Zoom, you are so right!

If Medicare is so great, why do people have to buy Medicare Supplemental and Drug policies? You will have the same issue if the government goes to a single payor system.

However, insurance rates keep going up because the cost of the services keep going up. When a trip to Mercy ER for kidney stones costs $5000, how can you expect the insurance co to eat those costs? They are a business too. And while the big name insurance companies have high priced CEOs, not all of the local ones do.

It really is a vicious circle!

Packerfan1, agreed that health care costs must drop for nationalized health care to succeed. Based on economies of scale alone, if the government runs it, costs will drop. Of course Republicans will point out the $600 hammers, $1000 toilets, etc., but that's corruption, not inefficiency. The real pain is going to be felt by those who are making a windfall on health-care, and I wouldn't just pick on big pharma and insurance companies, but also physicians, pharmacists, and several professions that are currently making 2-3 times what they'd be making in other nationalized health care plans. My prediction is that health care professionals would unionize similar to educators, and thanks to conservatives, they'd always be getting paid less than what they feel they deserve. I'll be sitting back choosing other battles to fight.

kudos darwin1!
We all as a single nation pay for sewage systems, clean water, libraries, fire departments, police, army/navy/air force/marines/national guard, national park service, radio and tv air waves, IRS, government services, schools, and street maintenance. Nobody has a problem paying taxes that fund these programs, because WE ALL get to use them and they benefit ALL of us. Why should Healthcare not be one of the services that we all get to use? Because big pharma likes making billions in profits to turn sick people down for treatment.

The primary problem with our system is that it rewards doctors for unnecessary tests. Here is an excellent comparative article on the issue.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedsta...

Packerfan1, you have no idea what you are talking about. First the government runs the military so I guess under your regime we should privatize the military. Second, you need to grow up. Your going to cry about how you shouldn't have to pay for someone else. I don't want to pay for the military but I have to because our country operates by majority and not what cry babies don't want to pay.

packerfan1 MY party is the Independent party. Your party won't allow my party to have any say in the white house. My party is responsible for starting the end of slavery, women's right to vote, the civil rights movement, and now health care for all. You do not have to pay for me. I would be using services that are paid for by my taxes, which is fine by me. I already pay for social security that I'll never see, and medicare that I don't get, so what's the big deal? Id rather pay $15 out of each check and know that I can go get prescriptions refilled that cost ridiculously less then they do now and I can take my kids to the drs to continue preventative care and well check ups.

futurerichguy,
1.6 TRILLION CBO projection on cost, it will sink us. I do not think it will happen; first with so many unemployed the revenue will not be enough to pay for it. I do not think you will be a futurerichguy with the taxes you will be paying to have this plan.

Ladystardust,
I am sorry for your situation, with that said,
I work hard for my income and have a so so health plan, I do not feel that I should pay for you! It is bad enough that our children will be strapped with the debt your party has given us.

"Obama said a government-run "single-payer" health care system works well in some countries. But it is not appropriate in the United States, he said, because so many people get insurance through their employers working with private companies."
***HELLO WE ARE IN A CRISES OF UNEMPLOYMENT! WHAT ABOUT THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DO WORK AND THEIR JOBS DO NOT OFFER HEALTH INSURANCE! (i.e. mcd's, grocery stores, wal-mart) Seems like the government employees have no problem keeping their sweet plans while we the average joe get billed insane amounts of money just for getting blood pressure checked and a pill from the ER!
We the people who pay taxes, should be able to see the money being spent on improving the health of millions and saving thousands of lives INSTEAD of seeing it being thrown down the toilet or handed over to CEO's of Wall Street.

INTERESTING FACT:There are four times as many health care lobbyists as there are members of Congress.

* According to the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org), in 2005 there were 2,084 health care lobbyists registered with the federal government. With 535 members of Congress, that's 3.895 lobbyists per member.

Interesting reading below, especially the fact the US spends 15% of GDP on health care and the Brits 8%. Of course a large portion of the discrepancy is probably dental.

If only we started this in 1948 and both political parties weren't inundated with career politicians and crooks.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article...

Packerfan1: "In Canada there death rate for cancer is 16% higher than the US, it takes for ever to get proceedures done." That may or may not be true (types of cancer, methods of treatment, environmental reasons, etc.) however . . . A very dear friend of mine in the U.K. lived with leukemia for over a decade. Any time she asked, she had an appointment within 24 hours. Her prescription meds were never more than $5 out of pocket - as were all her visits to the doctors (of her choice without any referrals needed). In her last 3 months of life, she was hospitalized with amazing medical and hospice care. The final bill from all concerned? $0!!! All that with taxes equivalent to ours but which provide universal health care, FREE annual mammograms to all women, and much more. The U.K. promotes HEALTH-care. The U.S. has an insurance-profiting industry promoting illness-care. Don't believe the lies to inspire fear about increased taxes, inefficiency, rationing, lack of ability to make medical decisions or choose doctors. That is what we have NOW. DO Brits complain about their system? Of, course...until they see ours. Give me U.K. health care any day!

The obesity state ratings are out. All states that exceed a 30% obesity rate are red states (AL, MS, WV, TN). The three lowest obesity rates are found in states that vote blue (CO, MA, CT). That pretty much sums it up.

Packerfan1, your criticism of Canada's health care is a joke. The most objective measure of health care is life expectancy, and Canada has us beat. True the USA has a great track record in treating cancer, but why would we pay twice as much as Canada, and only get a 16% improvement? Why does an oncologist in the US make $500K, and in Canada they're lucky to pull in $100K? That's a 5 fold increase in salary for a 16% return.

Here's all you need to know about the Dem plan for healthcare: because we spend too much on healthcare and insurance costs are too high, we have to spend more and raise taxes on health insurance. What a bunch of maroons.

Grassisgreener,
you will still be paying $750.00 for your new government run system in other ways. you will not be able to write it off on your taxes like you can now, so make shure you find out the facts before backing this plan.

Why do those who want gove run health care, put there faith in the government? I don't understand this, they run nothing well and it ends up costing us 3 times what they say it will cost. In Canada there death rate for cancer is 16% higher than the US, it takes for ever to get proceedures done.

Something has to be done about the cost of health care. Seriously, are people still debating that the current system is O.K.? If so, they need to educate themselves on the cost, even in the short, term of doing nothing.

I think the public/private option is a good compromise. The single payer system proposed by Paullete Garin is a non-starter. She is basically talking about replacing ALL the insurance companies with a government run insurance company. President Obama is smart enough to know that that would be an impossible task.

Ryan's proposal does nothing to actually reduce costs. His "tax benefits" will reduce tax revenue, which has to be made up somewhere else. In the mean time, insurance companies will coontinue to raise costs beyond reasonable levels. More of the same.

We already have Nationalized health care via Emergency rooms and Bankruptcy so spare the speeches about how it much it will cost. It already costs. You want to pay for it put a five cent tax an any food product with fructose, sucrose and/of fat in it. You still don't like it - move to another country that doesn't give a crap about its citizens. Those who argue about waiting for surgery forget that you can die in the waiting room while staff walks around you.

After losing 42,000 civilians in eight months during a vicious bombing campaign during World War II, Britain pulled together and instituted a National Health Insurance program in 1948.

* "The Blitz was September 7, 1940 through May 11 1941. "42,000 civilians are estimated to have died during the campaign, with over 50,000 injured, and around 130,000 houses destroyed." See, "Remembering the Blitz,"
http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/archive... "Living With War; Air Raids," The Discovery Channel,
http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/ww2_ho...
_war/index.shtml
* "The NHS was set up in 1948 and is now the largest organisation in Europe. It is recognised as one of the best health services in the world by the World Health Organisation but there need to be improvements to cope with the demands of the 21st century." "About the NHS," NHA website,
http://www.nhs.uk/Aboutnhs/howthenhswork...
HowtheNHSworks.aspx

In a study of older Americans and Brits, the Brits had less of almost every major disease. Even the poorest Brit can expect to live longer than the richest American.

* "The US population in late middle age is less healthy than the equivalent British population for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer. Within each country, there exists a pronounced negative socioeconomic status (SES) gradient with self-reported disease so that health disparities are largest at the bottom of the education or income variants of the SES hierarchy. This conclusion is generally robust to control for a standard set of behavioral risk factors, including smoking, overweight, obesity, and alcohol drinking, which explain very little of these health differences… Level differences between countries are sufficiently large that individuals in the top of the education and income strata in the United States have comparable rates of diabetes and heart disease as those in the bottom of the income and education strata in England." (See also Table 1 - for example, prevalence of diabetes among high-income Americans is 8.2 per thousand, while it's 7.3 among low-income Brits.) Banks, Marmot et al., "Disease and Disadvantage in the United States and in England," Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006;295:2037-2045.

There are nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance.

* The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually reported that 54.5 million people were uninsured for at least part of the year. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyr...

* The amount of uninsured is rising every year, as premiums continue to skyrocket and wages stagnate. From 2004 to 2005 the number of uninsured rose 1.3 million, and rose up nearly 6 million from 2001-2005. http://www.cbpp.org/4-5-07health.htm. With 44.8 uninsured in 2005, in 2007 the number will be much higher.

18,000 Americans will die this year simply because they're uninsured.

* According to the Institute of Medicine, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage." Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine, January 2004.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175

Richard Nixon and John Ehrlichman are heard discussing the concept of a health maintenance organization in Oval Office Recordings.

* On February 17, 1971, Richard Nixon met with John Ehrlichman to discuss the Vice President's position on health maintenance organizations, as heard in the film. The Miller Center of Public Affairs has this audio recording (conversation number 450-23. "Richard Nixon - Oval Office Recordings,"
http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps...
/nixon/oval?PHPSESSID=b813e56b3017d097cd176720bc10fc74

* The next day, Nixon called for a "new national health strategy" that had four points for expanding the proliferation of health maintenance organizations, or HMOs. "Special Message to the Congress Proposing a National Health Strategy," February 18th, 1971, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index....

* The term "health maintenance organization" was coined by Nixon advisor Paul Ellwood. Patricia Bauman, "The Formulation and Evolution of the Health Maintenance Organization Policy, 1970-1973, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 10. 1976. After Congress passed Nixon's HMO Act in 1973, HMOs in America increased nine-fold in just ten years. N. R. Kleinfield, "The King of the HMO Mountain," New York Times, July 31, 1983.

Excuse me but I do not sit on my butt all day. As a matter of fact I have a very good job in health care. But $750 out of pocket per month just to have health insurance it out of control. Oh and what about the 3 months I am withour insurance when I go to a new job, because at my last job I had a $300 per month deductable for single coverage(in other words I paid the $170 office visit out of pocket everytime I went to the MD). Again I work very hard, but am not bringing home a 6 figure salary. Isn't that what this program is supposed to be for. Why is everyone just talking about those on Medicaid? What about the working class for which having health care coverage has just become way too costly?

Those of us who take care of ourselves will be paying for the fat slobs that don't. That sounds like a pretty serious effect to me.

Why will nationalized health care benefit those who take care of themselves? All else being held equal, if 46 million people who have previously not had access to health care, all of the sudden have access, there will be a shortage. The fat slobs with high cholesterol and blood pressure are going to have a more difficult time getting in to see their doctor. Those of us who take care of ourselves will not be affected. If we're able to reduce health care expenditures to where the rest of the civilized world is, then those of us who take care of ourselves will see our out of pocket premiums (or taxes) drop. How do we reduce expenditures? By lowering professional entry barriers, reducing regulation, reducing malpractice, and of course accepting a reduction in quality, which of course if you take care of yourself, it won't matter.

Darwin1: Facts have nothing to do with your argument with health care, we can't afford it, FACT. medicare and medacaid are already 23 trillion in the hole. Adding the remaining population to this list is going to make it affordable? Keep in Mind also that the fact is there will be millions out of jobs that work in the insurance industries, middle class people, no the fat cats you want to take the money away from. You do realize that Obama is wealthy, and so is most of the congress and senate, so why would they care about the little guy, all they care about is power. Creating a government entitlement that effects every person gives them power over every person. I can see the political adds now "Don't vote for X he wants to take away your right to get a surgery you need". Yup it's all about power to them, if you think they care about us, you are greatly deceived, and I am talking about both D's and R's.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
Just FYI: this was done by a think tank group from the Hoover Institute with an agenda of limiting government...so I'm sure there was some cherry picking of studies to support their assertion that US health care is just dandy the way it is. There is certainly a lot of data out there showing the opposite.

Your land of the free home of the brave comments are clearly condescending and glib in light of the seriousness of what is going on today. You asked a question about the Constitution and I answered. You didn't like the answer and then conjured up a meaningless definition. You didn't like the answer to that and then implied the Supreme Court could possibly overturn the Commerce Clause. You have already decided what you want to believe irregardless of the facts. Good luck with that.

People who want the government to make their decisions are nothing but people who can't think for themselves. They need the government to hold their little hand. Next up for them is having the government telling them how to live, tie their shoes, tell them what to wear and then what to say and think. They want to have everything given to them, rather than work for it. Since when is healthacare a right? Eating isn't a right either, we have to work to earn money so we can afford to. the we can choose what we want to eat. Also, who and how to do you think we are going to pay for it? Taxes, then more taxes and then more taxes! Apparently there are quite a few people who love giving more of their hard earned money away. Want to fix the healthcare system? Allow for more competition. If we have a ton of auto insurance providers to choose from, why not have a ton of healthcare providers to choose from? Competition drives costs down. The new businesses would also provide more jobs. By saying no to the government ran healthcare system, we say no to socialism! Futurerichguy- Sure the rich have more resources, but many of them earned it by working hard and taking advantage of opportunities. The same opportunities that everyone equally has! It just comes down to how hard do you want to work for it. But you must be lazy and want it handed to you. Why do you think people come here? Because everyone has a chance to succeed! Also, if Europe and their healthcare system is so great, then why do more Europeans apply for US citizenship that Americans applying to be citizens of those European countries? The main difference between Republicans and Democrats is this: Republicans want to give people the tools to work for something while making their own choices, while Democrats want to just hand it to you without a choice.

"We are VERY poor in the US in literacy as compared to other nations so that could very possibly skew the numbers to a large degree, along with a week dollar."
Well EvilConservative, judging by this comment you would certainly know something about literacy, or the lack thereof.

Healthcare is a benefit which should be available for every American citizen, regardless of your social or economic status. A single payer system puts the onus of personal health where it belongs, on the person PAYING for their health care. The government should make available tax credits for those with children or individuals with special needs. WE should decide who we see and where we go for healthcare. Simply by eliminating insurance companies we could save 25-30% and that's a conservative savings estimate. The government could work with the AMA to determine reimbursement rates for various forms of treatment and every clinic, hospital or care facility should have a list that includes pricing for basic services. The idea that we go in to receive treatment for ANY ailment and never, ever ask "how much is this going to cost" because even if you did ask, no one could give you an answer, is insane. Socialism is not evil, but making obscene profits for providing basic healthcare is. Under the current "market economy" there is no incentive to reduce costs or increase efficiency. Capitalism is a good business system but NOT when it comes to providing health care. Applying socialist principles will ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without. Any person who has insurance is already subsidizing those without insurance. At least, with proper oversight, what we subsidize will cost less and actually go toward providing health care instead of into the insurance companies coffers.
Evidently, whoenellie believes some people deserve healthcare and some do not and it should be based on how much money you have. He/she sounds like a very caring individual. How do you "earn" the right or ability to seek treatment when you become ill? I would hope our society is more advanced than to allow others to suffer simply because they are lacking adequate financial resources.

Darwin1: I know that the supreme court has interpreted this differently then what I have stated, you know in the past the supreme court has been over turned, right? Currently Montana is putting this ruling to the test with a new law they signed into law in the state limiting the Federal government to control commerce in the state. Also I am aware of the decision that started this precedent, it has to do with a person who was raising wheat, and the regulations there on. This decision has been piled on now to accept any regulations handed down to the states from the government. Also please stop with the condescending attitude, "where are you from". I am from the US, the land of the free and the home of the brave, or at least that's what it used to be, not so sure now.

EvilConservative get a clue. Try reading the Supreme Court rulings on the subject. They are the ones who decide how the Constitution is defined. Any Business in a state that does business outside that state in any form and not just with patients can be regulated. Again, where have you been living?

Darwin1: Commerce Deffinition: "the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place" Ok so using your logic we can control the transport between the states and indian tribes of health care, but have no jurisdiction to any health care performed solely within the state itself

EvilConservative what are you talking about?

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

It falls under the Commerce clause - duh. Where have you been living?

Darwin1: I am refering to Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution on the limitations of power, explain where health care fits in under those limits of power, please.

EvilConservative you like Rush have confused the Declaration with the Constitution. The preamble specifically states that our government has a duty to provide justice and promote the general welfare. You do not have the right to pass wealth on to your children. In fact, that is exactly what leads to an aristocracy and aristocracies are WRONG!!! They go against the very principles our country was founded on. Try again.

Bella, Health care was only maybe half of that equation, literacy, and statistics on buying power were there too, which again have nothing to do with health care. We are VERY poor in the US in literacy as compared to other nations so that could very possibly skew the numbers to a large degree, along with a week dollar.

Scroll down and you'll see which indicators were used.

Bella "Sure, stats are fun:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_hu... That is economic, which yes the US has not been doing very well on, I can agree. I was looking for health care related information, let's keep this on topic. Thanks :)

Sure, stats are fun:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_hu...

Bella, ok, where are your facts to backup that the other countries have better life expectancies, etc., and how do you explain this study http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649?

Just to add to the discussion...

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

evilconservative - I am pretty sure I haven't called the US "bad" in any way. Every country has its pros and cons; health care happens to be a topic in this country that needs serious review. I thought we were having an open discussion about this - didn't realize that having a different opinion than yours means that I think this is a "bad" country. Next we'll probably get into patriotism? You referred to other countries as "mediocre". I was simply asking you what you base that on. I see we are getting off track - let's have someone else join the discussion and see if we can't bring it back to what it was meant to be about. Have a nice day and good luck to you.

Bella... wow... You just respect what the constitution represents. wow... It's what gives us our rights, protects us from our government, to allow free speech, and other rights. wow. I am conservative, as you may have figured from my name. lol I am in favor of right an wrong though, if you build a house, and work hard to make it, it's yours, I should not have the right to take it from you, or your children if you give it to them. I feel the same with the rich, if they build wealth and pass it to their children, they should be able to do so. Its just the fact we are all created equal by our creator, and have the RIGHT to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. (note the pursuit, not the right of happiness)

Andrew: People in civilized countries pay taxes for that education, at least I do and alot of it!! If you want healthcare, EARN IT!!! I pay for my healthcare out of my pocket, I don't want to support people who just think they deserve it, we do that enough on the welfare program! Get it the old fashioned way, work for it! And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, I grew up in a family where my parents knew all the ins and outs of the system! And they used them to their advantage their whole life! I saw how bad that was and decided to be different. So those of you who say that the poor don't have the same opportunities ar wrong. I have 2 brothers also who work for fortune 500 companies and got out of the curse too! I know what I speak!

Bella, why are you not living in one of those "great" countries then? I mean if they are so superior, why live in the "bad" US? I do know that France has been having major issues with unemployment for a long time, this was from the labor laws. I won't be drawn into comparing to other countries though which are now looking to reverse socialist policies. We are talking about the US, let's keep our conversation relevant to the US. I mean if they are so superior, why live in the "bad" US? Also you neglected to answer my constitutional question, you know the foundation of our country, or does that not matter to you?

evilconservative - I am not arguing with your points about the constitution. I respect what the constitution represents. I also completely respect your right to your point of view; same way you should respect mine without throwing out classifications like "communist". The word socialism cannot be used around here; people do not know what it represents today but think it's the same as communism...no longer the case...so I don't want to use it. Am I a liberal? Sure. Do I believe in government health care? Sure. Do I believe the government should interfere in all aspects of our lives and make us all equal on every level? Of course not. I believe human beings have a right to health care, regardless of financial status. Just because someone worked harder, or inheritated a lot of money, that shouldn't allow them a medical procedure someone less fortunate cannot afford. We are a civilized country with top notch medical facilities and professionals - all citizens should have access to this. It benefits everyone. Having uninsured people costs our society a lot more than we realize. Uninsured people are forced to use emergency rooms because they HAVE TO serve them. The cost gets put on those of us that carry insurance. The system is completely out of balance. I'm excited to see that there is finally a debate with some momentum happening on health care - this is one of the biggest challenging we face today.

evilconservative - just for giggles, I'd like to see you back up your claim that "Leveling the playing field ends in mediocre countries." Are you talking about countries with socialized medicine, like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France, UK, Holland, etc? All countries with a higher standard of living than the United States, higher life expectancies, lower unemployment, and higher income levels? Just curious where you find this "mediocrity" that scares you so much.

Bella: I merely stated the similarities, of your views and socialism, and asked if you were one of the two. I guess you have no reasonable argument for your comments. There is nothing in the constitution to back up your ideals, please point out where this is in the constitution so that I can be corrected.

andrewjackson and futurerichguy - it's good to see rational arguments on this topic! Thank you. When some posters start bringing in words like "communism", you know there's no point in discussing any topic with them anymore.

Futurerichguy: Forgot your comment "I would state that a socialized system rewards people who take care of their own health. So really it should be consistent with your beliefs." How? How does it reward them to take care of their health? Please explain that to me? Don't they get the same health care then regardless of the ability to pay or what choices they make? Please explain!

WhoaNellie. Poeple in civilized societies claim education is a RIGHT. Why would poeple's health be any different?

Futurerichguy: You have a socialist thought process also. "Leveling the playing field" has never been an American ideal, I guess until now. Billy Mays didn't have a "leveled playing field" yet he still ended up a millionaire, how do you explain that? Micheal Moore didn't have a "level playing field", yet he is a millionaire now. I guess I missed the spot in the constitution where it says it is the responsibility of government to "level the playing field", maybe you can point that out to me? Leveling the playing field ends in mediocre countries. I believe that with hard work, and persistence anyone can make it, and even make it big in the USA, but I guess you don't have that kind of faith in people, and need the government to give them a hand out in order to succeed.

Anybody that thinks insurance companies make only 5% of every dollar has absolutely no grasp of economics. Let's talk about the 15 layers of management that exist solely to deny your right to the procedure that the doctor ordered. Isn't a Ponzi scheme defined by "paying old claims with the money from new possible claimants"? Insurance is the greatest scam ever invented. Numbers I've seen indicate that we would be at least 20% better off every year than we are now if we just did an end run on the insurance companies. Deal them out of the next hand please. Insurance on anything is a license to steal. The mafia offered to sell poeple "protection" for years. THEY got locked up for it.

EvilConservative, I think you point out an important distinction in our philosophies when you state that "most rich people...EARN their money", and "sit on your butt all day...do nothing...get nothing". I would state that because people are rich, they have the resources to earn more, and because poor people lack resources, they can't earn more. Adding health care as a resource to the poor, levels the playing field. True some people will abuse the system, but if you're concerned about choices, I would state that a socialized system rewards people who take care of their own health. So really it should be consistent with your beliefs.

Thanks for making my point on executive pay: divide all those totals TOGETHER by the number of people they insure and it's about 40 cents per year per person. When will you be putting up the Medicare and Medicaid fraud numbers for contrast? There are no high-paid execs looking after that program.

As for the contention that only the wealthy get healthcare: please, have you been to an emergency room lately? In fact, the interest group whining loudest about taxing health benefits are not the evil rich, but the evil unions, because they have the richest benefits.

The bottom line is someone has to ration care. It can be you, it can be your insurance company, or it can be the government. As for me, I'd prefer either of the first two to the third.

Bella: Please re-read my comment, I stated that price was an issue, but the government getting involved is not the answer, as I pointed out with Medicare, and Medicaid. Paul Ryan has a plan to give people the tax break personally instead of to the company, why is no one talking of this option that would cost the taxpayer nothing? So you are saying people can't afford health care here, but CAN afford to fly over to another country for it, are you serious? Injecting class warfare into this only results in the true nature of your argument to be that you are a pushing socialist ideals, which has the key idea that all should be equal economically. I am sorry but if you sit on your butt all day and do nothing you should get nothing, most rich people have and do work very long hours and have a lot of stress with their jobs, and they EARN their money. Why do you want to equalize the economic status of people in this country are you a communist or socialist?

I want the government to stay out of my healthcare! I have insurance through work and it is high, but I want to be able to do what I want with it. and since when does everyone "deserve " insurance?? go to work for it and earn it! That's what I've had to do all my life, stop the entitlement mentality!!

Evilconservative - yes, you have the FREEDOM to choose, but realistically, who can afford except for the very wealthy?? Most of America's middle class have an HMO or health care plan with select doctors only. Going outside of your plan can cost a fortune. I disagree with your statement that we have the best health care. In this country, the best health care is reserved for the wealthy. Money talks. And the cost of health care is beyond ridiculous. It's all run by the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical giants. If you really think you have the FREEDOM to choose what's best for you, you are confused, my friend. The fact that more and more Americans are traveling overseas to receive top notch health care at a reasonable price is a clear sign that America does NOT have the best health care.

FACT: Medicare and Medicaid are already have 23 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, can we afford to add to that?

Bella: WOW!? Are you serious? You don't think the government won't make decisions with your healthcare? They have everywhere else they have the single payer system. England is a perfect example of this. In England some of the newer drugs for treating cancer are off limits, and you can't even buy them if you wanted to, that is illegal! Yes private insurance can deny claims, but with your FREEDOM, you can CHOOSE a different health care insurance provider. When there is a single payer plan where only the government is the options and you CANNOT choose or buy anything else, where is your choice?

Can anyone name something the government has done really well, honestly, name something, please? Yet we want them to run health care? We already have a form of socialized medicine, it's medicare and Medicaid, and those two are partially the reason for higher health care costs. Example, a procedure a doctor would normally charge say $100 for, medicare only pays $50, the doctor makes up for that with charging the insured, or uninsured patient $150. It's simple math, although I am sure some want to refute it. We have the best health care now, it is expensive though, anyone with a brain comes to that conclusion. Why is the only idea being thought of is to nationalize it, or to bring the government into it.
Bottom line, what does the constitution say? Does it provide for healthcare? Does it give the US Government this type of authority? I don't see it, and I guess we might as well do away with that old useless document now right? I stand on the constitution, and we must follow it if we want our country to survive and be the best that we can be, it IS what has made America great, now we teeter on the edge of mediocrity.

just-hype, I've heard a lot of people make the same argument as you; that government will make your medical decisions for you if we have government-run health care. I still say that's a much better option than what most of us have today; a health care plan where your INSURANCE company makes decisions about your medical options. Insurance companies make money by denying your claims and refusing treatment suggested by your doctors. I've lived in Europe for most of my life, enjoying the benefits of government run healthcare, and I've never once been denied the recommended treatment by a government official. Here in the US, I've been denied simple procedures by my insurance company. Go figure.

Enough talk about executive compensation, here's the facts.

Reported Health Insurance CEO compensation in 2008:
United Health Group - $9.35 Million
Cigna - $9.37 Million
Coventry - $12.5 Million
Magellan - $18.72 Million

Health insurance companies make about 5 cents on every dollar of premium, much less than many other industries. Their executives make good money (less lately) because they are busy running companies that provide services that make their customers happy while providing a return for shareholders, all with no taxpayer support.

If you got rid of greedy health insurance company profits (and the tax revenue that goes with them), average premiums would still go up, but 5% slower for one year. They would continue to rise at the higher rates after that. Plus, you would then have to raise taxes and debt to support a system that is currently running with no taxpayer support.

A few more points and questions:

The 'concentrated' areas of health insurers you hear talk about basically are Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies, most of which are non-profits.

What exactly will the government do more efficiently than health insurance companies? Cutting executive compensation (which at most amounts to a few pennies per policy) will only ensure that the plans run even more red ink, requiring higher taxes. The only thing they can do better is force doctors and hospitals to take lower reimbursement than commercial plans pay. When the government takes over all of healthcare (by forcing doctors to take lower pay), what will happen then?

Health insurance is expensive because healthcare is expensive, and commercial healthcare is expensive because the government doesn't pay its fair share on medicaid or medicare: their underpayments raise the cost of commercial insurance, thus premiums. It kills me to hear tub-o-lard Ted Kennedy brag about how Medicare costs have stayed level. Yes they have, but as a result commercial premiums have skyrocketed! He knows that but never tells anyone that!

What other industries, other than automakers, banks, and health insurance should the federal government get into because they can run them more efficiently? Hearing anyone tell you the federal government can run anything 'more efficiently' should make any rational person start laughing hysterically.

The report, released by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country's insurance markets are defined as "highly concentrated," according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that's led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007.

Far from healthy market competition, HCAN describes the situation as "a market failure where a small number of large companies use their concentrated power to control premium levels, benefit packages, and provider payments in the markets they dominate."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.co...

It is time we have another option to pay for our medical expenses besides the greedy for profit heath insurance industry.

Good luck getting Mercy to go along with anyting that doesn't pack thier pockets! I don't care what the paper writes it's a terrible place to go no matter why your there! Free ($3500-$5500 minimum because thats almost fair)helicopter rides to Madison with every problem created at Mercy!PLEEEEEEEAAAAASSSSEEEE! I just have to ask are our Dr.s that bad? I am behind Paul Ryan all the way, and anyone who isn't is a complete uninformed idiot!

superdave read number 2 and you might be able to sympathize with victims of unemployment, our economy (thanks to the bush administration) and the thousands of people who were middle class, followed the rules, got a job, bought a house, paid for health insurance, and then they got very sick and watched their whole world crumble around them in medical debt, forcing them to be homeless, helpless and still sick! You may have good insurance, but I don't. I don't have dental coverage and that would be covered by universal health care house resolution HR 676 . Please tell Paul Ryan to sponsor this bill! I have!

ladystardust: You said "TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT H.R. 676, THE U.S. NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT
1. Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period."

I read no further in your post. First of all, everyone has ACCESS now. Does everyone have insurance? Obviously not. But my question is - do you think Barack Obama, or ANYONE in Congress, the Supreme Court, top military leaders, etc., will have the same health care as you and me?

GET REAL.

Health care for all, like every other industrialized country in the world. Go see Sicko, talk to your neighbors (especially the ones who are being foreclosed on because of Mercy's outrageous medical bills) and you'll see people are generally good and people want to live long healthy lives.

TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT H.R. 676,
THE U.S. NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT
1. Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.
2. Portability. If you are unemployed, or lose or change jobs, your health coverage stays with you.
3. Uniform Benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Pinto plans for everyone else, with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care for everyone, regardless of the size of your wallet.
4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a universal health system encourages preventive care that lowers an individual's ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are neglected and
societal cost in the over-utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of communicable diseases.
5. Choice. Most private insurance restricts your choice of providers and hospitals. Under the U.S. National Health Insurance Act, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured a fair payment.
6. No Interference with Care. Caregivers and patients regain their autonomy to decide what's best for a patient's health, not what's dictated by the billing department. No denial of coverage for preexisting conditions or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems.
7. Reducing Waste. One third of every private health insurance dollar goes for paperwork and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare, the federal government’s universal system for senior citizen healthcare.
8. Cost Savings. A guaranteed health care system can produce the cost savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. private health care model, adopted a similar system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with
little increase in overall health care spending.
9. Common Sense Budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally to all
providers, private and public, while assuring that appropriate health care is delivered, and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.
10. Public Oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced CEOs meeting in private and making decisions based on their company’s stock performance needs.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/wp-content...

"A single-payer plan would have the government pay for all coverage, but doctors would not become government employees, and consumers would make health care decisions with their doctors, Garin said."
-
He who pays the bill will make the decision. Hence, the government would call the shots.

If the government is so inefficient, the private companies have nothing to worry about if there is a government-run plan. I'd sign up for it since right now HMOs and insurance companies make their profits on denying us actual healthcare. This they call "management" or prevention.

www.singlepayeraction.org

"CALL YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE THE ONLY THING POLITICIANS UNDERSTAND IS PRESSURE FROM---ALL---OF US?"
-
Since when? Term limits now.

Health care must exist for everybody, not just for the few as it is now. Commercial insurance--FINE! But let their be a government health care system similar to Europe. Choose your own doctor and do away with corrupt PPO and other wasteful plans. Do away with co-pays, premiums and deductibles, because in a nationwide pool everybody can afford it. Our car-makers will be on an equal footing with foreign imports. Lose your job and you are unlikely to afford what is called health care. Only the wealthy families, and relatively stable employees don't want to upset the apple cart. As usual the status quo are trying to undermine any new plan for the whole legal population. No options, no exception--we all pay our share into a Universal government health care plan.

With the arrival of the Obama administration we have two issues that are going to be a lightening rods, and in my way of thinking should be placed before the AMERICAN VOTER AS A NATIONWIDE REFERENDUM. HEALTH CARE AND IMMIGRATION REFORM. Of all the current issues in the chambers of Washington, these are the capstone problems facing this nation of Hurricane force. If our elected public servants try to pass immigration reform or a massive health care plan without the general publics voice, their could be massive ramifications on a grand scale. Both overwhelming problems caused by years of neglect, must be resolved. Already special interest groups are spending millions of dollars, filling the airways of propaganda and corrupt info-commercials, to frighten people.

Instead being mouth pieces for the special interest lobbyists, they had better take note that their whole careers representing supposedly the will of the people is in jeopardy. Because of these enormous cost attributed to ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and HEALTH CARE--the AMERICAN PEOPLE'S INPUT SHOULD BE MANDATORY? Forget the University professors, economists, think take tank scientists and the Chamber of Commerce, ACLU, Unions, big church and business entities--THE PEOPLE--should--HAVE THE LAST WORD? Both have their own cataclysmic cost problems to the American taxpayer. THE ONLY WAY TO SATISFY THE LIBERALS, DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, ATHEISTS, EXTREMISTS, PROTECTIONISTS, OPEN BORDER AND FREE TRADERS--IS BY A STATE TO STATE FEDERAL REFERENDUM.

CALL YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE THE ONLY THING POLITICIANS UNDERSTAND IS PRESSURE FROM---ALL---OF US?