes a truly free enterprise system most beautiful is its natural tendency to continuously evolve and adapt to a constantly changing environment. Failed ventures disappear while innovations appear on an ongoing basis to meet new challenges. We decide what works and what doesn't. Each of us alone and all of us together. Some of us with solutions and others seeking them.

RAF, I think you make good points. I'm not suggesting that any solution is perfect. However, from what I've read, and from Middle Class Canadians I've talked to, their system is the best compromise available. Private Providers and public shared payment.

Concerned, utopia has a very sweet aroma; reality has a different odor. Your analogy with Walmart is tenuous as consumers have a “choice” to shop elsewhere as manufactures/suppliers have a choice to provide their product to Walmart if desired; not mandated.

Dictating cost will result in reduced costumer service the same way other no option services operate in our society; think IRS, DOT, electric and gas company, the old AT&T (before the break-up), toss in any monopoly here.

You tout losing the profit motive. That same profit motive is an incentive to provide service at a competitive level against other companies also for shareholders…how many 401k programs, local and state pension programs, and yes even your government have money invested in these despicable insurance companies; the same ones that provide the coverage for your congressman and Senators that will not say they will take the government option they are proposing on others.

DrTalk, as a subject related to democracy and the tyranny of the majority, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the "iron law of oligarchy".

916WI, I was thinking we should contract it out to the Canadian Government. Just kidding. Kind of.

Concerned....who is going to be responsible for managing the finances and regulating the care for this "giant insurance company"?

kinsohn, I am not espousing spending more money. The current plan piggybacks on the current bloated system which of course does nothing to save money, as the CBO has indicated, may cost Trillions.

Therein lies the problem. The solution? (1.)Eliminate private health insurance. 30-40% savings immediately. (2.)Institute a single payer health system (3.)Charge REASONABLE premiums on a sliding scale. (4.)Dictate Costs in the way that any monolithic consumer does (think Walmart) I don't see why we couldn't even make some money on this program. Insurance companies make money, and essentially what I am proposing is a giant insurance company without a profit motive, without multimillion dollar executive salaries and with cost control powers. Seems like a net gain to me.

darwin1, I'm all for privatization. Apparently you haven't read any of my posts in reference to the failed "drug war" which is due to socialism in our criminal justice system. Here is a link to a book you may want to read called "The Privatization of Police in America: An Analysis and Case Study" http://www.amazon.com/Privatization-Poli.... Less government = More FREEDOM!

Still waiting for the lefties to tell me how spending more money on healthcare will solve the problem that our country spends too much on healthcare.

Dr talk:
Funny you bring that up, but most don't realize that the income tax was not put into the constitution until 1913. So yes, we went nearly 150 years with no tax on income. When the income tax was passed, it was a progressive tax that was mere 1% on the average citizen, and 7% on the "wealthy". It was said that if taxes ever got above 10% that there would be a new revolution. Well, Wilson got us into the the most idiotic war ever. A war that had zero US interest, that we were totally unprepared for, and that would explode the federal budget in funding some 5 million US troops. From there, the newly created income tax got up above 70% on the top end, and it would only take about a decade to sink the country into a depression.
.
It's really just a matter of how long it takes before this economy totally collapses. Spending has rose from $2 trillion when Bush took office in 2000, to $3 trillion when he left. Under Obama the budget has now got over $4 trillion. All the while tax revenues, employment, and GPD are shrinking. Medicare, medicade, social security are all huge ponzi schemes on the verge of collapse, and will requite trillions to be bailed out. It's just a matter of time before the entire house of cards comes crumbling down.

Forget trying to pass health care reform. The most reasonable help that the Federal govt can give us on health care would come in the form of a health care insurance premium tax credit for individuals.
But that won't happen. The President, and his owners, are only interested in EXPANDING the number of people paying premiums.

chainsawchuckis - CNBC's Rick Santelli started the tea party.

darwin1,
I never said "It isn't wrong but it is." Show me exactly where I said that. Apparently you didn't understand what I meant by "It's legalized theft, but it is still theft." I meant it's wrong no matter what. I don't condone the fact that it's legal. Sorry, nice attempt at a straw man but it didn't work.
.
"You love America so long as the majority agrees with you and your socialism for the rich agenda."
.
Socialism for the rich? What are you talking about? I'd never condone stealing from the poor to give to the rich if that's what you mean. How is letting everyone keep 100% of what they earn stealing from the poor?

darwin1,
Conservatives, by definition, are trying to conserve something. I'm not a conservative. I'm trying to put things back the way our founding fathers intended. No one paid income taxes prior to the Woodrow Wilson administration. That's the way it should be. Everyone keeps 100% of what they make. Then there wouldn't be re-distribution of wealth. There would be no theft at all - I'm not sure how you could claim that there would be theft.

But if you really like socialism and communism, you could always move to China. In fact, I'll make you a deal: I will personally by you a one way a ticket to China if you promise to stay there the rest of your life. Deal?

I think it is time for another "Tea Party" In Janesville. Who started the last one?? I think it was held at the post office parking lot? I'm game on Saturdays after 1pm (cause I got to work)

concerned.....I wasn't talking about favoritism as far relationships between the government and the existing health care companies go, but rather potentially billions of dollars in earmarks for political allies of those writing this bill. You can't honestly think that buried in this 1000 page document that organizations such as ACORN aren't going to come out of this extremely happy. Do I think that the US government is more inept and corrupt that the government of other countries? Yes, I do--There is a massive amount of cash that flows through it with little or no accountability. It's not their fault, it's ours. We are the people that people that put them in office and ignored their indiscretions and let them come back term after term simply because everything at home was status quo. They could spend a billion dollars on a toliet seat, but as long as our taxes weren't raised, we're cool with it. It's all a ponzi scheme though. Massive amounts of deficit spending, a national debt that is spiraling out of control and manufacturing becoming less and less of a fixture in our lives. It will all come crashing down around us and emerging countries like China will quickly step in the position that we once held........Government service at that level needs to be looked at as a public service and not as a career. Term limits would be great, but asking those who have the power to implement them is a lost cause.

Just like a conservative, "It isn't wrong but it is." I do understand. You love America so long as the majority agrees with you and your socialism for the rich agenda. Talk about theft. Talk about class warfare.

916WI, I'm just wondering where there would be room in a single payer system for favoritism? Anyone can use any provider, and all reimbursement rates are uniform, and the consumer chooses the provider.

Of all of the complaints about Canada's Healthcare I've heard, corruption and favoritism are not usually mentioned.

Is the US government more inept and corruption-ridden than other nation's governments?

darwin1: "It isn't theft because we are a democracy."

Do you even know what a democracy is? It's "majority rules." So the majority of the people, who aren't rich, vote for the candidate who promises to raise taxes on those who are rich. The rich don't vote for those candidates but it doesn't matter because they are out numbered. Then the ones who aren't rich benefit because the candidate promised to help them out with the money they taxed from the rich. It IS theft. It's legalized theft, but it is still theft.

Someday you'll understand this darwin1.

Concerned......The astronomical cost of insurance profit and administration will be nothing compared to the costs attributed to waste, corruption and political favoritism that will run rampant through a government sponsored health care "program"........

I'm not sure how anyone can think that our system is better than a single payer system such as that of Canada. Apparently some of you are so brainwashed by your political party that you can't see that you pay more for less care under our current system than you would in a system without the astronomical cost of insurance profit and administration. The anti-reformers are right about one thing though, the half hearted attempt at reform being shoved through the legislature will do nothing. Anything short of the outright elimination of the private health insurance industry is sure to be more expensive and less productive than what we have now. Single payer is the only way to fix this, anything less is pointless and will probably make things worse.

It isn't theft because we are a democracy. You do understand how this has been working for the past 230 years? You do understand this is America? Why don't you start building your own roads, delivering your own mail, putting out your own fires and start building your own army. Because you like socialism when it is for the programs and institutions you like.

The FACT is that we ARE a socialist country when it comes to the rich. Republican sheep cry about how this FACT is wrong but voted for the largest expansion of government in history. They don't like the banks being bailed out but they WERE. Now we want to bail out human beings who lost their jobs or have pre-existing conditions but that is too far. Nice going - NOT.

darwin1:"considering the subsidies given to farmers, bankers and other businesses there is no such thing as a 'business'"

You're right, darwin1. It's not a business; it's government theft.

"However, for helping people who are poor and sick socialism will kill them. Good job jerks."

Yeah, the government is really generous with other people's money. I believe in giving my own money to help out others. It's wrong for someone to take money from me so that can give to someone else.

10 Reasons Not To Trash Our Current Health Care System:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/diges...

No Darwin1......socialism within the health care sector won't kill them, it will just put the country one step closer to an economic meltdown.....USPS--broke, Medicare/Medicaid--broke, Amtrak--broke, Freddie/Fannie--broke, DOT--broke, social security--broke, 30+ states--broke.......But no, it would be a great idea to give our government access to $1.6 trillion to have a go at 1/6 of our economy......too funny........

First, the government doesn't run business ventures. In fact, considering the subsidies given to farmers, bankers and other businesses there is no such thing as a "business" under your definition. It would be ironic if officerfriendly were a police officer complaining about socialism considering police departments are examples of socialism. So, let me get this straight, socialism is ok for the military, banks, farms, police, firemen, teachers, FBI, DEA, FDA, crime labs, highway system. Need I go on and on. However, for helping people who are poor and sick socialism will kill them. Good job jerks.

Sorry proartist......the only people lying about this are those pushing the reform......Taxes "might" go up? Uh yeah.......where else is the government going to get a trillion plus to fund this reform? So if our taxes go up yet the payroll deduction goes down, they MIGHT offset one another....although this is highly unlikely considering how inept the government is at running it's other "business" ventures.....Medicare will be completely broke in a couple of years--many doctors refuse to treat Medicare recipients......but yeah, the government will hit a home run on this one!!!!! Good luck w/ that.......

It needs to be said again and again....with "socialized" care we are screwed!

It needs to be said again and again....with "socialized" care your taxes might rise but it will be balanced by ALL being insured, your out-of-pocket costs will diminish; your personal salary deductions and costs to employers will be reduced; your out-of-pocket payments will not be paying for the uninsured; and, you will probably find there will be less "rationing" and doctors taking more time with you than is currently the norm. Another current example....my Brit friends (employed but it wouldn't matter if they weren't) visited a dentist this past week for the annual cleaning and check up. It being human nature, they complained about the cost...$26! We are the only developed nation that provides such prohibitively expensive "catastrophic sickness care" to a fraction of our citizens while the other nations provide true "health" and wellness care. It's time to stop the lies and myths generating fear to FINALLY institute REAL health care reform NOW.

Because I'm not a Kool-Aid drinker, I know that taxes will rise immediately and the benefits start kicking in in 2015. Because they get a head-start on tax collections and only have to pay for a few years of benefits, they can claim the program is paid for over 10 years, even though they know that it's not fully paid for in the 11th year and beyond. That's the sort of dishonesty and shell game I expect from Democrats, but I have to keep my questions to one at a time: they throw so much garbage out all at once it's impossible to keep track any other way.

kinsohn....The people drinking the koolaid will tell you that the $1.6 trillion is the initial investment over the first 10 years and that in the following years costs will drop. Anyone with half a brain cell will tell you that the costs after that first 10 years will not drop, but will in fact rise, leading to more taxes to subsidize the program.....

Will the people who point out we spend more money than any other country for medical care as justification for Obamacare please explain why Obamacare requires us to spend a trillion dollars MORE than we do already? It is hard to keep track of the many arguments Obama supporters put out that contradict their own proposed solutions, so I'm trying to tackle them one at a time.

"You're confusing "access to insurance" with "access to health care""
-
Try again, I know what I wrote.

Your one of two options is a false choice analogy; the extreme could be expensive or bankrupting but so are many other things in our society. As I have stated before and you have failed to address, nothing in the current proposals do anything to keep a person/family from going bankrupt; this is the current strawman used.

Missing work for an illness, even if the medical care is paid by someone else 100%, does not provide for lost income. Without income bills will not be paid and bankruptcy is still a threat. If the reason for reform is bankruptcy protection than propose it, don’t use it as a false scare tactic that will not be fixed.

Zoom, million of Americans “benefit from tax funded health care”…is there a point to your comment?

"Under the current system everyone has access..."

You're confusing "access to insurance" with "access to health care". Insurance and health care are not the same. Yes, everyone has access to health care, but it is expensive, or bankrupting, if you don't have insurance. Of course, you benefit from tax funded health care, so I'll forgive the error.

“There are two components to the plan. One is to regulate insurers, and the other is to expand access to insurance.”
-
Not true. The plan, as stipulated by the President it to “reform our system by expanding coverage, improving quality, lowering costs, honoring patient choice and holding insurance companies accountable.”

Nothing in the current proposals as written lower costs, improve quality, or expand coverage. Under the current system everyone has access, how do you expand beyond 100%? What is the metric for gauging improved quality? The current CBO estimates show nothing in the proposals lower overall cost, and over time will end up increasing costs.

The only obfuscation is your interpretation of what is being proposed.

"Private health care is not jeopardized in any way by existing health care reform proposals."
+
http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-...
+
I think this might contradict your statement.

Zoom, you're being suckered into an argument here as if any of the proposals in Congress actually involve altering the way care is provided. They do not. Private health care is not jeopardized in any way by existing health care reform proposals.
.
There are two components to the plan. One is to regulate insurers, and the other is to expand access to insurance. That is all. Anything else being argued is obfuscation, and particularly disingenuous obfuscation at that.

Zoom, the Google link of news stories, you did not look at, quoted a CBO report that provided the exact number you asked about. I guess the relevance would be that you asked the question…yet now don’t want the answer because it does not support your conclusion.

Zoom, so when you say it is not about the quantity it is about the quality; you still have not answered why those from countries with health care systems you say are just as good come here. Please defend you statements. This has nothing to do with any analysis it is common knowledge. You are the one that continually harps our system is broken and how it can be so much better…hmmm I wonder if it gets better will more people come here for treatments?

Your softball question on dental care is an easy one, cost. Yes I said cost. Imagine that consumerism at work. If you knew in advance what your treatment bill would be in the health care network and had to pay it you would shop by price.

But this same price shopping experiment is exactly what you do not want. By advocating the current plans in congress and the President plus a single payer system (that many of these same really want) the cost structure is never addressed.

Zoom....don't be so naive!!!! That number comes straight from our wonderful government. Of course, fraud exists within the private sector. It's not nearly to the same extent as the Medicare program--not even close--because there is no accountability in a government run "business". Latest projections show Medicare to be completely broke within a decade, who in the government is going to get fired due to the mismanagement of this "company"?--No one would be the correct answer to that question......I really wonder how Obama is going to pull this one off though. He PROMISED not to raise the taxes on 95% of Americans throughout his entire campaign, yet in order to come up with $1.6 trillion a tax increase on the middle class is almost a necessity. With the CBO saying that the program is going to run at a deficit in the later years, more and more tax dollars will be required to fund it. At this point massive amounts of fraud and corruption aren't even considerations. However Obama spins this, it'll be interesting......

A google listing is relevant how?

"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the latest version of a bipartisan Senate Finance Committee bill would cost under $900 billion, giving the negotiators a boost as they try to complete a health care package this week.

The CBO returned the estimate last night on the bill, which would cover 95 percent of Americans by 2015 and would be fully paid for in the first 10 years, Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/070...

The U.S. does not have to provide the best health care on the world. Better than the rest of the industrialized world would be a start. The fact is, we don't see the same return on our health costs that other nations see, and we spend more money.

Now RAF bases the quality of our health care system on what dignitaries and foregn leaders do. A master of analysis, you are not.

RAF, why do people from the U.S. travel to Mexico for dental care?

RAF, do you not comprehend the word QUALITY? Contrary to popular belief, we don't have the best QUALITY health care in the U.S., just the most expensive.

You anti-reformers continue to spread the fear that a public insurance option would reduce quality, without basis in fact.

"where is this $1.6 trillion number coming from?"
-
Zoom here is 204 sources, pick one for yourself. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ei...

Zoom if the quality is the same, as you say, why do leaders of foreign countries, dignitaries, and even people from Canada seek treatment here? After all as you say the quality of health care in their country is the same.

916WI, where is this $1.6 trillion number coming from? You've repeated it several times, without a source.

Medicare is not a disaster. Ask the millions of elderly who receive it's benefits. Do you think "waste and fraud" somehow doesn't happen in the insurance industry? Oh my.

"Ending a practice doctors say underpaid them and led to higher costs for patients, UnitedHealth Group on Tuesday agreed to pay $50 million to establish a new database that will be used to determine rates for patients who choose physicians outside of insurance giant’s network."
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/...

Zoom you are right a Cadillac and a Yugo might both get you to work in the morning. Why not poll who wants a Yugo?

Socialized medicine...well hell-what can you say about it? It's socialism, pure and simple. LEt's get on with it, let the Demicans have it, and as the country starts to crumble, MAYBE there will be enough people left with the common sense and the courage to fight to take it back.

ok Zoom--lets talk about costs. $1.6 trillion--where is that going to come from? All we have to do it examine the government's last foray into the health care "business". Medicare and Medicaid have been a 45 year old experiment resulting in an undeniable disaster overwrought with waste and fraud. Just how many billions do those programs cost the taxpayer each year? If you give the government access to the entire health care system, you are guaranteed to see fraud and waste on unprecedented levels that will affect both the quality and cost of the health care. So yeah, I'd much rather risk increases under the current system, rather than have the government--who has made an absolute mess of every situation it has been involved in the private sector--take it over........

RAF, you're assuming in your question that a cheaper system HAS to be less quality. That simply isn't the case, as demonstrated by the many other countries that have universal health care.

Zoom are you kidding, a poll on cost? If you polled the cost of almost anything people would want it/things cheaper.

Poll a family member that just had a loved one saved with our current system; ask them if it cost to much to save the life of their mother, father, sister, brother, wife, husband, son, or daughter, or if they think a cheaper system that did not save family members is better?

916WI, again, you are equating QUALITY with COST. We know we have good QUALITY health care (for those who can afford it). Why didn't the poll ask about how satisfied people are with the COST of health care? Why didn't the poll ask how people would feel if the cost of their health care increases faster than the wages they can earn? You can burry your head in the sand, but double digit cost increases are unsustainable.

I am a RN. I volunteer at a Free Health Clinic. Some times we are not able to provide certain services because of cost. Try telling a patient they can not get diagnostic testing that could potentially save their life because the funds are NOT available.

Another example, say a person does not have insurance for whatever reason. They can not afford to go to the clinic, so they ignore the problem until it is too far advanced and then nothing can be done to save their life. Or they go to the E.R. for such things as strep throat because of lack of insurance. Increased cost, etc, etc etc. Need I go on???

Or the fact that middle class income families with chronically ill children who have insurance but have high deductibles and co-pays and do not "qualify" for assistance. So the medical bills mount. The "extra" income is eaten up. How does that then disqualify them from assistance?

We NEED change. I think Michael Moore's Sicko made excellent points. Let's address what's REALLY important!

darwin:
Believe w/e you wish. I make a living off calling things BEFORE they happen. I'm just putting my call out there. You will see an utter blood bath in the 2010 election for incumbents. Considering that traded contracts for elections on future markets HEAVILY favor the incumbents, it will provide an opportunity to cash in huge when so many incumbents flounder by my estimation. If you don't know how to interpret statistical data that's not my problem. Health care in some form will pass, but the political cost will be astronomical.

Fool.....I would say the government is doing pretty good considering that 80% of Americans are satisfied the the quality of their health care......

Yes, there are plenty of anti-reformers. Others in favor of major reform, just not the "more government" approach to it.

In 1950, a minimum wage worker earned enough in 10 hours to pay for one day in a local hospital. In 2009, it takes that same minimum wage earner more than MONTH of 10 hour days to pay for one day in that same hospital. During those six decades, there has been ever-increasing government meddling, each step promising to make health care more available to every American. How is government doing so far?

Darwin1 you have gone from laughable to insane. I can’t wait for you to show where this country has voted twice (your words) on a “national referendum” (try not to confuse a state vote with national vote).

As I said, and then you denied like a kid caught stealing cookies, you want to vote on national health care. The ONLY way this will happen is with a constitutional amendment allowing it. Here is your chance to achieve your socialistic dream, start a movement to amend the constitution to have your vote.

kiowamohican, polls are not elections. Elections are comparisons between two candidates. Without an opponent it is absurd to think you know the future since it was the Republicans who got us here in the first place.

"...with a major disparity in strongly disapproved to approve." What?

Here is some interesting polling data from Rassmussen.
.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...
.
All though this will most certainly pass congress, and on into law (if it does not the Democrats have real problems considering the massive majorities they have) it's going to be difficult to not take a pretty serious political hit. The numbers show a fairly close (near 50/50) split over all, but the internal numbers are not very good at all on this, with a major disparity in strongly disapproved to approve. That is never a good sign. Take this growing opposition to national health care, along with an economy that is loosing jobs by the day, a public debt that is exploding, private industries being merged with by the government, ext...Well, simply put there will be some good $$$ to be made on intrade in the next set of elections! It sets up to be a real blood bath for incumbents.

Yes, the latest tactic by the anti-reformers is to scare old folks into thinking the government is going to tell them how to die.

It is already advised that all patients have "end of life" plans. In fact, many places won't admit someone without that paper work being filled out.

Then why did you ask a question Mr Scott? Obviously you weren't following along.

grininear2ear I heard all the same paraphrases yesterday on religious radio. Trying using the actual words instead of your interpretation.

Secondly, what your describing already exists. First, Its already called the FDA and they decide which medicines are approved based on clinical trials. The government provides licensing. There is nothing wrong with any of these things except in your paranoid mind. The IRS and my employer both have electronic access to my accounts. The sky is falling the sky is falling!!!

Na, I've been following this blog since the day the story was posted.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c1...
• Sec. 123, Pg. 30 - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE deciding what treatments and benefits you get.
• Sec. 142, Pg. 42 - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!

• Sec. 163, Pg. 58-59 beginning at line 5 - Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID health care card will be issued!
• Sec. 163, Pg. 59, Lines 21-24 - Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Sec. 1233, Pg. 429, Lines 10-12 - “Advanced Care Consultation” may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans - from the government.
• Sec. 1233, Pg. 429, Lines 13-25 - The government will specify which Doctors (professional authority under state law includes Nurse Practitioners or Physician’s Assistants) can write an end-of-life order.
• Sec. 1233, Pg. 430, Lines 11-15 - The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life, according to preset methods (not individually decided).

AND IT GETS MUCH WORSE!

They had better come up with a better plan that operates in the confines of the Constitution...this one does not

MrScott comes in late, makes assumptions based on limited knowledge and acts like he knows what he is talking about - sounds about right.

Actually, I have been unintentionally defending RAF from kiowamohican who believes anyone on the public dole should not be allowed to vote in a national referendum on health care.

Is darwin back to name calling because he's fighting a losing battle trying to push a program most Americans are against?

You clearly would not be able to comprehend it.

Do explain your comment then:

"It would only take an amendment. Two were passed within the last century, so it is quite probable that it will happen again."

RAF you can take remedial reading classes at your local public library. I never said that I want a Constitutional Amemdment for health care. Your ideology has clearly become more important than reality. You should probably stop voting.

Darwin1 you are laughable, you want a constitutional amendment to allow you to vote on healthcare…glad to see that advanced degree has helped you out.

Nice thought although that'll never happen. This is, after all, the United States where the national pastime is deflecting responsibility. (used to be baseball)

(Sorry... make that urokop not urocop.)

A perfect example of need for a free market solution, urocop: Allow patients and practitioners the freedom to mutually waive any and all future claims of malpractice. Couple that with publicized pricing.

As a local physician let me state plainly that the cornerstone of any health overhaul must be malpractice reform. There will be no reduction in unnecessary testing, overscheduling of visits and exhorbitant charges from every link in the chain unless and until liability premiums and general fear of litigation are greatly reduced. Bottom line; costs will never come down when self-preservation is at stake.

Try reading it again without bias, Darwin1. I was agreeing that your side would probably win.

Relax Zoom.....It's not like a vote on this would ever take place.....With the cost of implementing the program growing every day, by the time they could the only people that would vote for it would be the illegals and the welfare cases....$1.6 trillion.......wow!!!!!!

Darwin--you're coming off as a drama queen.....again:) I love my country regardless....but it just makes perfect sense that if the government wants to compete with businesses in the private sector that it be structured like a business as well. The people that fund it have a vested interest and they should be the ones who decide which direction the "company" takes......

"My only condition would be that the only citizens eligible to vote would be US taxpayers that actually filed their 1040 and paid US income taxes."

Wow. Didn't we have a war against the British for representative government? What about all the people who paid taxes for years, but are now retired? What about those college kids who haven't had to get jobs yet, but will be paying taxes long after you and I are dead? You clearly haven't thought this through.

ah yes the truth comes out. You love your country so long as those who are voting are approved by you. You guys would make great dictators.

Critical mass? What planet are you living on? Exactly, how many? What percentage? Do you even know or do you just run your mouth with ridiculous claims? Rush would be proud.

The problem, 916WI, is the percentage of Americans already dependent on some form of taxpayer funded health care. It isn't just Medicare, Medicaid and VA, but public employees at federal, state and local levels; public educators; members of every branch of the military; elected officials; etc. Their numbers are growing and may have already reached critical mass. Not many households left that aren't on the receiving end in some form or other. Then add to them overburdened employers; the working poor; those trapped in or locked out of insurance due to preexisting conditions, etc. Personally, I wouldn't want to risk a wager on the outcome of a national referendum on a universal single payer health care system.

I'm totally against socialized health care and I would have no problem with a vote specifically tailored to this. My only condition would be that the only citizens eligible to vote would be US taxpayers that actually filed their 1040 and paid US income taxes. No welfare cases and no illegals--the only ones that should be allowed to vote are the ones who are going to end up footing the bill for this disaster.......Then we'll quickly see what kind of support this program has....

RAF, I understand that in your Republican't mind this seems impossible. However, national polling data is used quite extensively and manipulatively by the media and political ideologues already. Its just that it doesn't really count while giving the impression that it does. It would only take an amendment. Two were passed within the last century, so it is quite probable that it will happen again.

I know you like to bring up the phrase 'advanced degree' because it is the only time those words and RAF are ever on the same page. Sorry, proximity doesn't count in the real world.

“Let's vote on it.”
-
This just further proves how little you understand our country and how our government is structured. Issues are voted on only in the local area; think federalist---oh how I wish we actually did more of that. The national level is strictly a representative democracy, you vote a congressman or senator to office to cast a vote on your behalf; or so you hope. I would think a person with an “advanced degree” would know this.

Well, I suppose there is a way to prove your right. Let's vote on it. No Polls. No Politicians. Just, "The People" deciding for themselves. Otherwise, your just a blow hard.

I should correct that, and say SUPPORT is falling by the day.

Can't say either side is "winning" in this blog. Both sides have made good points, but the over all debate in general is being won by those opposing it. All you have to do is look at some poll numbers to see that. Opposition to this is falling by the day, along with Obama's approval.

darwin:
You crack me up. Lighten up a bit. I was not trying to win any argument. I all ready told you I don't care about health care. It does not effect me, and I honestly don't know much about the topic. When you get your precious plan, more power to you. Many will get rich off it, and many more will get screwed. That is how big governmnet works. The "war on poverty" made many in organized crime rich, all the while poverty increased.
The secede option (yes I am aware my grammar is not always the greatest, especially when I write at 3-4 in the morning) has never been endorsed by Rush; as far as I know (can't say that for certain because I rarely listen to him, but I'm sure if it was the liberal media would be going nuts in press releases). Glen Beck and some of the Libertarians have talked about it on occasion. It has no serious backing now, but it's a scenario that will become talked about quite a bit in a few years, mark my word on that.

If you were really "winning the argument", you wouldn't have to keep telling us.

More proof we're winning the argument: "legalizing marijuana," "Rush Limbaugh," "why we shouldn't have healthcare," "undermining the general welfare."

You guys are great: keep 'em coming!

kiowamohican how does that apply to health care? Your lame anecdotes don't even make for good examples of anything except why marijuana should be legalized not why we shouldn't have health care. I am sure if you tried, you could sound more irrelevant. I am glad you want the states to succeed and not secede. Evidently, you and Rush went to the same school.

States always have the option of refusing federal dollars.

A few states have 10th Amendment lawsuits pending and many others are considering filing one themselves. Even if the movement doesn't gain enough traction to become a full-blown showdown, it is a glimmer of hope that people understand the concept of state sovereignty and are beginning to take an activist approach.

Not wanting Dem members of congress coming home and sounding like Rep John Conyers of Michigan…

QUOTE:“I love these members that get up and say, Read the bill! Well, what good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've read the bill?”

The house on Monday had a four hour lecture by staffers to the members (shouldn’t this be the other way around?) to ensure when they are home over the August recess a constituent can’t accuse them of not reading the bill. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Here is a suggestion, why not do this before every vote not just when they are afraid of questions by voters back home?

RAF:
Every state is being held hostage now by this massive federal governmnet machine. My dream scenario is that a state will eventually just succeed, and claim their own sovereignty. The governor of Texas actually posed that as a possibility. No doubt the "possibility" will become much more prominent when things really start to fall apart in this country in a few years. If Texas would ever do that, they would probably have to build a wall around the ENTIRE state (and not just the Mexican boarder) to keep people from flocking IN to their state!

Prohibition is actually a great example of how governmnet intervention makes organized crime thrive. But hey; it worked out good for all you ideologues on the left; as it of course created the entire Kennedy clans wealth! To bad John, and Bobby, tried to go after some of the Mob ties that made their old man rich. A decision that would get them both popped off.
.
Health care will be great for organized crime. Much like these massive cigarette taxes are making people in organized crime rich today. Heck; back in 05 when the republicans managed to get Internet sports gambling banned, I went back into booking for a year, and my volumes were up over 700%. Excessive government does wonders for organized crime. When health care passes, you will see every scam in the book to rip off the system. Of course you have that now with private insurance to, but no where even close to the extent you will have with the governmnet involved, who is the easiest entity of all to scam.

Zoom, it appears you have all the answers of what type of insurance company is needed right now. Sounds like a great opportunity for you to start a business and run that new insurance company under the model you think will work...give it a try.

kiowamohican yes having the states decide issues as intended sounds like a great idea...the only problem is the federal government is holding the states hostage with "money" (think restrictions on gas tax receipts---highway money) they never will decide these issues as they should.

"Sadly, there are those who claim to love and protect this country yet undermine the "general welfare" every chance they get."
-
Yes, and based on your political perspective, determines who these people are.

I know Republican't don't actually like voting. Its so elitist and all. They love America so long as the person they voted for wins. You voters and your voting. Perhaps you should have to pass a basic science test to be able to vote. I wonder how many Dark Agers know that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence. Clearly, the VAST majority of Europeans like their health care or they would vote to get rid of it. Remember Prohibition? (Another example of religious fundamentalism out of control?) It was even an amendment to the Constitution and yet somehow stupid voters figured out how to repeal that through the election of FDR.

Sadly, there are those who claim to love and protect this country yet undermine the "general welfare" every chance they get.

RAF:
You made some nice points about how universal coverage has been a total failure in many states it has been tried in. The same can be said for many countries as well. Even though many supporters will claim that these European systems are great. Talk to some people who live there, if you want a good laugh!
.
I don't really care personally anymore what they do. It's not going to effect my own coverage, situation, or access. It will not be good for many people, however; once it does pass (and yes it is GOING to pass. The Republican crowd can keep dreaming if they think these "blue dogs" are going to stop this). If it was up to me, my solution would be the same as it is with most all issues in congress, and that is do NOTHING, and leave it up to each state. I'm a big believer in the 10th amendment. I think that is how gay marriage, abortion, public education, and on down the line should be handled. If your state wants universal, cradle to the grave coverage, then go ahead and pass it in your state legislature. At least then, if you don't like it as a resident of that state, you can simply move to a different state. Of course the states that are moving in the massive government care (ie: CA, NY, MI, OR) direction are all but broke. Unemployment has sky rocketed, business' are running away, and taxes are soaring. Once you blanket everyone via a national take over, you will eventually bankrupt the whole country as the program grows and grows. Organized crime will THRIVE once this passes. It use to be that in America you could grow up in poverty, and if you worked hard enough and excelled at what you did, you could achieve huge wealth and prosperity in business and your entrepreneurship. Now it will be the way to achieve prosperity is to either A: work in government, or B: scam the bloated government systems via organized crime.

When the best you have is calling me a shill, I know I'm winning the argument.

The VA? Please, do you know any vet who goes to the VA when they have an option of going somewhere else?

Placing your personal care in the form of a referendum? What happened to free choice in this country? Jeesh! It's scary some of you vote.

There should be a national referendum.
What do you want?
A Single payer
B What Congress and Fed Employees Get
C Expand Medicare
D Same old same old

Have people rank their preferences. Whichever gets the most points wins. Then, we could stop with all this people want it people don't want it media drama and get on with it.

"I have yet to read any proposals by folks like kinsohn that would make our current system work."

THE PATIENTS' CHOICE ACT! http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/

Zoom, are you addressing me? If so, that you must not have read what I have been writing here.

The insurance lobby; the AMA lobby; the pharmaceutical lobby; the hospital lobby; etc; have all helped to create this current mess. It doesn't matter what some new health care reform legislation purports to accomplish. Sure, legislators will tout their list of sound-bite victories when they come home to their constituents. It's all theatrics because the above referenced lobbyists will be writing the details, the meat and the loopholes in any legislation. They'll be drafting all of the 11th hour amendments and cryptic legalese that won't ever be read or reported in the mainstream media. Why do you think they are spending big bucks to advertise in favor of health care reform? It is because they already know the outcome will be to their advantage, not ours.

There is a crisis and we need patient centered care. Government takeover would lead to treatment rationing and a government department deciding when and if the elderly and others should get care, leading to an even bigger crisis.

We let insurance giants like AIG leverage their billion dollar profits, and almost collapse the economy, and these are the folks you want completely writing the health care rules? That is crazy. Health care policies need to be taken out of the influence of shareholders, and put back into the hands of voters. Access to AFFORDABLE health care is the one area that shouldn't be subject to "survival of the smartest or wealthiest".

Zoom, we agree that the current system is dysfunctional and inefficient, but for very different reasons. I believe the system desperately needs genuine free market forces and not simply the illusion of being a free market.

Employer paid health insurance began in the 1940s as a loophole around government wage and price controls. What started as health insurance has morphed into something that is no longer "insurance" by any reasonable definition of that term. Full coverage health insurance is nothing more than voluntary, private socialism administered for profit. Having someone else pick up the tab for the expected costs of your planned pregnancy is NOT insurance.

The reason few people advocate the restructuring of existing entitlements is because their projected insolvencies are too far off in the future and AARP sends a lot of money to K Street. We are on course for a future where every conceivable medical ailment, including the normal aging process, will be medically treatable and everyone will assert their alleged "right" to access any and all of it, even if it costs twice their total lifetime earnings. Collapse is INEVITABLE! We'll just let the grandkids worry about that.

"I have yet to read any proposals by folks like kinsohn that would make our current system work."
-
You have read many...you just believe a government take over is a better choice.

"Because they work, and their conosumers don't want them eliminated"
-
Yeah right. If the VA was so wonderful all eligible "conosumers" would never use the private system. Since we all know that is not the case your little idea of a wonderful system has holes as big as the current debt in it.

FOTH, our original insurance system was free-market. It was created as an alternative to socialized medicine out of fear of communism and socialism. The government has had to create social health care systems like Medicare, and tinker with the free market, because the free market can't provide health insurance to everyone who deserves it. The VA exists because we thought our veterans deserved something better than private insuarance, and to offset the risks they take and the low pay thet receive.

If socialized medicine is so bad, why no proposals to eliminate Medicare and the VA? Because they work, and their conosumers don't want them eliminated (the old third-rail issue). Our current system is broken. There are models out there of better systems. I have yet to read any proposals by folks like kinsohn that would make our current system work.

kinsohn, where do you get your "facts"? I have yet to see you post any links. Or is it institutional knowledge?
Pot...kettle.

"The free-market is providing double digit cost increases."

Total straw man. Every problem with health care costs is directly or indirectly the consequence of past government intervention(s). There hasn't been a free market in health care for decades... if ever.

Kinsohn, you read like a shill for the insurance industry. Contrary to popular belief, we don't have the best health care on earth, only the most expensive.

Simpler is better. Many of those "options" are unnecessary, and increase the costs for doctors and hospitals. Doctors estimate that 10% to 20% of their costs are from having to deal with the hundreds of insurance company plans used by their patients. Insurance companies make more money by ensuring that the claims process is difficult.

If you want an earful, ask Medicare customers if they want their plan changed.

Why no mention of the VA? They have excellent medical management, because their patients are life-long members. They have an incentive to actually provide preventive care. They can use I.T. to better serve their patients, and even identify problems with drugs before private companies can, because their data is so good.

The Republican plan proposes taxing any health benefits an INDIVIDUAL would receive from their employer, which would effectively kill employer sponsored plans. Individuals would then be left on their own to negotiate with insurance companies for health insurance. Hospitals and doctors would have to deal with even MORE bureaucracy, driving up their costs. Insurance companies would love it, of course.

kinsohn: Do you work in the insurance field? Your postings remind me of my dad who used to fight tooth and nail against any type of universal health care. He was a regional director for one of the top insurance companies.

"The cost of health care is a deterent to living a life of excess and recklessness."

Then why are we the fattest of the industrialized nations? Why does the U.S. spend more on health care per capita than most industrialized nations, yet we have some of the lowest health metrics? Keep you head burried in the sand, and I'm sure the double digit health care cost inflation will just work itself out.

Where do you all get your facts? How in the world could you spend 95 cents of every premium dollar in 1993, 2003, or 1883 on healthcare when commissions alone to brokers are 4 to 7%? Did everyone at insurance companies work for free back then?
You say we need more competition then rip the insurance companies for the money they spend competing with each other. Have you no shame?
Or this: you brag about Medicare's low admin cost ratio but neglect to say that as a result it has no medical management, no disease management, no innovation on treatments, no high deductible plans, no low deductible plans, no HSAs, no HRAs, no self-funded options, no specialty products, no different sorts of products, no choice of benefit levels, no new products, no options for people to go somewhere else if they don't like it, no steerage within networks to lower-cost providers, no steerage to higher quality providers, no options for providers not to be in an insurance company's network, no options for providers to negotiate their reimbursement, no taxes paid to states for their general funds, no underwriting so healthy groups pay less, no premium taxes to support health insurance subsidies, no return on capital for the money invested in them.
Guess what the single largest non-healthcare expense is at an insurance company by far. TAXES! Democrats deride insurance companies for having high costs and as a solution propose increasing taxes on insurance companies that drive the high costs. You have no shame!
Pointing to Medicare as an example of efficiency belies your true intention: the only way that government program saves admin costs is by not having to compete with products and offerings people want and not having to pay taxes! In reality, all Medicare is is a big check writing machine, which is why its costs are bankrupting the country.
Medicare Advantage (run by nasty insurance companies) is a perfect example: costs for those members is lower than standard fee for service after adjusting for benefits because they spend money managing care. Look it up.
Either name a current function that a government plan will perform more efficiently than health insurance companies or fess up and admit that the only way a government plan can compete is by having the competition eliminated!

"One of the things that stop us from running to the doctor is the cost."

And also the inconvenience. There isn't a problem with Medicare patients going to the doctor for every little problem. You're making things up.

The free-market is providing double digit cost increases. I guess if you want Medicare to be insolvent for millions of old people, and continue to require more of your tax money, then you are anti-reform.

I haven't read a plan that said the government was going to pay all the cost of health care. Apparently, you haven't read anything.

Zoom wrote, "The Patients Choice Act basically leaves health insurance choices to the free-market..." Precisely what I and many others want! Kind of the reason "Why Obamacare is sinking". :)

localboysince1968, You are exactly right. Have you been to an emergency room lately!

Can you imagine the chaos and mess the system will be when every hypochondriac will crawl out from where ever, and be going to the doctor for every little ache and pain and sniffle? One of the things that stop us from running to the doctor is the cost. Most ailments work themselves out. Also, if the government is going to take care of your health coverage (cost), what incentative is there to live a healthy life? The cost of health care is a deterent to living a life of excess and recklessness.

Those boom years in the 80's under Reagan were some great theory...Oh that's right in practice GDP exploded, jobs exploded, all the while Socialist countries went broke.

"Better in theory than in practice."
-
Yes like the health care fiascos in Hawaii’s medical care for children; lasted less than a year, Massachusetts health care for all with the longest wait times than any state to see a specialist, and Oregon’s great rationing plan.

The Patients Choice Act bascially leaves health insurance choices to the free-market, believing insurers will compete for customers, and prices will magically be lower. Nevermind that this free-market approach has already failed. It reminds me a lot of tinkle-down economics. Better in theory than in practice.

"The VA is a surprisingly good example of a government run organization that is more effient at what it does than the private sector."
-
Interesting. The vets I know prefer to use the private sector health care, as I do. I am not saying all care givers at the VA are bad, but, I can tell you my experiences of going there convinced me to shop elsewhere and purchase additional insurance to supplement mine and my families choice.

I do love to hear all the intellectuals say how good the VA and veterans care is, and how lucky they are to have it...yet how many vets do you hear that from?

What's the alternative? Paul Ryan's Patients’ Choice Act. http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/

The ones who say there is nothing wrong with the nations debt are the same crowd who said the sub prime boom was no problem at all. That all that collateralize/leveraged debt was "secure" (laughing). I always got a good laugh hearing people spew that; as you simply shorted the sub prime market, and cashed in huge when it all crashed. the same thing will happen with the nations debt. It will just be a matter of time before the dollar crashes due to the the enormous amount of leveraging of debt and shrinking revenues to the treasury.. It obviously is not going to happen over night. Give it some time, and you will see. The sharp ones see this all way in advance, and position their assets properly. many of your big time traders are heavily shorted in the US dollar. My guess is that George Soros (the icon of the left)is himself. After all he made his fortune shorting the British pound when government policies collapsed their currency.

"...wouldn't spending an additional $1.5 trillion also greatly increase the money attributed to health care expenses?..."

The goal has always been to both bend the health care cost curve downward over time, and to find ways to pay for the plan. Maybe certain news/entertainment programs are not reporting that, but it's always been the goal. I'm also not sure where $1.5 trillion is coming from. The public option is estimated at $1 trillion over 10 years. Three major hospital associations have offered to contribute about $155 billion over 10 years to help pay for the healthcare overhaul. The pharmaceutical industry offered some $80 billion (correction from earler) in prescription discounts over the next decade to help defray the cost of healthcare reform proposals. The work isn't done yet. Dismissing the idea outright doesn't make sense. What's the alternative?

"The government has been unable to run ANY program efficiently and the greed and corruption that goes hand in politics will certainly make it's way into this program."

The VA is a surprisingly good example of a government run organization that is more effient at what it does than the private sector. Also, the VA's cost per patient is about 2/3 the cost of Medicare, and the VA has higher quality metrics than Medicare. Here are some stats from a Rand Corporation study:
***
How the VA Outpaces Other Systems in Delivering Patient Care

How does the VA measure up against other U.S. health care providers? To address this question, RAND researchers compared the medical records of VA patients with a national sample and evaluated how effectively health care is delivered to each group. Their findings:
•VA patients received about two-thirds of the care recommended by national standards, compared with about half in the national sample.
•Among chronic care patients, VA patients received about 70 percent of recommended care, compared with about 60 percent in the national sample.
•For preventive care, the difference was greater: VA patients received about 65 percent of recommended care, while patients in the national sample received 20 percent less.
•VA patients received consistently better care across the board, including screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.
•Quality of care for acute conditions — a performance area the VA did not measure — was similar for the two populations.
•The greatest differences between the VA and the national sample were for indicators where the VA was actively measuring performance and for indicators related to those on which performance was measured.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs...
***
VA PATIENTS GET BETTER CHRONIC, PREVENTIVE CARE THAN SIMILAR U.S. ADULTS
http://www.rand.org/news/press.04/12.20....

Zoom....No problem--people can easily be satisfied because because they place much more emphasis on quality over price. Do I think my car was too expensive? Absolutely. I bought it anyways because it was rare, fast and fun. I'm satisfied with it. People don't value everything based solely on cost.
Looking at the numbers in your last post--because 7 companies control a relatively small segment(1/5) of the market, you're saying there's not enough competition. Huh?
Yes, I see double digit health care price increases as a problem. I do not agree with the way in which Obama plans on resolving this though. I may be completely naive in saying this but, wouldn't spending an additional $1.5 trillion also greatly increase the money attributed to health care expenses? Or are we not counting that?

"They are satisfied with their health care. Of course, people think they pay too much for it-..."

How can people be satisfied if they think they pay too much? Note that the survey doesn't ask how they feel about the PRICE of their health care. It doesn't ask if they feel "content". Of course the QUALITY is good, we have the most expensive health care system in the industrialized world, and yet the most people without health insurance.

"The competition argument makes no sense. Over 1300 companies sell health care plans, I would think that there is plenty of competition in this marketplace."

Did you overlook my recent posts? 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 a third of the market in 38 states.

"Socialized health care just gets going at a minimum of $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years--where it stops after that no one knows."

Medicare/Medicaid spending is increasing because health care costs are increasing at double digit rates!

Do you not see double digit health care price increases as a problem?

kinsohn said: "Those who want a "government option" have never been able to explain exactly what it is the government would be able to do more efficiently than current health insurers..."

I'll use Medicare as an example. The private insurance industry has much higher administrative costs than Medicare, which has experienced lower cost increases in the last few years than private insurers. Medicare doesn't have to pay high sales and marketing expenses, or underwriting expenses, or dividends to shareholders. A lot of those sales and marketing expenses for private insureres are not spent attracting new members, but to steal profitable accounts from each other.

Zoom....That's the point!!! They are satisfied with their health care. Of course, people think they pay too much for it--the average person would tell you that the price paid for almost anything--gas, food, airfare, car insurance, taxes, etc--is also too high. The important question is are they content with what they paid for, and the answer seems to be yes...The competition argument makes no sense. Over 1300 companies sell health care plans, I would think that there is plenty of competition in this marketplace. Comparing expenditures in socialized health care to the Iraq war makes absolutely no sense either. It might not seem like it now, but the war will end and spending there will be drastically cut. Socialized health care just gets going at a minimum of $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years--where it stops after that no one knows. What it comes down to is that Pandora's box will be opened with this. The government has been unable to run ANY program efficiently and the greed and corruption that goes hand in politics will certainly make it's way into this program. It is unfortunate that the taxpayers--real taxpayers, not the welfare cases that drain the system--cannot decide whether or not this is enacted. The people that are going to fund this mess, should be given a direct say in it........

kinsohn said:
"1. Many insurers are non-profit: many are owned by non-profit providers, while most Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans are also non-profit. Look it up."

The insurance industry is dominated by 7 FOR-PROFIT insurance companies. Of the $2+ trillion spent on health care, $250 billion passes through those 7 largest, for-profit insurance companies. Almost $800 billion passes through Medicare and Medicaid.

"3. Health insurers on the whole make about a 5% on their total revenues. Look it up."

In 1993, the last time the nation had a serious debate about health care, 95% of every premium dollar was paid out by insurance companies on medical claims. Today, due to industry consolidation, only 80% of every premium dollar is paid out for medical claims. The other 20% is being diverted to things like sales, marketing, underwriting, those double digit increases in executive compensation, and the pockets of large shareholders.

"Zoom, nobody owns stock in Mercy. There is no "profit" in the accounting sense of the word."

Not sure what you're commenting on. Mercy isn't an insurance comapny.

I really like the way people trash Canada's health care system yet they live longer than us on average and have lower infant mortality rates. They also spend about half what we spend on health care.

"I know sounds crazy how democracies work like that."
+
The resident socialist is now touting the finer points of democracy, too funny!

The false assumption is that competition happens in the first place. It does not. Companies collude and fix prices all the time by having same practices, no prices, same contracts and so on. Competition is the illusion, collusion is the reality. This is why the Republicans created med pack which in effect creates a list of the most cost effective treatments. It was suppose to be implement to control the costs of Medicaid and Medicare but wasn't because lobbyists opposed it.

Here is the reality, we can change health care and if it doesn't work our new legislators, senators and president can repeal it and change it back like Prohibition. I know sounds crazy how democracies work like that.

There are many different types of non-profit, for example, IKEA is a non-profit. It depends on the country or state their non-profit corp status was created.

Zoom, nobody owns stock in Mercy. There is no "profit" in the accounting sense of the word.

What is non-profit about Mercy Health Systems spending thousands of dollars to win a Malcom Baldridge award? That's just a guess, from experience, since they won't disclose how much they spent. Why would a non-profit organization not disclose how much they spent to win an award that does nothing to improve patient care? Non-profit means little, when you can spend your revenues on whatever you want.

You came up with straw man argument that the goal of the public plan is to be run MORE efficiently than private plans. The purpose of the public exchange is to provide more competition with private options.

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 a third of the market in 38 states. Within our broken market, insurance companies “compete” by reducing their exposure to policyholders’ pre-existing conditions, focusing on risk reduction instead of affordable, quality, patient-focused health care.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/is...

Private insurance companies are accountable to shareholders, but a public insurance plan would be accountable to voters.

10 questions for supporters of "Obamacare"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie...

1. So BCBS MA is non-profit, but it's not a non-profit as far as you're concerned. Got it.

2. You feel the chief executive is overpaid. You should take your extensive compensation background to the board and show them how they can save money by paying less: trust me, as an executive at a Fortune 50 company, I can tell you they are always looking for ways to cut costs. Even if you're successful, having the executives work for free would save the average policyholder less than a dollar per year. Premium taxes in MA are MUCH more than that. Then move on to the Packers - I can't believe such compensation expertise is laying around all day posting on the Janesville Gazette website.

3. I'm sure you figured out their profits on revenues, but as is typical for lefties, you didn't include it when it didn't fit your story. It was 3.75%

Kinson: Thank you. I did look it up....Blue Cross, while a nonprofit, in 2006, also gave it's top 10 CEOs over $10 million, with CEO Bob Greczyn making $2.5 million and with an 18% pay raise...." They came under fire in 2005 for its increasing rates, its high profits and corporate spending on trips to the Caribbean and the U.S. Open." Again in 2005, "...it reported that its profit increased 7.5 percent to $167.6 million." Last year, "The salary and bonus paid to Cleve L. Killingsworth, chairman and chief executive of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, increased 26 percent last year, to $3.5 million...."( http://www.boston.com/business/healthcar...) The nonprofit argument just doesn't fly.

Sorry to ruin your diatribe with facts:

1. Many insurers are non-profit: many are owned by non-profit providers, while most Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans are also non-profit. Look it up.

2. 80% of hospitals, including Mercy, are non-profit. Look it up.

3. Health insurers on the whole make about a 5% on their total revenues. Look it up.

4. If there was an opportunity for a new entrant to the health insurance market, some entrepreneur would start a new one.

5. You never said exactly what a government plan would do more efficiently than health insurance companies. Thank you for making my point.

"Those who want a "government option" have never been able to explain exactly what it is the government would be able to do more efficiently than current health insurers (many of whom are not for profit: most Blue Cross plans, for example)."

Simple. Competition. "Many" health insurers are non-profit? Are you kidding? The insurance industry has consolidated so much that there is little competition anymore. Are you one of those people that think the insurers can't lower their prices by 10-15%?

"And please don't blame greedy hospitals - 80% are non-profit."

You mean like our non-profit Mercy Health Sysytems, that could pay thousands of dollars to get a Malcom Baldrich award?

916WI, you are beginning to read too much into that poll. Did you read the questions? They are hardly nuetral. No where does it say 80% of people "support" their health care. They say they are satisfied with the quality of their health care. No one is disputing the quality of our health care. The cost, however, is getting out of control. Double digit cost increases every year will bankrupt Medicare years sooner than predicted. The current cost increases are unsustainable. Employers have been steadily reducing benefits and increasing costs, where if this continues, health insurance will be unaffordable to the average American.

Also note in that poll that the majority of those surveyed think it's the job of the Federal Government to make sure all Americans have health care.

That $1 trillion is spread over 10 YEARS. The plan won't be implemented overnight. That's still a lot, but the cost will be much higher if we do nothing. Much of that cost will be paid for. The pharmaceutical companies alone have pledged to reduce their costs by over $300 billion. As a comparison, we have spent more than $100 billion per year on the Iraq war (over $2 trillion to date), and it's not even over. We will experience the benefits of health care reform for generations.

Those who want a "government option" have never been able to explain exactly what it is the government would be able to do more efficiently than current health insurers (many of whom are not for profit: most Blue Cross plans, for example). That's because they couldn't do anything more efficiently.

What they could do, however, is force hospitals and doctors to take lower payments than insurance companies pay. On average, that would equate to roughly a 20% cost advantage. Further, they would pay no taxes and require no return on taxpayer capital (further costs to the taxpayer they never tell you about).

With such built-in advantages, customers of insurance companies would inevitably be drawn to the government plan, and the larger it became, the harder it would be to compete against it. Plus, no one would invest in health insurance companies, making it impossible for them to do business.

Which, of course, is the unstated goal of the leftists pushing the government option. The funny thing is that the cooperatives that they're talking about (not the government plan) will get SMOKED by health insurers because they won't have the cost advantage and will have to compete straight up against health insurers that have been in business for generations. If there's such a lack of competition, why haven't other greedy companies started up to exploit it? Because beaurocrats know a business opportunity better? What a joke. Lefties know all this, but don't tell you.

The irony is that one large reason health insurance is so expensive is because the government doesn't even cover the cost of services that docs and hospitals provide to medicare and medicaid patients. Thus, docs and hospitals are forced to raise rates on health insurance companies: the average markup on a service paid for by your health insurance company is 40%! All because the government underpays on its CURRENT government programs! (And please don't blame greedy hospitals - 80% are non-profit.)

Leftists never tell you that even though they themselves know it. If all docs and hospitals were paid at Mediare/Medicaid rates starting today, thousands of hospitals would start closing within months, and those that were still open would start crumbling as the government transferred the cost of universal coverage to providers. That's EXACTLY what's happening in Massachussetts, and they already had one of the lowest uninsured rates in the nation!

Now ask yourself: why have no lefties (on this string or elsewhere)nor the state-run media told you this? Because they're ignorant? In some cases yes, but in most cases because they don't want you to know! It doesn't fit in with their story! It's sickening.

Zoom....Sorry about all of the red herrings:) So basically it's your recommendation that taxpayers foot the bill for over $1,000,000,000,000 and revamp a system that 80% of the people support because a relatively small amount(approx 18%) of the population doesn't have health care?

Can anyone name a GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAM that is not massively in debt? Can you name one that is run efficiently? How long are you going to keep supporting policies that don't work!!!

Sarahb1 Drought is better than Government controlled everything! they are a state that believes in states rights and I'm with them! Drought would be the least of our problems if Obamacare goes through.

whoanellie - Ryan would mop up the floor in votes against Doyle and I too wish he would run for Governor. Even the people that voted for Doyle can't stand him. It's actually pretty comical. He's a moron.

whoanellie: Good luck in Texas; that state is struggling with its worst drought in many, many, many decades.

I liked the link to Ryan's plan. This is the United States, we are supposedly free to choose how we want to live, that is going down the tubes fast!! I think I'll move to Texas if this all goes through. What I wouldn't give to call congressman Ryan, Governor Ryan, cause we know our kiss butt doyle is not going to help us out on this! Please Congressman Ryan run for Governor!!!We need you bad here in the state!!

FOTH, while some insurance companies will say publicly they want to help with a change to the system, privately they are doing everything they can to kill any progress.

Republicans, including our own Paul Ryan, have been citing a report by The Lewin Group that private health insurers would go out of business if a government funded option is enacted. The Lewin Group has been called an "independant research firm" and "non-partisan" by those same Republicans, but is actually part if Ingenix, a subsidiary of insurance giant UnitedHealth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

You are trying to focus on the insurance that a few hundred Congress people receive, in order to not talk about the insurance that MILLIONS of people receive...or don't receive. Who cares about Congress' insurance plan? Your argument is a red herring.

916WI said: "If you want something bad enough, work for it--don't cry and whine and expect it to be handed to you."

Again, another red herring.
The vast majority of households without health insurance includes someone that works at least part time. Note:
* Percentage of uninsured who live in a household where nobody works: 19 percent

That's less than 4% of the population.

* Percentage of uninsured who live in a household with only a part-time worker: 12 percent

That's about 2% of the population.

* Percentage of uninsured who live in a household with one or more full-time workers: 69 percent

That's almost 12% of the population!

You can keep saying that people are asking for things to be handed to them, but in truth, the majority of people without health insurance have a job.

916WI: A majority of Americans are happy with their health care because someone ELSE is picking up their tab. I'd be happy, too.

Darwin1: Yes, the current health care system is crap. It is crap because oligarchs wrote all of the rules. This current reform effort will only bring about more rules written by oligarchs --piling a whole bunch of new crap on top of the old crap. It is wishful thinking to believe otherwise. We need shovels, not more crap.

The situation will remain so as long as we define "us versus them" as conservative versus liberal; left versus right; Democrat versus Republican; capitalist versus socialist; etc. "We The People" means all of us together, from moonbat to wingnut. We are the "us" in any battle of us versus them. We are our own worst enemy and "they" are laughing at "us".

Thanks Spark! I have my moments:)

Sarah....don't be so naive. There is no way Congress will be rolled into this national plan. "largely match up with" compared to "a part of" are two completely different things. When all is said and done Obama's definition of "largely match up with" will probably translate to there is a doctor and a patient involved--and that's where the similarities will end when compared to the Congress plan. Do you honestly think that Reid or Pelosi would be bumped because a regular guy called to schedule an appointment first or because their condition was more serious than that of a senator?

916WI - Superb response.

Darwin....Rather than rant and rave about the "evil conservatives" calm down and take a look at the facts you seem to be conveniently ignoring. A growing number of democrats are also against this "plan". Both sides have conceded that it will cost in excess of $1,000,000,000,000. That's a lot of zeros!!! A vast majority(77-83% depending on the poll) of Americans are happy with their current health care. There is definitely something wrong with our country's debt--your comment stating otherwise was possibly the stupidest thing I read in this entire thread.....Congrats on that one!--China will only tolerate supporting our gluttony for so long......Don't worry inflation is on it's way:) There's nothing wrong with looking out for one's self. It leads to hard work, strong character and fosters ambition, not apathy. This country is falling apart because of a turn away from this line of thought. If you want something bad enough, work for it--don't cry and whine and expect it to be handed to you. Last, but not least, your posts are entertaining. The clueless rants you go on which make absolutely no sense always seem to make me laugh:)......you do present yourself as a raving idiot, who thinks the other side is always out to get you......work on letting go of that and I think you would be a happier person:)

kersty52: Your comment is not factual. Here is the transcript from President Obama's press conference on July 22: "Well, number one, not only the public option but the insurance regulation that we want to put in place will largely match up with what members of Congress are getting through the federal employee plan. That's a good example of what we're trying to build for the American people -- the same thing that Congress enjoys, which is they go -- there is a marketplace of different plans that they can access, depending on what's best for their families." Doesn't sound to me like the question was ignored.

Anyone who is not yet aware that our government has a lousy track record with running programs is obviously blinded by politics. I think most of us agree something needs to be done. However, to rush something through congress without bipartisan agreement and without fully investigating options is unwise. I don't care if it takes us a few years to get this worked out as long as it's done right. The whole country should not be at the mercy of Obama's personal agenda. Didn't we just get through eight years of that?

Healthcare is too expensive and getting more expensive, the government is spending too much money, we can't afford our current entitlement programs, and we need more jobs.

SO: the government needs to bring in its expertise in running things efficiently with money it doesn't have by creating a new entitlement that the CBO says is underfunded and raising taxes on companies that create most new jobs.

Got it.

proartist- I agree...what model are you advocating to change from the current broken one ?

darwin1 - There is nothing wrong with our countries debt? We should be spending more now? Time to wake up from your dream.

Say no to The Patients' Choice Act. Tell congress to put a single payer option on the table.

"The direct result of not addressing issues such as these; problems will continue, including escalating costs."

Bingo! And, here is the smoking gun evidence of that:

"The drug industry, the American Medical Association, hospital groups and the insurance lobby are all saying Congress must make major changes this year. Television ads paid for by drug companies and insurers continued to emphasize the benefits of a health care overhaul — not the groups' objections to some of the proposals." (1)

Wait... isn't the medical industry at all worried that health care reform will destroy their profits or, as some scare rhetoric is claiming, put some of them totally out of business? How could they possibly spend millions to promote reform BEFORE the specifics of such legislation has even been written? The answer is... through their political financing, their legislative lobbying and their administrative lobbying efforts, winning the health care reform game is a forgone conclusion for the medical industry. After all, they'll be drafting the details buried inside those 1000 pages of legalese. Winning any game is easy when you're the one writing the rules.

(1) http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...

Say no to Obamacare. Say yes to The Patients' Choice Act. http://www.house.gov/ryan/healthcare

I love it when the right wing goon squad starts dictating to us about how we think Obama is the messiah. None of us have ever said that. Please, return to taking you medication. Maybe it will return you to the Dark Ages from where you came.

Those of you against some type of national health have NO facts just absurd conjecture. The current system is killing jobs and stagnating wages but somehow you have convinced yourselves that it is a good deal. A vast majority of Americans want some type of plan that covers everyone. However, the media is more concerned about the political drama than about facts and policy. Republicans come up with crazy charts that they draw on and blather on about with little regard for the truth.

Sadly, those who most decry the moral decay of our society are the first to cry out like a bunch of seagulls from Finding Nemo, "mine, mine, mine, mine."

There is nothing wrong with our countries debt. Where is this inflation I have been hearing about? In fact, prices are going down which means we should be spending more because deflation is the greater threat.

I just think it is funny that when the question was asked if Congress and the President himself would be covered under his program the subject changed. Here is a question to ponder...if it is so good why wouldnt the politicians want it?

Kind of ironic that we once fought a war for our independence to break away from the European (British) system of rule, with excessive taxation without representation. I guess it was pretty much pointless to even have fought it, because some 200 years later we are really going to end up with the same system as they have now anyway. Ah well, we had a nice run while it lasted over 200+ years, but in the end all great dynasties flounder. We can soon pass the torch to the Chinese now as the next great world super power.

Mark, I like an earlier comparison I once read (not sure the originator). Obama's healthcare, in reality, will resemble the TV show Parking Wars on A&E; those that follow the rules (don’t use healthcare) won’t get towed. If you do get towed (use healthcare) prepare for a wait in line, pass to go to your car to get your paperwork, pass to go home to get the rest of your paperwork, and finally a call to your insurer to fax the remainder of your paper work because both your copies are expired…cough, cough, fever, fever.

Dear Obamanistas, Obamanists, and Obamanauts,
Your messiah and prophet wants to take care of us all. So does that mean we will receive health care service like the service we get at the post office or the department of motor vehicles, or rationed health care such as the UK and Canada with waiting lists so long that people die before they are granted treatment? Health care for a lifetime cost about the same as one's housing or the different vehicles one drives over the same period; should that be federalized as well and provided for by a bureaucratic government? How about national veterinary care? (Pet’s are people too!)
“There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” or health care either for that matter. Who will pay? Perhaps we should have 90% taxes for “the rich” that would really be a boon for entrepreneurism!
Reminds me of the Winston Churchill quote:
“Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; socialism is the unequal sharing of misery"

FOTH, I agree with your conclusion; the true problem with the current system is lack of competition. This ultimately is not the reason behind the perception in the loss of free market; this dutifully resides on the patrons of the product. In reality the free market does exist but is not utilized, everyone expects someone else to pay.

Irrespective of views like Zoom’s, price escalation has occurred because NO consumer driven demand opposing it is in place. The majority of users in the current system treat health care cost in the same vein as warranty work for a vehicle; don’t care what the cost because they are not getting the bill.

No new program is addressing these issues. No new program is addressing the idea that a single service performed by the same doctor has a different price based on who is paying; Govt/Insurance/Person. The direct result of not addressing issues such as these; problems will continue, including escalating costs.

lovemycountry:"The average US citizen pays much lower taxes than the average European citizen"....UNTIL you factor in what the average American has to ALSO pay for their "health" insurance, medical bills, in taxes for those who don't have insurance and other items out of pocket that are not considered. I agree that nothing is free nor should it be. Universal health care out from under the corporate profit model is possible for far less money IF Americans have the courage and fortitude to demand it.

DrTalk, I'm willing to bet you further agree that under a truly free market health care system there would be no such thing as a "health care crisis"? You've probably also noticed that, when everyone complains about chronic, runaway, out of control costs, it is almost always about some system where the recipient of goods and services is not the one paying for them? What Stossel explained is just common sense that everyone understands intuitively. It doesn't take a degree in economics.

Headline news: Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1...

Coverage does need fixing...for the 3% of citizens who are chronically uninsured, let's give them tax credits so they can pay for insurance. We'll avoid the long waits for treatment and healthcare rationing happening in other countries when the government takes over.

Zoom, I do and it needs to stop! Health care is not a "right". Illegal alien? No free health care. Don't have insurance or can't pay for your own health care? No free health care.

officerfirendly1, who pays for the health care of people without insurance that use hospitals and emergency rooms?

Since a lot of you like to use CBO estimates, here is a new one out today:

"WASHINGTON – A new government health insurance plan sought by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats could coexist with private insurers without driving them out of business, an analysis by nonpartisan budget experts (CBO) suggests."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090727/ap_o...

gina51, Here's another reason. I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE!

Communist darwin1 wrote, "Since, most European countries who have nationalized health care are in fact Democracies one would think that if they were unhappy with their government health care they would get rid of it? But they haven't = none." This is exactly why we should not even consider a socialist health care system because once it's implemented we will never get rid of it. Less government = more freedom!

I have friends in Denmark and Canada. They have socialized health care. Would they give it up??? Not on your life !!! I still can't believe that a country as big as the US does not have a health care program for everyone. Tell me why everyone shouldn't have health care. One reason comes to my mind. Greedy insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies that want ever higher and higher profits....

FOTH,
No, I didn't mean to imply that our health care system is free market. I was implying that it should be. That was a good article you posted by John Stossel. That's the way it should be.

SarahB1....I don't understand your comment with regards to wealthy people. Of course the percentage they pay for health care to total income is smaller. They are not getting a break and being charged less--they are paying the same amount for the same services. What is so unfair about that? Don't be such a communist!!!!:) Most of the wealthy people I know worked extremely hard to get what they have--some of them being business owners who sacrificed an incredible amount of time and took risks that I wouldn't want to take. Why should they be punished and forced to pay more for getting the exact same care as you or I?

"Fool, what is keeping you from seeing any doctor you want?"

I presume you are addressing me, RAF? (I prefer FOTH.) I'll respond with an equally presumptive question: If having a choice of caregiver is your definition of a free market, then you would consider a single-payer system --under which all caregivers must operate and be equally accessible to all-- to be the freest market of all, correct? (I presume you wouldn't.) The healthcare industry is neither free nor is it a market.

A market is where people exchange items of value. Historically, a market is the exchange of money for goods or services. Health care may be a market for the self-payer but then, only just barely: Prices are not published and the value of products or services rendered is not clearly defined in advance. Health care providers expect to be paid for "doing their best".

A free market is one that is open to competition. The health care industry is a maze of government regulations piled upon a network of government mandated monopolies, most of whom are heavily invested in political finance and lobbying. Health care isn't even close to being a freely competitive market.

John Stossel (ABC's 20/20) wrote a good, plain-language explanation of the "market" aspect of health care for Reason Magazine: http://www.reason.com/news/show/134684.h...

lovemycountry: Did you even read the link that you posted? It states that those countries also provide items such as pensions and other social services. Zoom: Thank you for those numbers also. As usual, the very wealthy utilize a very small percentage of their incomes for the necessities in life. Ask Rick Waggoner and some of the other recently failed CEOs; they can probably fill everybody in on this.

The problem with our health care system is that the cost in spiraling out of control. Even if you are happy with your health care now, as the years go on, you won't be. Here are some stats to put this into perspective:

Total U.S. healthcare spending: $2.1 trillion

**Projected annual increase in spending through 2017: 7 percent

Projected overall inflation rate: 1.2 percent (through 2015)

Healthcare spending as a percentage of all economic activity: 16.3 percent

Projected in 2017: 19.5 percent

Percentage of Americans covered by employer-provided plans: 61 percent

By government plans: 16 percent

By private plans: 5 percent

**Uninsured: 17 percent (about 50 million Americans)

Percentage of large firms offering health coverage: 99 percent

Percentage of small firms: 59 percent (down from 68 percent in 2000)

Industries with the highest health coverage rates: government, manufacturing, transportation, communication, utilities

Industries with the lowest coverage rates: retail, service, health care

Percentage of uninsured who live in a household where nobody works: 19 percent

Who live in a household with only a part-time worker: 12 percent

****Who live in a household with one or more full-time workers: 69 percent

Average amount of personal income spent on health care: 6 percent

On housing: 39 percent

On transportation: 20 percent

On food: 14 percent

On clothing: 4 percent

Healthcare spending as a percentage of income, for those earning less than $20,000 per year: 15.5 percent

For those earning between $55,000 and $70,000: 5.1 percent

For those earning more than $70,000: 3 percent

****Average increase in employer-based health insurance premiums since 1999: 120 percent

Average increase in wages since then: 29 percent

Proportion of personal bankruptcies related to illness or medical bills: 62.1 percent

Increase since 2001 in the proportion of personal bankruptcies caused by medical problems: 50 percent.

Sources: Randcompare.org; Congressional Budget Office; American Enterprise Institute; Urban Institute; National Coalition on Health Care; Kaiser Family Foundation; American Journal of Medicine

"Fool, what is keeping you from seeing any doctor you want?"

Price. Most company-provided insurance plans now have "networks", where they pool with other companies to get the best rates. This "network" includes certain doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. Some networks have a lot of choice, some don't. Unless you can pay 20% or more for a service out of the network, you are stuck with whomever is in the network. I am convinced you are out of touch with what the majority of working Americans get for health care.

proartist - do you really believe that sensationalistic BS you write? 1) Nothing is "free". 2) The average European is paying incredibly high taxes to pay for their failed, expensive, government run healthcare. 3) The average US citizen pays much lower taxes than the average European citizen. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxe...

kiowamohican: My European friends also thought their health care system was awful...UNTIL they saw what it is like and what it costs in the U.S. They are not wealthy but do have FREE annual mammograms, timely doctor appointments that cost no more than $5 a visit (and imagine WELLNESS visits, too!), $5 prescriptions, zero bills when hospitalized, taxes no higher than ours, and more. Most of all, EVERYONE from birth to death receives care whether for a small injury or invasive cancer. Everyone, no matter where they live, will complain about their own system. On the other hand, the reality is the U.S. does not have "health-care". The insurance companies have given us catastrophic "sickness care" only and it's true that more often than not Americans lucky enough to be insured cannot seek their own doctor. They are required to get referrals and the insurance companies dictate just which clinics and doctors will be covered as providers. Get real. Go beyond the fear being promoted with myths and half-truths. Join the work for progress toward REAL and COMPREHENSIVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE REFORM.

Wow, more jibber-jabbar from our local communist, Darwin1. So what, did you get bored with praising your local idols Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin? Go crawl back in your hole Comrade!

Fool, what is keeping you from seeing any doctor you want?

DrTalk, while do I agree with what you wrote, surely you didn't mean to imply that the US medical/industrial complex we like to call "our health care system" bears any semblance to a free market, did you?

From what i heard if Obamacare passes all the Obama supporters are going to be sent free of charge a crutch to match up with the one they all seem to carry.Because two Bush crutches are better than one, thats just numbers people.
-
And as a aside, the whole "if you don't like the way things are here, then move" argument has always seemed stupid to me.A poor way to deal with a problem imo.

Good one.

Here's a good rule: if you hear someone spouting off about "theocracy" and "religious right wing" in a debate on health care:

1. You are winning your argument, 2. against a nut.

Its funny that most of the same folks so upset about this are the same folks that said we should get out if we don't like having our tax dollars pay for delusional propaganda.
.
Darwin has a good point - get out - go to a theocracy and see what happens when the religious right wing takes control. Eight years down that path and you still don't wake up.

Darwin1......Spending $1 trillion dollars that we don't have on a plan that no one can agree on is "doing something good and useful"???? LMAO!!!!!

The free market works? No it doesn't because there is no such thing. For free markets to work they must be transparent and honest and they are NOT!! Its simple economics. Let me get this straight that government can't run anything right but many of you voted for the war monger Bush and the huge department of homeland security but now that the government wants to actually do something useful and good for EVERYONE you people cry about the future you know nothing about.

By the way, Obama won the Presidency by votes not polls. I know you right wing goons only believe in elections when your candidate wins. Maybe if you don't like the way things are going you should follow your own advice and get out and find some nice right wing dictatorship to live under.

When my rep comes around on "break" I want a detailed explanation of how the $500 billion dollar savings will be realized and that explanation preceded by an explanation of how the waste came about.

darwin1,
I agree with you that self-interest is a good thing. That's why the free market works. But socialism is based on selfishness - forcing the government to take from the "haves" and giving to the "wish I had."

A few friends I have from Europe (and Canada as well) say the government run health care is awful, and they get a good laugh when they hear the US is going to their failed model. It really just comes down to simple economics. If you have wealth, you will have access to top health care. Whether you go to private clinics, or out of the country to get it. If you don't have $$$$, you can have the government cover you via a nationalized plan, but the care will be very watered down, with all sorts of bureaucracy, sup par practitioners, long wait times, ext. The great socialist utopia of equal access to all, is really a pipe dream.

Why dont all you socialism lovers and obama worshipers go move to one of those eauropean countries you all speak so highly about and live your own govt controled lives over there and let the hard working americans who enjoy keeping their hard earned money stay in america and live the american dream and spend their money like they wish to and make their own decisions on how to live their lives and whats best for them and their families, and not let the govt screw everything up for them

SarahB1--You do your side no favors by claiming one of the most intelligent columnists alive (who happens to be conservative) writes "slop", with no specifics--nor when you make the asinine assertion (unless you've got proof) that, "...(he) thinks torture is a good thing." Many, myself included, feel that aggressive interrogations, SHORT of torture, are sometimes necessary.Those who claim there's no difference between "good" & "necessary" are liars or illiterates! I'm also one of a small minority honest enough & realistic enough to declare that in extreme cases, I might resort to honest-to-goodness (as opposed to mislabelled) torture.

How do we know it will be a flop? We know it will be a flop because it will cost at least a trillion dollars that we don't have. Also consider the fact that the government is the one implementing it. Do you honestly think they are capable of managing something of this scale?

Do we really want to place our trust on this spend happy administration to tell us how to manage our healthcare? The government cannot even balance a budget. I am so sorry but this is not change I can believe in.

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, in 2007 46 million Americans were without health care. What do you think is going to happen if they DO have health care within a year? Yes it took me a month to get my daughter in to see the dentist. You don't think adding 46 million more people will make doctor appointments near impossible to get in a timely fashion? Where are all of these new doctors going to come from? Will we lower our standards for care? Will we lower their needed qualifications? This is just one issue with "health care for all". In a perfect world there would be health care for all, but this isn't a perfect world and it never will be. I'm being realistic.

darwin, have you ever been to a doctor in one of those socialist countries you like to tout? If that is the type of health care you want, then you are free to go anytime. I still haven't found in the constitution where it says the government will provide health care for its citizens.

How do you know it will be a flop? I have heard a great many prognostications about the future from people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Selfishness is NOT a good thing. Self-interest is. Sadly, I don't take much stock in someone who complains about seeing a Doctor by citing their dentist as an example.

Since, most European countries who have nationalized health care are in fact Democracies one would think that if they were unhappy with their government health care they would get rid of it? But they haven't = none. It seems that we are surrounded by the scared who are very pliable by arguments that have no basis in reality.

How are you going to deal with the current double-digit inflations rates, inefficiencies and over 100,000 deaths from medical mistakes. That is some great system.

According to the article, BO has two choices. He could produce a government program that's going to be a flop, or not have a program at all. I wonder if he is driven by his ego. Without Obamacare, will his presidency be just a footnote?

Obama's healthcare plan is discriminatory against age. It also provides dollars to promote disadvantaged underachievers to slots in medical schools which otherwise would be taken by talented people who worked to achieve. Benefits would be withdrawn as a person ages starting at 65 and mandatory visits, every six months, by consultants (Acorn?) to discuss "end of life" issues (scary to any retiree) will be implemented. Private insurance can only be kept until there is a change in your policy. Once the change occurs, then you will be put into the National Healthcare system. The plan is designed to do away with private insurance. You will not even legally be able to purchase your own private plan after any changes. However, the House and Senate are exempt as well as the President who tells us this is the better way and it is better insurance. Healthcare is a problem in this country for many so why don't they just fix what is broken and leave the rest alone? Why revamp the entire system and offer substandard care to all? It's the money. The money for the stimulus package has not been released. The Healthcare system they propose has more oversight and distribution offices, including an office for minority healthcare to fund. The money will not go back to the people but will be "lost" as it travels through the system leaving the American people poorer with no accountability of where the money went and below standard healthcare.

The latest CNN poll had numbers which were consistent with the Fox poll.......I suppose they're lying too?

"http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/..."
.
Why would anyone believe anything from an organization that sued for the right to lie?

There we go again - people presume everyone is somehow entitled to health insurance. This is a bad situation when a huge system is about to based on a flawed concept.

I think both Democrats and Republicans agree something needs to be done to help people more people get coverage or compensation. Where I, and I believe a majority of others, draw the line is having the government completely take over. Though Obama's claims his plan will help competition, it will do nothing other than put independent insurance providers out of business. As far as propaganda goes... ask Canada how much they love their health care and high taxes. The Mayo clinic gets a steady influx of Canadians who were denied coverage at home. At least in the U.S. you'll get treatment. You may have to file bankruptcy due to medical bills, but you won't be dead. I'll take the lessor of two evils.

Obamacare should not become law because it is based on flawed thinking. It presumes that everyone should have health insurance. That's like saying that everyone should own a house - and we already know where that idea got us.

I believe the figure is 77 percent. 14k lose insurance every day because that many people are losing their jobs every day. It is laughable to hear the Dems cite that statistic while simultaneously proposing a solution that would make it worse: inceasing taxes on every employee hired and income taxes on small businesses. They have no shame.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/...

Actually 83% of those polled are completely happy with the health care system that is currently in place. Spending a trillion dollars to overhaul a system that meets the needs of the vast majority of the population is reckless and wasteful.....

916WI: Can you give me the source of your 70 percent satisfaction statistic? I want to read the demographics related to the study. Thank you.

Something has to be done. Did any of you realize that 14,000 people lose their health care benefits every single day in this country? To imply that those without health insurance do not work is to be ignorant also. Just over a third of small businesses offer health care to their workers. And those workers who do have benefits are seeing their monthly costs surging upward year by year. Most people losing their jobs today cannot afford cobra payments and to purchase a private plan is worthless to many because those plans exclude so many types of illnesses. Anyone on here wanting to purchase a private plan and have a history of mental health problems? Forget it, the plans won't cover your meds or anything else to do with mental health care. I know these things because I work daily with patients who have no coverage and who do have jobs. Not everyone has it good as the next guy.

Im just going to quit my job and let obama make all of the working people take care of me to. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The country spends too much on healthcare, which is why we need to raise taxes to spend more on healthcare.

Healthcare costs are killing job creation in small businesses, which is why we have to increase taxes on those businesses.

Entitlements are bankrupting the country, which is why we need another entitlement.

The federal government can't even run the Senate cafeteria, which is why it needs to run the nation's largest health insurance company.

We need to have health reform that doesn't add to the deficit, which is why the current plans add to the deficit.

We need to "bend the cost curve" down, which is why the curent plans bend it up.

We need more competition and you can keep your current plan, which is why individual insurance will be illegal in 5 years.

High-cost plans are bad, so they should be taxed, and low-cost plans are bad, so they will be banned.

Our current system is a mess, and this will make it better.

Got it.

Why is is not popular???? Let's see....over 70% of Americans are satisfied with their current health care. With conservative numbers pegging the price tag for this program at over $1 trillion, maybe that 70% of the population think that massive amount of money could be better spent elsewhere.....Don't you think?

I love my country, but I will NEVER adress Obama as my president. He is sucking the life blood from our country with his socialist ideas, as far as I am concerened we currently do not have a president.

When it comes to my children and their care, yes, I am selfish. I wouldn't be a very good mother if I didn't worry about the availability of health care for them if this program goes through. I don't take my kids to the doctor for just a sniffle or a tummy ache. My kids go for their check-ups or when they are really ill or injured and I can't "fix" them myself. If my children need medical care, I want them to be able to have it right now, not in a month. If that's selfish, then so be it.

Selfishness is human nature when a person is considering the welfare of their children. Why should those who actually produce things for the benefit of society be forced to subsidize the irresponsible life styles of those that don't want to work? Those that expect society to feed and clothe themselves and their children?

I think I should have the right to determine whether or not I want to support someone elses children.

It's pretty remarkable just how fast Obama's public support has fallen in the polls. Everyone knew that it would (all newly elected Presidents come in with huge approval ratings) but the speed of it is very surprising. Rassmussen, which is the only tracking poll I would put any stock in (they have called every state correct in the last two Presidential elections) now has Obama below 50% in approval. The strongly approve to strongly disapprove index has went from +10 to -8 now. He still has a ways to go to get to Bush's low 30% approval, but my guess is that it won't take very long to reach that. Especially when unemployment hits 10% nationally. That is a big psychological number that will generate a ton of negative press, and that number will be reached in the next month or so here.
.
Remember at obama's inauguration you had people there saying "Now that obama is elected, I don't have to worry about my mortgage, or putting gas in my car"? One wonders how long you can keep those people on board once the free car, free house, free gas, free tuition, ext does not come.

I would expect this type of slop from a columnist who thinks torture is a good thing.

belisamasana: You might not have done it intentionally, but your posting makes you appear to be selfish. Your theory reminds me of an incident when a childhood friend's father told her she couldn't have any breakfast because then there would not be enough for her brothers. Sad.

The Dark Agers are back with their factless statements. Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence and is used primarily by right wing pundits who have little understanding of science or statistics.

We currently have job killing double digit health care inflation that has caused wages to remain flat and all you people can think about is some right wing propaganda about socialism. It is sad that the "socialist" countries of Europe ALL export more than we do.

If everyone has health insurance, how long of a wait will there be to see the doctor? Isn't their a shortage of doctors right now? I've had to wait almost a month to get my daughter in to see her dentist. How much longer will I have to wait if everyone in the US has health/dental insurance? We don't have enough doctors to handle this. It's a nice thought, but it's not realistic, is it?

One only has to look at Social Security to see how our government will manage a universal health care plan. Each passing day, Obama thinks of a new deal to sink the claws of the government in to your life as socialist don't think you are capable of managing your life on your own without assistance from the government. Keep watching, as he will rule your life by the end of the 4 years, but that is what the people wanted........

Obama's naiveté is catching up with him. Surely even his strongest supporters must believe this won't only contribute further to our uncontrollable deficit. If evidenced by any other government program, this will surely be a deficit buster that will result in long lines and lousy service. The people who don't have coverage now, will simply wait in line until they die before getting care. The net gain will be zero. The difference being that quality of care will go down for everyone. Obama is a jack of everything master of nothing kind of guy. Rather than focus on key points and taking things step by step, he'd rather cram lousy legislation through before the Republicans pick up seats in the house and senate in 010. Not only has he not delivered in bipartisanship, but he's also stuffing through stimulus plans and health plans that will only further deteriorate our country. Instead of bringing people together, he makes statements about stupid white cops. His foreign policy hasn't accomplished anything other than to make America appear weak. North Korea is upping its nukes and Iran is in turmoil. Obama is making Bush look better and better every day.

I know what I'm talking about too. Cause when I talk to myself I always get the right answer......I Agree With Mr. Krauthammer

Say what you will re; Mr Krauthammers take on the issue, yay or nay...one thing does permeate American society like a cancer...the fear and reality of legal liability under the ridiculous tort laws on the books today. If we are to emulate the rest of the world and socialize our health care industry...then we MUST reform tort laws to this also...Loser Pays. In this if I were to bring suit against you and I couldnt make my case...then I would be liable to pay you the amount of money I was seeking in my suit. But dont hold your breath that this will happen any sooner than Cannabis being legalized for medical and recreational use...the lawyers will see that the laws re; torts stay the way they are...after all, a shyster has to make a nickel too...right??

awww that,s just a fake web site they want you to believe.................................and the lambs will be slaughtered......

I think Dr. Krauthammer knows exactly what he's talking about.

what about the Dr. who resigned from the AMA because of some of their support for this?? Not everyone is following this. Some people have their own opinion on this and are not lambs to the slaughter!

Oh, right, it's Charles the shill again. For a physician he ought to listen to .. his fellow physicians.
http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Com...