New age in Health Care:
Walk Softly,but Carry a Big Stick.

"I am a proud American who happens to be liberal."

Oxymoron just like
Jumbo Shrimp.

"Apparently, the right is comfortable with discrimination...and the poor (comprehensive health care/unemployment benefits). "
-
Just because your position is not agreed to does not mean the other said is comfortable with people who don't have care that want it but can't afford it.

There are many issues with the healthcare system that were not addressed in the current bill that needs fixing, as many as the items that were included that should not have been; like requiring b-to-b transaction over amount X be reported to the IRS each time.

The largest thing not touched was the point-of-sale pricing. No one has an idea what the costs are until services are rendered and the government always pays the least as a customer. Why should an office visit for the same flu condition cost the medicaid patient X dollars but a hard working person paying cash X+ dollars? The same holds try for insurance companies. I understand the whole sam walton mass purchase method...but after all this is free market healthcare or is it?

Prices will never stop escalating until there is market competition placed into the pricing system, without it you will continue to see prices rise beyond normal inflation rates.

Your original point from this off topic debate, you say is on topic, was an opposition of the money spent by the services to recruit, you then said forced, criminals in the military; now adding gays to that list.

After proving to you the cost is the same, irrespective of the social persuasion, you now claim your debate was never about the savings. In order to "not" spend money for recruiting the manning levels must drop...it is that simple. The savings, or cost (from money not spent) you then idealistically pointed would be better spent on healthcare.

Are you now changing your position(s) or is there a new red herring you want to toss around?

btw, unless this gets back to the topic of healthcare count me out...

RAF,
I was never talking about savings. The issue is the idea of a "We'll take anybody including felons as long as you're not a gay felon" military. Manning levels are not an issue until tax dollars are used to fulfill them with people that have proven themselves to be untrustworthy relative to others (homosexuals) that have not. Apparently, the right is comfortable with discrimination against homosexuals (military) and the poor (comprehensive health care/unemployment benefits). But you guys will make every excuse possible for felons in the military.

"It's no surprise that you missed my point that tax dollars go to the practice of recruitment of criminals."
-
Because it is a false. Most recruiting costs are fixed; salaried people, store fronts, vehicles...etc. One large, un-fixed cost, is advertising and marketing, these change mostly on a quarterly basis; strange you never seen one just for criminals. With manning levels set by congress how is the money wasted? No matter who joins to fill those positions the money spent is the same. The only way to reduce the cost is drop the manning levels.

Your red herring has no savings just by declaring one part of society filled the position of another...the cost is the same.

916WI,
No. I'm for subsidizing the health care expense of those who can't work for it or can't make any more sacrifices in order to afford it until there is a viable affordable option for comprehensive health care.
and yes, I am a proud American who happens to be liberal.

Cool--just needed clarification......
So basically you're against giving a person who has made a mistake in the past the opportunity to bust their butt in the military and make something of their life. And you're for HCR that involves forcing those that have health care in the country to subsidize the health care expense of those who either don't want to work for it or don't want to make sacrifices in order to afford the health care that they are offered......Yep--you're a liberal:)

916WI,
It's no surprise that you missed my point that tax dollars go to the practice of recruitment of criminals. The greater point is that there are many governmental policies and practices in place funded by the government that are unjustifiable to some and justifiable to some others. Government funded military recruitment of criminals is justifiable to you but government funded health care is not. Government funded health care is justifiable to me but government funded military recruitment of criminals is not. That's all I was ever saying. Everybody else felt like I was taking pot shots at the military. A little too defensive I think. Usually inidcates insecurities.

uww--the problem is that your analogy made no sense whatsoever. Health care coverage is a benefit of military service--you attempted to cast negativity over this by focusing on a very small segment of those receiving that benefit....The thing is, aside from laziness, there is nothing preventing many of the uninsured in this country from joining the military to receive that same benefit......is there?

vatoloco,
People can be opposed to whatever they want to be opposed to. I was never trying to tell anyone not to be opposed. I was making a point about something that is funded in a similar way that I am opposed to.

"Force: coerce, to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means."
-
An increase in the recruitment of individuals with criminal records is a result of the strains put on the military by the Iraq war and may be undermining our military readiness."
-Henry Waxman, former chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
-
Picture drawn.

"So many people seem offended by government run health care because they don't want their tax dollars going to something they don't think is justified."

When the fed starts throwing mandates that could include fines, building medical boards who decide how, how much, and when you receive medical care why the hell would you think people should not be opposed to it?

"Manning leves force criminals into the military."
-
Force: coerce, to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means.

Volunteer: a person who freely enlists for service.

You can draw all the pictures you want...

The set manning levels force recruitment which leads to recruitment of criminals. Manning leves force criminals into the military. Do you need a picture drawn for you?

" It really doesn't matter who is forcing the criminals into the military."
-
Forcing? More ignorance from you, it is an all volunteer force. Again, nothing to do with healthcare. These positions will be filled as required by set manning levels...the red herring continues.

RAF,
I realize. That's why I called it a "government practice". It really doesn't matter who is forcing the criminals into the military. I still find it to be an unjustified use of tax dollars. Let's hope DADT is repealed, so the military can stop recruiting felons and other criminals.

uwwalum, your argument was ignorant.

Congress sets manning levels, not the DOD or each individual service/branch. Regardless who was hired the spot will be filled.

You bringing up the military has a waiver process to hire those that have made mistakes in their past, nothing new, has nothing to do with healthcare. These job applications, under fair hiring laws, can't be denied (for filling out or applying).

Declaring there is wasted money filling positions that are required to be filled is on it's base silly. The only way a reduction or savings could occur is if/when congress reduced required manning levels.

So many people seem offended by government run health care because they don't want their tax dollars going to something they don't think is justified. I made the point that there are many tax funded government practices that others, including me, don't believe is justified. I gave the example of the military recruitment of criminals. It was an example not intended to open up debate, but others pursued a debate. I didn't "hijack" or "troll" or whatever other words you want to use. I've got a term for you though: blame shifting.

I stopped posting when the conversation was hijacked to criminals in the military. Count this as vote two for troll status.

Red, a perfect case of deflection would be one were military hiring is combined into a conversation on healthcare. If you can't debate by staying on topic you have already lost.

Constant hammering of off topic issues leads to troll status. Not quite on the same level of failing to give up petroleum while complaining we use to much, but close.

Red--Actually, no I couldn't verify what I was looking for. I meant "guess" in the context that we don't know the specifics surrounding any of these individual cases. Out of the 87 charged with aggravated assault, was it something as simple as a bar fight that got out of hand 10 years prior to the enlisting date of the "criminal", or was it something more serious? It doesn't seem quite right to throw all of the charges and the statistics out there, without also addressing the details and the story surrounding each case. Where that person was in their life at the time of the crime, and where they are at now. I would "guess" that in the screening process, that the military takes all of these factors into account.......

from panamas link...'The Army will not give waivers to recruits convicted of sexually violent offenses, drug trafficking or drug sales'

that is absolutely disgusting that selling drugs is on par with sexually violent offenses.

"uww--You're sounding quite desperate. As alluded to--I would guess that those that got waivers are anything but hardened criminals or repeat offenders."
-
"The waivers for convictions ranging from assault and burglary to manslaughter and sex crimes allowed the military to enlist people otherwise precluded by recruitment standards."
"The Marines gave waivers to 11 people convicted of carrying a weapon on school grounds."
-
This goes to my point 916WI, you don't have to "guess". Rather than taking the 30 seconds necessary to verify uww's claim you "guess" and go on to downplay the facts. RAF doesn't even guess, he simply ignores the facts altogether. Here is one link of many available.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2145...

Red--calm down and see how this thread evolved. uww is the one who went off on the military tangent--completely deflecting the discussion from HCR to criminals serving in the military....

Ez--No doubt, it is a tough one to determine and I guess it would depend completely on the situation. I was in that position many, many years ago--having a girlfriend that was 2 years older than I was when I was a minor. By law, she could have been convicted of statutory rape. Having that girl be branded a rapist would have been an absolute joke......

It's of little use to present a reasonable, fact based argument for healthcare reform to the trolls, uwwalum. Most of them wouldn't know a fact if it bit them in the nose. Even when they are confronted with the truth, (ie; the military’s acceptance of criminals) they try to deflect the argument to some other issue. Their arguments are based on falsehoods and the misrepresentation of facts. They only believe what they want to believe and those who don’t follow along are called ignorant, or labeled as socialists and communists. Instead of presenting an argument they resort to personal attacks and bring up events that have little to do with the discussion at hand. All you need to do is look at the past several comments – they speak for themselves.

just curious raf...what qualifies one as a troll??

916 -- sorry but gotta weigh in on that rape thing. So just when do you view it as predatory sexual behavoir. 2 yrs older, 5 yrs older..... when. Sorry -- but I had girls that I certainly could have taken advantage of -- but you must just ay no. Its not concenting when under age. Period.

Paul Krugman does not speak for Democrats and the Democrats do not have any plans to implement any of the things Paul Krugman suggested. Got it.

You have almost reached troll status...good for you.

uww- Drunk Ted Kennedy killed a woman and he was let off the hook? He got a second chance.

uww--You're sounding quite desperate. As alluded to--I would guess that those that got waivers are anything but hardened criminals or repeat offenders. I love how the word "rapist" appears in your posts too. Someone convicted of statutory rape(an 18 year old caught sleeping with a 16 year old--both consenting) is hardly what one would picture when the word rapist is mentioned--but you're turning out to be quite the drama queen--with your stories of starvation and what not.......The bottom line is that this is a great opportunity for those who have made mistakes to find structure and purpose. It seems like you would support throwing them either out on the street, or putting them back in prison--a place where these people could become more educated in the criminal element. It's funny that in a previous post you ramble on about other's being heartless, yet in this situation you look to rally against a second chance for these people without having any clue as to what their stories are. You have access to health care--you just need to be more financially responsible in order to secure it. Good luck!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...

uww,

Read Communist Goal number 3. It fits you to a tee.

What do you know about me or anything, vatoloco? All you do is post half-cocked ignorant rants on these blogs using other people's personal blogs as your source. Go take a research course and stop making completely unfounded personal attacks.

Yes, the link said both rape or sexual abuse. People convicted of sexual abuse are not tagged rapists. People that are convicted of rape, as some of the people granted waivers were, are called rapists. A background check of anyone convicted of any kind of rape would most likely keep them from working anywhere and rightfully so. Why doesn't the military feel the same way? I feel as though the bond of trust between me and the military that has sworn to protect all of us has been broken when they use my tax dollars to recruit and pay rapists.

"Feel free to make all the assumptions you like about my life. What you actually know is next to nothing."

And you probably do next to nothing for the poor. You make people believe you do but you don't.

I'm not "trying" anything. Just stating my opinion that the military's use of tax dollars for these practices is reckless. I believe this type of waiver program should be defunded and the money reallocated for something outside of the military. Perhaps the deficit, perhaps health care, perhaps unemployment benefits. Something more responsible.

"More excuses being made for criminals. Is that part of standard military training?"
-
Were you always this ignorant or has it grown on you?

Your link said "rape or sexual abuse". I simply stated that touching can be considered abuse...there are all kinds and these are not considered rapists.

People that make bomb threats if real would not be waivered; since this conviction would make a person unable to ever carry a gun. Which leaves the obvious, a hoax which is still not a good thing; hardly a terrorist...but keep trying.

"I can only judge from the information provided or lack there of. A quote from an article with no facts leaves much room to interpret as to the reason why a waiver for this/these incidents would be approved."
-
The facts are those made available by the military. The military used the word "rape". They did not say anything about touching. Those were your words. A military spokesperson was quoted in the article explaining that most of the rape cases were statutory in nature. Still not ok. The kidnapper was a divorced mother. Still not ok. And one of the terrorist threats was a bomb threat made by a 14 year old. Unless that 14 year old was insane and didn't know the difference between right and wrong, that's not ok. More excuses being made for criminals. Is that part of standard military training?

NoLeftist,
Read the words thoroughly, then comment. Nobody said the Democrats are planning to ration Medicare. Paul Ryan's Roadmap calls for it, but the Democrats have not said they plan to as of yet. Paul Krugman gave his analysis of the situation. That is all. You are jumping to conclusions.

"Then your claim of starvation or malnourishment if you purchased protection is over blown."
-
Feel free to make all the assumptions you like about my life. What you actually know is next to nothing.

So the Democrats DO plan on rationing care with cuts to Medicare to fund ObamaCare even though Obama and the Democrats all said they wouldn't. And that rationing won't include any consideration of how close to death people are. And Krugman was just joking.

Got it.

" Look at you making excuses for criminals."
-
More false statements. I never made an excuse for anyone to break the law. Try to stay on topic with actual facts.

" I am disqualified because I have been offered insurance and/or my income is just past the maximum threshold."
-
Then your claim of starvation or malnourishment if you purchased protection is over blown.

"Plus, it seems you don't think there's really anything wrong with inappropriate touching as you brushed it off as meaningless in your post. "
-
Again you would be wrong...I see a pattern there. I can only judge from the information provided or lack there of. A quote from an article with no facts leaves much room to interpret as to the reason why a waiver for this/these incidents would be approved. Since I have seen the waiver process work and the moral and ethical challenges used by commanders that grant and refuse them, leads me to base my assumptions on past actions not senseless speculation.

"If your claim is true then there are already programs available to you for help."
-
Not true. I've looked into numerous programs. I am disqualified because I have been offered insurance and/or my income is just past the maximum threshold. I am in no man's land and I'm sure there are many many others in a similar position.

Aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon, not armed robbery. My fault there.
Also, the word rape was used by the Pentagon in the report they released. You are speculating that the waiver was issued for inappropriate touching. Plus, it seems you don't think there's really anything wrong with inappropriate touching as you brushed it off as meaningless in your post. Doesn't say much for your moral compass. I'm pretty sure that threats terrorize people and sometimes actually lead to terrorism. Look at you making excuses for criminals. Isn't that what conservatives accuse liberals of doing? I guess it's a different story when the military is involved. Your bias is showing again. You might want to put that away.

"If I purchased insurance I would be forced to constantly make use of it due to malnourishment. In the end, I'd be driving others' premiums up anyway. What a great system we have."
-
If your claim is true then there are already programs available to you for help.

Yet none of these, "since rapists, terrorists, and those convicted of armed robbery", are in your link.

There is a vast difference between a threat and a terrorist, I guess your 4 years of higher learning didn't teach you that..

Rape or sexual abuse...yeah, sure. A rapist was allowed in, no way. Touching a person could be considered abuse, that is not a rapist.

Hmmmm, nothing about armed robbery...imagine that.

"The reason you are without it is because you don't want to pay for it...your own words."
-
The reason I am without it is because it would be fiscally irresponsible to purchase it. If I have to make that decision for my well being and the well being of those around me, then there is something wrong. If I purchased insurance I would be forced to constantly make use of it due to malnourishment. In the end, I'd be driving others' premiums up anyway. What a great system we have.

uww--Many of us have been through hard times, the difference is that most of us don't expect the government to resolve problems for us--we take it upon ourselves to do this. You're ignorant if you think the unemployment and welfare programs consist entirely of people that are knocking on doors, filling out applications and doing whatever they possibly can to get off of government assistance. I stand by my statement that this system breeds apathy--workfare rather that welfare needs to be brought into play. I would much rather my tax dollars go to a military service person, than to give someone who hasn't worked for 2 years an additional year or two off.......
I see where you are coming from with your perspective on HCR. You are offered insurance, but it's not a priority enough at the price point it is offered at. So you want other taxpayers to subsidize your insurance costs so it's less of a burden on you. Understandable, but a little on the selfish side......

"The 2006 and 2007 Pentagon data released Monday show for the first time the number of dispensations issued for specific felonies. The number of army waivers for aggravated assaults with a dangerous weapon rose to 43 from 33. Waivers for burglaries increased to 106 from 36.

Waivers for possession of narcotics, excluding marijuana, rose to 130 from 71 and for forgery to 56 from 26.

In the Marine Corps, waivers for burglary convictions rose to 142 from 90, while those for aggravated assault increased to 44 from 35.

The army also listed a handful of felony waivers granted for kidnapping, making terroristic threats, rape or sexual abuse, and indecent acts or liberties with a child."
-
This is from an article I already posted the link to. The military did not release the name of the people that received the waivers only the number of waivers and the offenses the waivers were granted for.

"I'm the only one without insurance."
-
The reason you are without it is because you don't want to pay for it...your own words.

"Guess what neither does everyone else, but we do."
-
Everyone? Really? I guess I didn't realize I'm the only one without insurance. All those millions of people that claim to be uninsured must covering up the truth for some reason.

"since rapists, terrorists, and those convicted of armed robbery and assault have all been granted waivers to serve in the military in the past."
-
Please list any name of a convicted rapist, convicted terrorist, or convicted armed robber that is now in the military with a waiver granted for these convictions.

Any convicted felon, with a weapons charge, is no longer eligible to own or posses a firearm...this also makes them unable to obtain a waiver. But please continue this downward spiral of vile, false statements, and derogatory remarks concerning people that you think defend this nation.

i love me some coach...who doesnt...this convo made me think of this classic, non coach, craig t nelson clip...

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

"Long before the services became all volunteer, those with checkered backgrounds and a history of reform have been allowed to join"
-
Yes, it was called a draft because so many people had already been killed. Worked out really well in Vietnam, too. Heroin anyone?

"Why would I pay 10% of my income for that kind of insurance?"
-
You don't want to pay for insurance that is available to you...

Guess what neither does everyone else, but we do.

" The military's resources have been stretched so thin that they resorted to recruiting criminals "
-
Speaking of ignorant. Long before the services became all volunteer, those with checkered backgrounds and a history of reform have been allowed to join. Truly clueless.

"I believe the U.S. military is a money pit and has been for some time."
-
But social programs rife with fraud are just fine...the loons are out in force on this topic.

NoLeftist,
I wasn't being hateful. I was pointing out information from articles that I posted the links to. You can read them for yourself. Sounds like unfortunate circumstances for your friend's son since rapists, terrorists, and those convicted of armed robbery and assault have all been granted waivers to serve in the military in the past.
-
As for Paul Krugman, the big difference between his comments and Sarah Palin's. He was sarcastically referring to Medicare rationing as "death panels", while Palin was actually trying to imply that groups of people would actually decide who lives or dies. Whether she actually believed that or was just trying to incite fear and anger through hyperbole during a campaign is up for debate. However, I do find it hard to believe that she even knows what hyperbole is.

916WI,
You have a heartless view of those less fortunate than you. Perhaps you've never gone through hard times. Ignorance might be the cause for your negative generalization of those on public assistance as lazy free loaders. If you have been of lesser means at some point in your life, you must have a short memory.
-
I believe the U.S. military is a money pit and has been for some time. We've been fighting needless wars and sticking our nose into skirmishes that were none of our business for decades. The military's resources have been stretched so thin that they resorted to recruiting criminals yet many in the military protest against openly letting homosexuals serve. As of right now, I don't believe the miltary is truly protecting America and it's interests. It is bloated with bureaucracy and the leadership seems confused as to their priorities. The military should be reduced and limited only to domestic defense while we get our economic and deficit problems in order. I believe that money should be reinvested into the health care system to assist people in need.
-
I work 40 hours a week for a small business. The only insurance plan I am offered would reduce my net pay by 10%. No dental, no vision. It does not pay any percentage for check ups or any other screenings. It does not pay any percentage for emergency room visits. It is basically for catastrophic illness only and the lowest deductible available is $1,000. Why would I pay 10% of my income for that kind of insurance? That is why drastic health care reform is necessary, and President Obama's plan wasn't drastic enough. I've always been willing to work hard all my life. I've worked full time since I was 17 years old even while earning my bachelor's degree. I've also been laid off from a job, been through hard times, and I am still continuing to adjust to making far less money than I used to. I believe that our society has progressed to the point that absolutely no one should be without comprehensive health care. However, this nations seems to accept waging war on others as a far more desirable alternative. Obviously, other areas of spending need to be cut, but the military is a huge burden that could be drastically reduced.

So the military looks to hire criminals. A friend's son who was caught underage drinking last year was disqualified from the military job he had signed up for out of high school. The military must not have gotten the uwwalum memo saying that they were actually supposed to recruit "criminals," not disqualify them. It is always interesting how hateful the leftist posts are.

Hey, did you hear Paul Krugman, the vaunted liberal Nobel-prize winning New York Times columnist confirmed that death panels are on their way?

He was on This Week with Christiane Amanpour Sunday and said "some years down the pike we're gonna get to the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes."

Why is it a big deal when Sarah Palin sayd death panels are in the works, but it isn't when Paul Krugman says it?

uww......try to stay on point. As far as your tangent is concerned--you're absolutely right. Soldiers that steal and publish classified documents--documents that run the risk of putting their fellow soldiers lives in danger--should simply have a note put in their permanent file, and be sent home, without dinner, to their mommies. What world do you live in?!? As far as allowing criminals into the military, I would rather see them receive an opportunity for redemption/rehabilitation there, in a system that is based on structure and service, than to continue down the path of recidivism that so many of them seem to return to.
As far as your last statement is concerned, I would much rather have that money invested in a strong military, that have it spent on yet another welfare program that breeds apathy and dependence. Your comparisons are perfect--investing money in soldiers who protect our country and it's interests vs. investing that same money in welfare programs that pay people not to work and a health care reform program that considers a 26 year old a dependent. Talk about a nanny state:)

RAF,
Yes, I believe it is a better investment of tax dollars to provide people in need with health care than to seek out criminals and pay them to serve our country while at the same time assuming they will not repeat behavior they have already exhibited. I also believe it is a better investment of tax dollars to provide people in need with health care rather than spend in excess of $3 trillion dollars on a war that was based on innacurate/fabricated/non-existent intelligence. I also believe it is a better investment of tax dollars to provide people in need with health care rather than recruit, train, and pay a soldier only to arrest, try, convict, and incarcerate the soldier because he stole classified embassy communications and submitted them to WikiLeaks. If the military hadn't been flushing tax dollars down the drain for the past few decades, maybe we could pay for extended tax cuts, extended unemployment benefits, and comprehensive universal health care. You can condescend to me all you want, but your bias is written all over your username.

"Felons being allowed to use firearms is an employment benefit? I really am clueless about the military's definition of responsible use of tax dollars."
-
We could draw you a picture, but I assume you can't read crayon either.

"I can't seem to figure out why one is accepted practice while the other if fought against tooth and nail."
-
Precisely, you can’t. Employment results in payment for services rendered. Giving away tax dollars for no services rendered to you is equal to paying for someone to do something..with cognitive thinking of this caliber you will never "get it".

Felons being allowed to use firearms is an employment benefit? I really am clueless about the military's definition of responsible use of tax dollars.

You're fairly clueless if you can't figure that one out. One is the result of an employment benefit while the other is another social welfare program disaster waiting to happen. People are getting sick of bloated, government run welfare programs that all end up drowning in waste and fraud. Considering the situation you presented--the question you should be asking yourself is why aren't these "struggling Americans" joining the military so they can take advantage of these great benefits???

It is your opinion that the Massachusetts health care plan is a failure. I believe that it is a work in progress. Since when has any government program at any level been perfected in the planning stages and required no adjustments for improvement during implementation? See, I was confused about your statement because you are assumint that I will accept opinions as fact. I think you have warned me against such things in the past. Perhaps it's time to heed your own advice. After all, Governor Romney might take exception to your claims.
-
tax dollars (apples) = tax dollars (apples)
-
tax dollars for recruitment and employment of felons by the military
-vs.-
tax dollars for struggling Americans in need of health care
-
I can't seem to figure out why one is accepted practice while the other if fought against tooth and nail.

Red, I have been an advocate for same price medical service, when all customers pay the same cost and all prices are listed before service is rendered. There is no reason the government and insurance companies should pay a rate that is less than someone without insurance. If people knew the cost they would be wiser consumers of healthcare.

To your late and tepid answer, you failed to support it, as did the original poster who admitted to overstating his/her position.

"most of the money goes to the insurance industry and the so called not for profit executives"
-
I would like to see your support for this claim.
-
Actually RAF, there was a story in the Milwaukee Journal a couple weeks ago about a local practitioner who is taking on patients who pay him directly instead of going through their insurance. He calculated that insurance costs amounted to 60% of his overhead - so he dropped his rates 60%. He continues to earn the same salary as before but has eliminated the middle man and made health care affordable for his patients.

To your continued dwelling on the military and healthcare...I fail to see your logic. One is gainful employment; receiving wages and benefits for services rendered. The other is just giving. Hardly the same. Your attempt to portray past or current indiscretions that some people might or might not have is also irrelevant; in other words a red herring.

As I said, apples to oranges.

"The article you posted gives no proof that Massachusetts identically modelled their plan from a plan that was a proven failure"
-
You are indeed thick. The mass plan is a failure. The current dem leadership used that plan (from mass) as a model for the current obama care that is now law.

RAF,
The article you posted gives no proof that Massachusetts identically modelled their plan from a plan that was a proven failure. The article does claim that the Massachusetts plan and the Obama health care plan are nearly identical. The article then goes on to quote Mit Romney, who signed the plan into law, as saying "no other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured." So, former Governor Romney, who appears to be on the short list for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012, signed health care reforms that "almost perfectly mirror" the Obama Health Care plan in to law and boasted about the benefits of those reforms. Interesting. I'm liking Obama's chances for reelection already.

RAF,
I agree that both of these help people. However, the military example of convicted criminals (numerous felons) being given a chance to earn a military paycheck and government benefits at the taxpayers' expense is a reality whereas the health care example in which, it appears, taxpayers do not want to pay for the health care of a person of lesser means because they may or may not have made unwise lifestyle decisions (not a crime) is not a reality. I'm not trying to offend anyone. I'm trying to point out inconsistencies in policy and logic.

"I wasn't really trying to make a comparison. I was just making the point that if the military can use tax dollars so recklessly, as other government departments most assuredly do, why does it seem so irresponsible for the government to try to work out a way to provide health care for all citizens?"
-
You did make the comparison.

I agree, there is waste in all parts of federal spending. You righteous attempt to point out that hiring people that made mistakes in life is wasteful is troubling, considering your other points of view, wanting to cover all people for healthcare. Either you are striking out like a wounded child at an area you think might offend people or your are unable to discern that both of these help people...something you claim you want.

"Also, RAF, what proof do you have that bad decisions are not being repeated by the criminals that the military is recruiting?"
-
Since I have not the time nor inclination to track each approved waiver in any or all service branches and track their career progression the answer would be none; better defined as a rhetorical question. Here is another example of one, what proof do you have that people that failed to get insurance before becoming sick were acting responsible?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...

"What proof do you have that the Massachusetts plan is 100% identical to a failed plan? Sounds like speculation."
-
Of course it sounds like speculation to you, you never bothered to look up the facts because you echoed the idea as a great one no matter the results.

Here is one of many stories; "http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/05/obamacare_increases_costs_wait_times_98176.html"

More information on criminals being recruited and serving in the military.
"...one out of four Army career enlisted personnel had committed one or more criminal offenses while on active duty."
"
"One measure of the overall problem is provided by the record of a special Defense Department screening program called the Personnel Reliability Program, or PRP, which is designed to ensure that only persons of sound character were assigned to duty involving nuclear weapons. Between 1987 and 1990, three individuals approved by the PRP committed murders while on active duty."
-
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...
http://dvmx.com/Flyer_Report.pdf
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/07/s...
-
RAF, I wasn't really trying to make a comparison. I was just making the point that if the military can use tax dollars so recklessly, as other government departments most assuredly do, why does it seem so irresponsible for the government to try to work out a way to provide health care for all citizens?

Also, RAF, what proof do you have that bad decisions are not being repeated by the criminals that the military is recruiting? The article I posted also states that "The number of waivers issued to active-duty army recruits with felony convictions jumped to 511 in 2007, from 249 in 2006." That's ACTIVE-DUTY for those not reading closely. This would imply that more service people are becoming felons for the first time or poor choices actually are being repeated by those criminals that were already recruited.

andre,
I'm sorry I wasn't able to see what I'm sure was a brilliant and insightful comment before it was removed. Glad to see that you're keeping it classy.

RAF,
What proof do you have that the Massachusetts plan is 100% identical to a failed plan? Sounds like speculation.

"They want patience for the Bush Tax Cuts that have proven in no way to be beneficial except for keeping the rich rich,"
-
Tax cuts don't keep people rich. Tax cuts allow people to spend more of their own money. If you don't want to spend more of your own, by all means send more to the government...after all, if you are person of conviction supporting your ideas by standing behind them is a good way to prove you are right.

"Stopping after failed attempts is an attempt to stop progress. If the Wright Brothers or Thomas Edison or FDR of Abraham Lincoln stopped after failed attempts where would we be today."
-
You are really clueless; trying to compare a repeated failed plan, like mass, with attempts to create a flying machine. Do you think the wright brothers copied the plans from flying machines, that failed to fly, and without changes attempted to fly them again?

Expecting different results from the same actions is the furthest thing from advancement. Expecting a different result because you think it's better is akin to sticking your head in the sand and pretending you have the ability to change the results because you think it will be better.

"So, these criminals are worthy of a second chance via tax dollars, but those of lesser means that don't have health insurance are not worthy of comprehensive health care via similar channels? Interesting logic."
-
Your attempt to equate personal bad decisions, that have been corrected and not repeated, with failures to provide personal insurance coverage is like comparing apples to oranges...keep trying.

Stopping after failed attempts is an attempt to stop progress. If the Wright Brothers or Thomas Edison or FDR of Abraham Lincoln stopped after failed attempts where would we be today. The full scope of the effects and benefits of the Massachusetts health care system have yet to be seen. Adjustments have to be made during implementation to improve the plan. That is how government programs work at any level. Yes, sometimes things get worse before they get better. That's exactly what happened with the economy under the current administration. Now coroporate profits are higher than they've ever been and the holiday consumer spending looks very strong. Why is there so much patience from the right for Republican ideas and nearly none for those of the Democrats? They want patience for the Bush Tax Cuts that have proven in no way to be beneficial except for keeping the rich rich, but want the Obama Health Care plan repealed after a few months. Hypocritical, no?

"An increase in the recruitment of individuals with criminal records is a result of the strains put on the military by the Iraq war and may be undermining our military readiness."
-Henry Waxman, former chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
-
The 2006 and 2007 Pentagon data released Monday show for the first time the number of dispensations issued for specific felonies. The number of army waivers for aggravated assaults with a dangerous weapon rose to 43 from 33. Waivers for burglaries increased to 106 from 36.

Waivers for possession of narcotics, excluding marijuana, rose to 130 from 71 and for forgery to 56 from 26.

In the Marine Corps, waivers for burglary convictions rose to 142 from 90, while those for aggravated assault increased to 44 from 35.

The army also listed a handful of felony waivers granted for kidnapping, making terroristic threats, rape or sexual abuse, and indecent acts or liberties with a child.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/world/...
-
So, these criminals are worthy of a second chance via tax dollars, but those of lesser means that don't have health insurance are not worthy of comprehensive health care via similar channels? Interesting logic.

"I think we should expect society to keep us as healthy as humanly possible so that we can continue to work as hard as possible at that job."
-
Many people disagree that this is societies role.

" Perhaps these people don't realize that our tax dollars go to the military recruitment of felons"
-
Your ignorance runs deep. All services require exception waivers to hire a felon, as such, there is no targeted recruiting of them. For example a person who was caught shoplifting a pack of gum at age 12 might also require a waiver. Some people that make mistakes in life are worthy of a second chance, these people can apply for a waiver; if granted may then apply.

"As for the Massachusetts health care system. It has not been in place for very long, as you stated. To expect no problems and smooth sailing right out of the gate is not a "realistic view". I'm sure you are aware of that. There will be lines. There will be high costs."
-
The waiting period and the costs have escalated, in comparison with other states, showing the implementation has resulted in the opposite of what was intended. How you can declare that as bump in the road is ignoring the obvious...the plan made things worse not better.

Your assumption that conservatives would like to slow progress is absurd; if you think stopping failed attempts is slowing progress you are laking in cognitive abilities of realistic thought. There are many things that need changed in the healthcare model, yet most of these were not placed in the bill put forth by the current dem leadership.

One more thing,
A lot of people on the right try to stand on some kind of moral high ground regarding funding people that make "bad" life choices. Perhaps these people don't realize that our tax dollars go to the military recruitment of felons and others that have made "poor" life decisions and paying them to serve and defend this country. Is this really ok by the standards of people that think that their own judgement of other people's lifestyle is enough to withold health care?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/1...

RAF,
Your condescension makes it difficult to dignify your remarks with a response, but I'll give it a shot.
Of course I realize that people do get sick and do not live forever.
It would be ridiculous for the government to create funding for health care programs without giving the tax paying public plenty of advanced notice, so they could plan accordingly. Yes, I said we should be able to keep our people healthy whatver the cost. I did not say that Americans shouldn't be made aware of the costs without prior notice. I completely agree that people shoud expect no more of society than they are willing to give. Society expects us to work hard at whatever job we can get. I think we should expect society to keep us as healthy as humanly possible so that we can continue to work as hard as possible at that job.
-
As for the Massachusetts health care system. It has not been in place for very long, as you stated. To expect no problems and smooth sailing right out of the gate is not a "realistic view". I'm sure you are aware of that. There will be lines. There will be high costs. Things may get worse before they get better. That is life. The American spirit of ingenuity should not be stifled because there might be bumps in the road. Pioneers, explorers, inventors, generals, presidents, and many others have been attempting and accomplishing difficult things for centuries in this country at incredibly high costs. In many cases those costs included scores of human lives. Now conservatives would like to see this country slow progress to a crawl because trying to save human lives might cost money. It's like the American dream in reverse. Sadly many Americans have been convinced to perceive this man made idea of currency as the most important thing in their lives. I agree wholeheartedly that if you can't afford dinner at a fancy restaurant or a home theater system or a jet ski you should not have them until you can save up enough money to purchase them if you so choose. I don't agree that if you can't afford to pay for insurance to have a doctor look into a nagging pain that just won't go away, that you shouldn't be able to see that doctor until you can save up enough money. By then it may be too late.

It shouldn't be up to our government to decide what's best for the American people! It starts right there. As I said before, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
We've been minimized to Uncle Sam playing God now because the American people have put them in a position of being the "beggar". We can't unite because we're too disconnected. Everything bad that's happening with this society we're in has happened due to OUR collective, poor thinking habits. In essence, we're reaping what we've sown. If folks pay attention to history, they'll see that ignorance and apathy are not a healthy state of mind! The U.S. Government wasn't designed to decide what's best for us. What's best for us is our government protecting us from THEM!

andre,
your assumption that all people that have difficulty affording quality health care insurance on a relatively low income all have "cell phones, computers, big screen tv's, xboxes, etc" is ridiculous. Your assumption that they all expect other people to pay their medical bills is completely off base. Your third assumption that they don't pay taxes is beyond ludicrous. Taxes are taken out of their pay checks just like everybody else.
Perhaps you wouldn't be so against my views if you weren't so obviously ignorant about those less fortunate than you.

"this nation has accomplished far more improbable feats in its history than establishing true universal health care."
-
Have you no clue what this has done to some of our states that have tried it? Mass instituted their plan a short time ago. They now have some of the longest wait times for care in the nation. They now have some of the highest costs in the nation. How is that a better plan?

Before you begin thinking a panacea program will be better, why don't you look at what these programs actually have happen when implemented. Doing the same thing over expecting a different results is not sanity.

"When I start believing that the U.S., the greatest country in the world, can't find a way to keep every willing citizen healthy, I'll just go ahead and off myself to take away any potential burden I might impose on the system."
-
You seem to forget we are all mortals, no one lives forever. All people will get sick. All people will pass on.

The decisions we need to make are two fold, personal choices and societal choices; concerning healthcare. You might not like the realistic view of things, but they are what they are. People should expect no more help from society than they are willing to give themselves; you can only help those that want help.

To that end a line is always drawn, that is life. At what level do ask a person to donate and at what level do you declare a person has donated enough? This is the issue you brush passed as whatever it takes...that is not a number or level the rest of us want. You can't plan your life or business around knowing whatever it takes will no longer be yours. How do you plan to purchase a home, pay for daycare, health insurance, orthodontists, kids college, and life's emergencies without knowing what you have left.

It is time you realize that fantasy and reality are two different places to live.

andre,

As a society we have the means to provide every single person with the best possible health care available. We have allowed the "free" market to inflate prices to the point where it has to be decided who deserves health care and who doesn't. Health insurance is available to most, but to many the insurance they can afford has high deductibles that deters them from screenings and check-ups and would bankrupt them if they needed care for any significant length of time. There are millions of people in this country that have to get by on less than $20,000 a year. They work incredibly hard but work in areas that are viewed undeserving of higher wages. Not only does society currently tell them they do not deserve a decent wage, and they also do not deserve reasonably priced health insurance/care, but they make just a little bit too much money to qualify for public assistance. With those cards stacked against them and with little money to work with in the first place, is it any wonder that they don't purchase health insurance?
-
Also, I have donated and will continue to donate as much as I reasonably can to individuals and various free hospitals to take care of those uninsured people that I do and do not know. I'm not worried about being more compassionate than anyone. Leave it up to the conservatives to turn it into some kind of competition. You guys just can't let go of the idea of winners and losers can you?

RAF,
You make it sound as though I'm calling for a Mercedes in every garage and a personal chef in every kitchen. When I start believing that the U.S., the greatest country in the world, can't find a way to keep every willing citizen healthy, I'll just go ahead and off myself to take away any potential burden I might impose on the system. Your "can't do" attitude is a real downer. I'm sure you would call yourself realistic, but this nation has accomplished far more improbable feats in its history than establishing true universal health care. I'm not trying to escape reality. I see people going through some of the worst kinds of hardship almost every day. I myself have gone hungry a number of times in my life. I know how hard it is out there, but to look at it like some people are going to win so some people have to lose is just heinous to me when it comes to health care.

The old cliche' "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" has never been more prevalent than right now in this day and age we live in. The best time to plant a tree is TEN YEARS AGO! The best time to change the oil in your vehicle is before the engine blows! The best time to make your mortgage payment is before they take your home away! Education is the best preventative for dealing with health care. The best way to not be a "customer" to the healthcare industry is to be proactive in wellness! Deal with the problems at their source rather than wait until we're sick. It's time to stop funding one of the biggest, corrupt corporations on the planet...the pharmaceutical industry and start investing in our bodies!

Dealing with issues and responsibility is a tough choice for you. Pretending to live in a world where all wants can be filled, is an easy way to escape from reality.

RAF and andre have inspired me. I will now be making donations to convicted child murderers to try to make their accomodations better in prison. I just want to show them how much I appreciate them for killing children that would have become adults that might have become a burden on the health care/insurance system. I don't know how much a human life is worth, but a human death seems to be pretty valuable! I'm glad I finally get it. Thanks.

packolies free is a relative term. If it from a compensation package, part of income, how is that free? Aside from the little game of what if, I still cost you nothing so relax.

"Early detection through preventative screenings makes it much more treatable."
-
There is no such thing as a preventative screening. Anything found in a screening has already occurred. The only thing screening provides is early detection and possibly sooner treatment, none of this guarantees a cure. Treatment and curability depends on the type of cancer not the onset of treatment aside from catching certain types before metastasizing.

"Those with no insurance are almost being given an absolute death sentence."
-
Hardly. First, personal responsibility is the most important aspect of healthcare. Currently healthcare insurance is a choice...yes a choice. Debating who can and can't afford it, has been done based on the levels set for medicaid and other such need based programs. Many people have decided they don't want to spend their limited money on health insurance; their choice, just like smoking and unhealthy eating. Insurance protection after being sick or diagnosed is the same as expecting to purchase home owners insurance after your house is on fire; no one likes to pay for these things, they do in case it is needed.

"All the talk of spending cuts to pay for tax cuts infuriates me when the spending cuts should be used to provide everyone with health care"
-
All, already have access to healthcare, you just want them to have more than they do. Forgetting the first part is something many in this debate seem to do.

"So your question on what my government insurance costs you and I is zero"
Now come on now>> Raf<< while it's great that you have moved on to a job which still provides health care insurance, let's face it you will always have government insurance to fall back on if you become unemployed, and I don't think that is free.

My friend could not afford to purchase any healthcare insurance option available to her because she did not make enough money. She would not have been able to sustain herself had she been purchasing health insurance.
-
I value a society's health down to the last individual member of society above all else. In an advanced nation such as our own, there is no reason that we can't reallocate dollars to a single payer system to be able to sustain it. All the talk of spending cuts to pay for tax cuts infuriates me when the spending cuts should be used to provide everyone with health care. Obviously there would have to be rules. Smokers and people that constantly eat an unhealthy diet would have to pay some kind of penalties. The government would have to hold people accountable for their own unhealthy decisions as we would all be taking care of each other through tax dollars. In my opinion, the investment would certainly be worth it regardless of the potential for deficits. How can we really put a price tag on people's health.
-
I realize that cancer is not 100% preventable. Early detection through preventative screenings makes it much more treatable. Those with no insurance are almost being given an absolute death sentence.

Personal wants are and will always be different than societal wants vs. needs. I do empathize with your friend as I also have family members inflicted with cancer. Without knowing your friends position in life or his/her circumstances I will not go into question the reason they did not purchase available healthcare insurance products before infliction.

Declaring the best choice for our society is single-payer appears to happen along political leanings. Those that want more state control also want government to control care. Why these same people don't look at what other countries have experienced with this and what has happened to some of countries states that have adopted this astounds me.

Cancer is far from preventable.

Preventative care is a "need" unless you "want" to get cancer. The best theory I've heard to fund these ideas: Single payer. Push insurance companies out of health care. Drive down health care costs. Pay for it through government subsidies. Everyone helping everyone no matter the cost.
I have a friend going through cancer. This friend worked in the restaurant service industry and had no insurance. Now they've come up $10,000 short to pay for chemotherapy to fight the cancer. By your definition, chemotherapy is a "want". Am I correct? At what point should society look at my friend as in "need"?

I never stated she was a person I want my kids to follow through life, just mentioned her book.

Since care must not be refused your other positions are something you “want”, in addition to what already has to be provided by law. Wants are something a modern society must balance against needs as there is not a limitless source of funds. Again, how do you change the system to fund your wants and balance those against current needs?

RAF,
Ayn Rand was a perscription drug addict who once declared herself "the most creative thinker alive".
I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know how to restructure society. I do think that we have enough great thinkers in this country to make it happen. I'm also not selfish enough to think any health care system that denies even one individual any type of health care(preventative, emergency, pharmaceutical) is not an inherently bad system that needs to be changed.

"Weren't you among those that bashed me for calling a significant percentage of the electorate ignorant and uninformed?"
-
Correcting you on false stated facts have been many. I would have never argued over an uniformed electorate, unless it was posted in a completely lopsided position as in "all voters from this party are, but voters from this party is not" or "all voters who voted for this person are and voters for this person are not". Feel free to dig up any real quote to state otherwise, until then your misguided recollection is just that.

"Must be a pretty significant number for such a huge industry to take aim at one man."
-
A tad bit of distortion there. The aim was placed on the "story" presented by moore by some in the healthcare industry. It is hardly a new thing for any industry to protect themselves from opposition.

RAF,
"Because others don't think he is a wacko, just like some think we never landed on the moon."
Must be a pretty significant number for such a huge industry to take aim at one man.
So, RAF, are these people that don't believe that Michael Moore is a wacko and don't believe that we landed on the moon the same people that don't know the Republicans only won the House?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-2...
Weren't you among those that bashed me for calling a significant percentage of the electorate ignorant and uninformed?
Good thing we have a plutocracy half heartedly disguised as a republic so the majority really has no chance of making an impact.

"Health care should be available anywhere at any time"
-
It is already, and has been long before the "new" bill was passed. Under existing federal law medical care cannot be refused if needed.

To your feel good claim that there should be no need for free clinics your are completely naive as to how our current society operates; nothing is free as all people and service providers require compensation for services rendered. Perhaps you should read an old novel by ayn rand on how your story book proclamation might turn out in society. Since medical care is not free in any modern country I am very interested in your idea and how you think it will work.

uww--+1 to RAF's comment. Point made perfectly when his "documentary", which is the furthest thing from impartial and objective, is used as factual information to support an argument on HCR.........

RAF,
Obviously I've heard of all those things before as I've made reference to them in other posts which you have commented on. My point, which you either already understand and are just being snarky to be snarky or are just too thick to comprehend, is that there should be no need for free clinics. Health care should be available anywhere at any time to anyone out of good old human kindness. There should be no distinction necessary between free clinics and other health care facilities.

" I think it's ridiculous that we haven't come far enough as a nation to just take care of each other no matter the cost. What does it say about Americans when we let boundless greed keep people from health care until they are at death's door?"
-
It is obvious you have not heard of free clinics, medicare, and medicaid.

"If he's such a whacko, why would an industry with nothing to hide even acknowledge a film maker like Michael Moore?"
-
Easy. Because others don't think he is a wacko, just like some think we never landed on the moon.

I do qualify for the VA and government military retirement healthcare plans. I choose not to use the VA and I also purchase health insurance through my current employer. Under federal law private insurance must be used in full before government plans will pay any amount.

So your question on what my government insurance costs you and I is zero.

In 2000 the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world mostly due to what little is provided at such a high cost and how many people can not afford access to it. I imagine things have only gotten worse since the study was first published.
To me health insurance was, is, and always will be a money making scheme between insurance companies and health care providers. Many years ago, going into the health care field was done out of altruism, a desire to help other people heal and feel better. Doctors made house calls and took items in barter when a patient was short on money. Then, at some point, someone saw a lot of money to be made from health care. Doctors were convinced to jack their prices up sky high so that health insurers could claim to "negotiate" the prices down. That way both the health care providers and the insurers were getting a lot of money. Health insurers knew that it didn't matter if the health care providers became the bad guys because they had all the medical skills and knowledge. It was the health insurance companies that knew how to make it all profitable and had no issue doing it at the expense of people's well being. I think it's ridiculous that we haven't come far enough as a nation to just take care of each other no matter the cost. What does it say about Americans when we let boundless greed keep people from health care until they are at death's door?

Ok raf I'm sure I was blowing it a little out of porportion. Insurance co's take around 3 percent off the dollar with around 75 percent going towards the acutal care and wages of the doctors nurses etc. The other 20 some percent is related to there business though but makes work for the coders and compliance people. I pay around 9 bucks an hour for one of them so called cadilac insurance plans. If you on the governent plan may I ask how much that cost.

916WI,
When a multi multi billion dollar industry feels the need to invest their time and money attempting to discredit a $9 million film, yes, I believe the insurance companies knew there was truth in Moore's words. If he's such a whacko, why would an industry with nothing to hide even acknowledge a film maker like Michael Moore?

"most of the money goes to the insurance industry and the so called not for profit executives"
-
I would like to see your support for this claim.

insurance is the biggest reason for high health care. They are a for profit business and have always been in bed with the hospitals to hide the expense and keep the pyramid scheme going. Why do you think they went along with obama when the fool said he had his foot on the throat of the industry? Funny he must have let off just in time for the political kickbacks to come pouring in from the lobbyist. Our healthcare is really not that good if you consider what we pay for it, but most of the money goes to the insurance industry and the so called not for profit executives..

Red not only are your simplistic ideas of what you think a CEO earns per hour, when you have no clue the number of hours they do or don’t work, you are also ignorant to what you think I meant by pricing rules. If you read carefully, posting prices before services are rendered are not a new concept in our competition based economy.

The reason prices for healthcare are not posted is there is a multi-tier structure built into the prices; based on who is paying. The same government that refuses to make this available for you is also the customer that pays the least for services rendered. Why do you support the government pay only 30% of a bill that a person without health insurance should pay?

RAF is right. Providers don't have to compete because people have no idea what they are being charged up front. But then again, most patients don't shop around and make doctors, clinics, hospitals compete because lets face it the patients are not covering a majority of the bill.

Incredible, a CEO of a not-for-profit healthcare facility (Aurora) pays their CEO over $1,057.00 per hour while he is on the job then pays him an additional $8.2 million dollars in a severance package when he retires but we all scratch our heads and wonder why healthcare costs so much. Is it the nurses and doctors and the latest and greatest in drug and medical equipment technology that cures my ills or is it that CEO?
-
What kind of "pricing rules" are you suggesting RAF? According to you, “…in our nations history, there has always been the opportunity for all, to achieve their own goals; for some that is wealth. Why do you have a problem with that?” What’s the problem with healthcare providers charging as much as possible? Or you think that if healthcare providers display a price chart by the door it will drive down prices? I'm sure ambulance drivers will just keep going to the myriad (2 or 3)of emergency and urgent care providers in Janesville until he finds one the patient can afford.

jayem you have it correct. Throughout this whole "reform" process, the most important part was skipped, making healthcare affordable through competition and pricing rules.

Do you purchase a TV today only to wait 30 days to find out what the charge is? The elected reps had the ability to require all prices for services and supplies be provided before any service is given...but they didn't.

Imagine if you had 2 clinics in town with 1 always charging 30% more for the same services. If you and others knew this the more expensive clinic would lose business...these are the very types of reforms the medical industry resists and the elected reps failed to fix.

uww......Smear campaign against Moore?!?!? You find it perfectly acceptable for Moore to cherry pick statistics, skew facts, figures and situations, presenting them in the forum of a documentary, that's marketed in a way that the gullible would consider to be objective reporting. When the HC industry takes him to task on his smear campaign, you chastise them for mounting their own???? A little bit hypocritical if you ask me.
The French HC program is wonderful in terms of what it offers it's citizens, but it's not sustainable. An aging population and rising unemployment are bankrupting it.
Obama's intent might be to help people, but many believe his policies will do much more harm than good. I wasn't a huge fan of Bush's decision to go into Iraq. I also shook my head when Obama decided he was going to ramp up our military presence in Afghanistan. You can't compare the money spent there to the money spent with HCR though. The military costs are fixed, relatively short term costs. If Obama's HCR was allowed to get a foothold, it would bottomless money pit that the taxpayers of this country would be shoveling money into for decades to come.

In 2009, the nation’s largest health insurance corporations funneled more than $86 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to oppose health care reform. They also spent loads of money on a smear campaign against Michael Moore. Do you think they were doing this to improve the quality of health care in the U.S. or to protect their profits? All those premium dollars would be put to better use if they had been reinvested to improve the product for the customer.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_...
-
True, the French health care system more closely resembles that of the U.S. than the UK's or Canda's, but there is one stark difference. There is not one single French citizen that doesn't have health insurance of some sort. Also, there are NO deductibles, only manageable co-pays that are suspended for those that are "chronically ill". It seems the sicker you are in France, the less you pay. The majority of health care is subsidized by the governement, and their private sector is highly regulated.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/con...
-
Another question: Why is it that the right will go on and on and on and on questioning President Obama's ability to cut spending but sat idly by while President G.W. Bush and company spent in excess of $3 trillion dollars in under ten years in Iraq? President Obama is trying to help people. President Bush got service men and women killed for nothing more than a lie. I will always be much more comfortable with a Democratic President making the tough choices.

Uww.....Of course the health care industry wanted to discredit Moore's movie as not being a true, objective documentary. That's because it isn't one--Moore comes out and basically admits to this. If you're naive enough to believe that Moore wasn't playing hard and loose with the facts when he made his "documentary", you perfectly make the point of the health care industry. You would take the position that we should be critical of the heath care industry's attempt to "highlight the horror stories of government intervention" but then give Moore's blatant attempt to highlight the horror stories of a privately run system a pass? What is interesting is that since his movie has been made, these wonderful systems in France and the UK have also been undergoing reform--in the opposite direction--toward privatization. The line "we shouldn't fear government involvement in the health care system" is the one where all credibility is lost. Consider our government's history when it has involved itself in our health care system--Medicare. Despite being subsidized by the "evil" private sector, it still manages to accumulate $500,000,000,000 in waste and fraud. We shouldn't fear government involvement in a segment that encompasses 1/6 of our economy? Seriously?

Also, I think the most important point made by that portion of Michael Moore's Sicko was that Americans COULD leave their home country and receive care that they could not receive at home. Whatever the circumstances may have been and whatever the state of Cuban health care, those Americans were able to go ashore in Cuba and receive treatment that was being denied them in the U.S. That was and still is a travesty. Americans should be able to have access to the best health care available in the U.S. for no other reason than, simply, they are Americans.

916WI
Wendell Potter admitted that while he was working as Head of Corporate Communications at CIGNA, the health insurance industry umbrella agency America's Health Insurance Plans had developed a campaign to discredit Michael Moore and the movie. When asked what he thought about the documentary Potter said that "I thought that he hit the nail on the head with his movie. But the industry, from the moment that the industry learned that Michael Moore was taking on the health care industry, it was really concerned.... They were afraid that people would believe Michael Moore."

Journalist Bill Moyers reported that PBS had obtained a copy of the "game plan" that was adopted by the industry's trade association, America's Health Insurance Plans which spelled out the industry strategies to "Highlight horror stories of government-run systems." Potter explained "The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that even if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program now, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern."

Moyers reported and Potter confirmed that there were attempts to radicalize Moore in an effort to discredit the film’s message. Moore would be referred to as a "Hollywood entertainer" or "Hollywood moviemaker" to associate the documentary as being grounded in entertainment without any basis in objective reality. "They would want you to see this as just some fantasy that a Hollywood filmmaker had come up with. That's part of the strategy." Potter said that the strategy worked and the impact of the film was "blunted" by the public relations campaign. He agreed that Sicko contained "a great truth" which, he said was "that we shouldn't fear government involvement in our health care system. That there is an appropriate role for government, and it's been proven in the countries that were in that movie. You know, we have more people who are uninsured in this country than the entire population of Canada. And that if you include the people who are underinsured, more people than in the United Kingdom. We have huge numbers of people who are also just a lay-off away from joining the ranks of the uninsured, or being purged by their insurance company, and winding up there."
Moyers, Bill. (July 10, 2009). Bill Moyers Journal: Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients. [Television Production]. New York, NY: Public Broadcasting Service. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/071020.... Retrieved July 14, 2009.
via
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko

Uww....It looks like you've got the liberal methodology down:) Moore "took a position based on facts"? That's classic! It's similar to one of those movies that starts out with the subtext "Based on a true story" but in reality has almost nothing in common with what actually happened. Remember the Cuban health care system that Moore was completely in love with--he was gushing with accolades during his dramatic "visit" to the Marine base there? Here's the latest story to come out of Cuba--
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8462844.stm
Maybe Mr. Moore would like to visit the family members of these victims to get their take on Cuba's amazing health care system.....
You're right though--a documentary "based on" facts is a great way to support a position....:)
Your second point--
No, I don't think that everyone who was defaulting on their mortgage was irresponsible-- but to give people who were incentives/rewards for simply doing the right thing and making their payments, while funding these incentives/rewards with tax dollars of people who were current and making their payments was absolutely ridiculous. A little bit of a slap in the face--"you get no help for living up to the terms of your loan, but we're going to use your tax dollars as a reward to try and get these people to start living up to theirs"......I have a problem with that.
Pelosi said what she said. You can spin that anyway you want to in an attempt to mitigate her stupidity. Try to enlighten us on what she meant to say, but it still doesn't change the fact that those are the words that came out of her mouth.
I agree that it takes time to ease into reform. Why then was a 3,000 page reform bill with a trillion dollar price tag rammed though Congress with the majority of those voting for it not knowing what they were supporting? Obama said he was going to use money recovered by ending the fraud and waste that Medicare was drowning in to partially fund his HCR. Doesn't it make sense then to actually do that--make Medicare viable --recoup the $500 billion in waste and fraud--and then go on to push for further reform? Maybe that plan makes too much sense though.......

My insurance premium is going up 13% for next year. I guess I will have to wait another year for my premiums to go down like Obama said they would. Fortunately my wife works for the government and will not be having to pay for health insurance. Maybe Obama meant that your costs will go down, but only if you work for the government.

Sarah, you should realize by now that a lot of commenters or posters, whatever they want to be called, do not have any feelings or a heart. It is very obvious. Calling Janesville my home for all these years sometimes makes me ashamed when I know people who do not live here read these comments and form an even worse opinion about our city.

vatoloco,
An undeserving individual worker may receive a pay raise during the course of collective bargaining between a business/government agency and a union. However, if the workers in the union as a whole are not producing/efficient and they still get a raise, the fault lies with the management side of the bargaining table as much as it does with the union side.

RAF,
Who makes the decision regarding the allocation of surplus money and how that money is actually allocated are but two differences between the business models of for profit and not for profits.

916WI,
Hot air problems?
Sicko is a documentary in which Michael Moore took a position based on facts. Just because you don't agree with his position doesn't mean a documentary film can't be used as a resource.
-
Your implication that only irresponsible people were targeted for principal reduction incentives is completely off base. What about the millions of people who were unable to make their mortgage payments simply because they had lost their job during the economic downturn? Were they irresponsible borrowers? Do they not deserve a helping hand? It seems like you think that anybody experiencing financial difficulty did it to themselves, and that is ridiculous.
-
As for Nancy Pelosi's comment regarding the HCR bill, she was saying that it had to pass before Americans could start to benefit from it. Republicans/Conservatives are obsessed with taking this quote out of context. Go back and watch the entire speech she gave. The broader meaning of what she said is very clear.
-
Also, it takes time to prepare for reform. That is why much of it has to be eased into and will not fully take effect until 2014. Investigating and reversing the effects of Medicare waste and fraud also takes time. That is why you have not seen any numbers yet. The President has a lot to do. It would be nice if he could give his full attention to every problem facing this country, but that is obviously impossible. I find it interesting that President Obama is expected to be some kind of super man, but President G.W. Bush always seemed to be given the "he's just one man" pass.

Sarah......If you're going to quote me, please be accurate when using the quote. Also, make an attempt to spell the words used in the quote correctly.......:)

Panama--Stay on point.......This discussion is about HCR. We could spend all day discussing the complete lack of rational thought that has plagued the Obama administration. One of my favorites was when Obama wanted to give irresponsible borrowers who had entered into mortgages that they couldn't afford principal reduction incentives to begin making their payments on time! Reward greed and/or stupidity and punish those who were responsible? Huh? Good job Obama! Let's stick with HCR though--A $1 trillion, 3000 page bill that was rammed though Congress so quickly that that the #3 in command declares "we have to pass it, to find out what's in it" is definitely an example of the Democrats crossing the line from ignorance to blatant stupidity!:) I want to know, if we were in such desperate, immediate need of HCR, why don't the majority of provisions kick in until 2014? While we're on the subject of completely screwed up government health care programs, how is Obama doing on recapturing the $500 billion of Medicare waste and fraud he was going to use to fund his mess of a program? Where are those figures? Surely after his passionate speech where he made his plans known, he got right to work on making his claims a reality........right?

Uww--comprehension problems? Read my post again--I never claimed that people who disagree with me were stupid, what I did say that when people are clueless enough to use movies to support a policy position it's going to result in a discussion that goes nowhere........

"Businesses make profit. Employees earn wages."

The fed keeps losing money and keeps building up massive debt yet government employees get a raise and don't lose their jobs while private sector employees lose theirs.

"They can increase productivity, sales or efficiency and, in nearly all cases, they will not receive an increase in pay unless their superior deems them worthy of a raise."

Government unions do not necessarily break any efficiency or productivity records yet they get an increase and get to keep their jobs.

Explain this one, the article is even from the Washington Compost.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal...

"Comparing an employee's wages to profit is ridiculous"
-
Are you really that clueless? A private doctors office, for profit (the evil kind through your eyes) or non-profit, is the same as any other business. Receipts received above expenses can and do result in wage increases, the same business model used in both for and non profit offices.

Ezoner wrote: "You must buy healthcare or be jailed or fined."

Partial falsehood there. No one can be jailed for not buying health insurance (or not paying the resulting fine).

“As far as the GOP and it's "negative advertising" regarding the bill. I guess if informing people about what actually is in this bill constitutes "negative advertising" then yes, they are probably guilty of it.........”
Where do we begin 916WI? Lets see, from the GOP exclaiming there will be “Death Panels” in the healthcare reform bill, to insisting that climate change could not have possibly resulted from decades of dumping, pumping and belching contaminants in to our atmosphere regardless of the evidence, to believing that either the poor choose to live in poverty or that it doesn’t exist, to insisting “the trickle down theory” is a viable economic model, to insisting tax cuts actually promote long term economic growth. Yes 916WI it’s plain to see the GOP is out in front of what is actually going on in America and how best to solve our problems using pragmatic and realistic approaches. That must be why we ended up trillions of dollars in debt, fighting two unfunded wars and the highest unemployment since the Great Depression. Is that when did the GOP “crossed the line from ignorance to blatant stupidity”?

916WI,
It's immature enough to call everyone that doesn't agree with you stupid and then run away, but to encourage others to do so is just plain uncivilized. vatoloco knows how to hold his/her own. She/he doesn't need you to hold his/her hand.

vatoloco,
You linked your post to the article that states liberals are anti-God. You used it as a reference. That is how you made reference to liberals being anti-God. If you don't believe the entire source to be credible you shouldn't use the source at all. If you do believe the entire source to be credible than you believe all liberals are anti-God.

Also, poor business practices by an employee do not have a direct effect on their wages in most cases. Once again, someone has to decide to lower their wages or terminate them for poor performance. That is not a profit loss. That is a punishment.

RAF,
Businesses make profit. Employees earn wages. Comparing an employee's wages to profit is ridiculous because in most cases they have no real control over increasing their wages. They can increase productivity, sales or efficiency and, in nearly all cases, they will not receive an increase in pay unless their superior deems them worthy of a raise. That is not profit. Profit is more directly connected to improved business practices. Profit doesn't necessarily lead to increased wages for a person.

SarahB1--The reforms will absolutely not save money in the long run. Please reference Medicare if you want a perfect example of fraud and waste within a government program with no accountability run rampant. As far as the GOP and it's "negative advertising" regarding the bill. I guess if informing people about what actually is in this bill constitutes "negative advertising" then yes, they are probably guilty of it.........

Vato--It's pointless to argue with these people. I agree with you 100% and thanks for the laugh:) When the libs start regarding Michael Moore "documentaries" as an actual account of what is going on in American society it's obvious that they have crossed the line from ignorance to blatant stupidity and it's time to walk away from the discussion.......

I cannot believe that people just do not see what is happening.

Forced sexual touching in airports
You must buy healthcare or be jailed or fined.

This congress has never read the constitution. If you put on the rose colored glasses to see only the good things in the healthcare bill one must ask why did the entire system need to change to implement those items. They could have been done without a completely new system. It has to do with a loss of your own personal freedoms. Get a clue people.

"those social programs were never designed to "cure" or eliminate poverty."
-
Some people have no idea about history and what our presidents say. Pres Johnson said during his state of the union address in 1964 "Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it". Following this address congress enacted the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and the Social Security Act of 1965.

The plan has failed to "cure" it...that was the intention from the beginning.

For one thing, vatoloco, those social programs were never designed to "cure" or eliminate poverty. For another, they do cure poverty for most people, as statistics show that the lifetime draw of benefits is pretty limited for most people. A small fraction represent the chronic poor of which you speak.
.
For yet another, the US has followed some pretty clear policy directions since about 1980 that have concentrated wealth more and more in the hands of a few while the vast majority of the country has seen little benefit, even as GDP has increased faster than the population. Thus the continued prevalence of poverty can be seen as a direct result of tax, tariff, and monetary policy rather than an affront to, as you seem to think, the billions spent on social programs.

can gov. hold people acountable ? overflowing prisions say YES WE CAN !

What? No angry comments? But I thought this was all so bad...

"vatoloco, your false premise is that the only purpose for being liberal is to make everyone rich."

No Zoom, I think you miss the point. My point-Why are the poor still poor after 50 years of social programs that are designed to equal the gap between those who have and those who have not? We as a nation have exhausted billions of dollars to cure society of poverty, homelessness, healthcare, and on and on and yet the liberals still believe that expanding the role of government is the key to solving all these social issues.

vatoloco, your false premise is that the only purpose for being liberal is to make everyone rich.

"Conservatives, as a rule, are obsessed with proving that liberals are only engaged in politics for psychological reasons."

All I can say is that the poor are still poor so what is the true purpose of being liberal?

"The reforms will save money in the long run."

Come back to us Sarah, to quote Pink Ployd, "How I wish you were here"

"Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail? "

"Something needed to be done that makes healthcare affordable to more than just the wealthy."
-
Agreed some things needed to change and still do because they aren't fixed in the latest bill. But mandating IRS 1099 form changes (to name only one) on business people have nothing to do with fixing healthcare...that is the problem with this legislation. The people in charge of the admin, senate, and house decided to toss things into "reform" that have nothing to do with reform while not giving their own members a reasonable period of time to even read it, by their own admission.

There is a big difference between meaningful reform and an additional bloated government entitlement program that will only grow well beyond budget expectations; just as every other entitlement program to date.

'Im a little unclear as to what "heresay" is. Is it anything like "theresay" or maybe "everywheresay"?

Your response emits frustration I see.

"At the most basic level, the Liberal is anti-God."

I am glad you took time to read abut yourself, But, please point out to me where I made reference to ALL liberals being anti-God? You mentioned it not me.

However, why is it that some, (not all) liberals bash Christians but everyone else is supposed to be tolerant of transvestites, gays etc?

Red stopping something that hasn't started is not changing anything, it is leaving somethings the way they are.

"You know the link with the word "commie""

No I don't, really?, does it have the word commie?

Another trait of a true liberal. Talking down to people.

"I was just pointing out the innacuracy of your claim that all people that are paid for their services are involved in profit based endeavors."
-
Hardly inaccurate. As defined non-profit means zero profit. An employee at a non-profit is making a profit for themselves, if not how could they live? If they were non-profit employees you would only pay them for their expenses to and from work and a reciprocal value for expelled calories. Paying employees wages above that is a profit for the employee. Paying a wage to cover their expenses for living at home is a profit...guess you fail to understand capitalism as well.

"As I said, change your own model if you want, stop trying to declare it all has to change for something you want."
RAF, isn't that exactly what the conservatives are now trying to accomplish by threatening to repeal health care reforms? The government is simply mandating insurance companies follow specific rules which are designed for the inclusion of Americans, not exclusion. Something needed to be done that makes healthcare affordable to more than just the wealthy. Everyone agrees more reform is necessary but at least the process has begun.

I love the 12th reason. Yeah...like the government is the perfect model to hold anyone accountable. It's like relying on islamic terrorists to handle security services for the Prime Minister of Isreal.

walk into nearly any doc office in japan... MRI, $100 to $200, no appointment. try that here. one of my dr's is trying to get a MRI appoved for a family member for a VERY good reason... but no go, she not nearly dead yet.

http://tinyurl.com/2arf3tv

12 reasons to support healthcare

RAF,
I'm perfectly within my rights to declare whatever I want to declare. Of course I realize that non-profs have margins set for salaries and expenses. I was just pointing out the innacuracy of your claim that all people that are paid for their services are involved in profit based endeavors. Your exact quote was: "Your idealistic approach sounds great until you start paying people to provide services, then you realize it is all profit based..."

SarahB1: Maybe you can answer why Obama granted unions exempt from the health care bill? Also exempted a few of his favorite companies--111 of them, I believe. Oh, and congress doesn't have to use this wonderful system of health care. We will find out more about this "wonderful" bill as days go by. We just had to "pass the bill so we could see what was in it." You talk about fear mongering, we haven't seen anything yet. Who can know what's in a 3000 page bill? They have rolled out the goodies (coverage for 26 year olds, prevention coverage and pre-existing conditions coverage) as bait but wait until the bill comes. You think you can add these things without adding higher premiums?

uwwalum,
You do realize that, in most cases, not-for-profit agencies all have different internal margins set for items such as salary and expenses right? You also realize you can take your medical dollars to a non-profit place if you choose. As I said, change your own model if you want, stop trying to declare it all has to change for something you want.

Conservatives, as a rule, are obsessed with proving that liberals are only engaged in politics for psychological reasons.

vatoloco,
I took a look at the site that you linked to your post. You know the link with the word "commie" in it. It didn't take me long to find this gem:
"At the most basic level, the Liberal is anti-God."
-
Wow. I better start praying for forgiveness. I had no idea that I was anti-God.

I'm a little unclear as to what "heresay" is. Is it anything like "theresay" or maybe "everywheresay"?

vatoloco,
I feel like you're holding back. You should really just let it all out.

Correction:
Yeah, like I want to take healthcare advice from an obese Michael Moore.

"It's not free to help out our fellow human beings."

"Liberals are obsessed with demonstrating their putative "moral superiority." Thus even though they live their lives without really helping anyone, the political activism they engage in is dedicated to convincing themselves that they are truly good people. Liberals are driven by the need to validate the unspoken assertion that "I care more than you do," which is ironic in the extreme since none of the government programs liberals have designed can be shown to have an overall positive influence in our society."

http://www.armchairviews.com/commie.htm

"It sucks money from consumers and provides nothing in return."

What does the fed provide in return for the money they suck out of you? A first class public education?

"A close friend of mine has worked for 2 major health insurance companies and has told me that those meetings occur regularly."

Heresay.

"It hasn't really been kept quiet. I've been aware of the practice as long as I've been aware of what health insurance is for. Plus, didn't you see the film Sicko?"

Yeah, like I want to take healthcare from an obese Michael Moore.

"IMO, they are only middle men that add a significant expense to overall health care costs and provide no benefit whatsoever in improving the health care system. In what ways do they add value to our health care system?"

Tell us Red, in your infinite wisdom, how do you think the fed, acting as a middle man authority, will decreae costs when it has to hire additional workers (more fed expansion) to implement this healthcare debacle?

"The insurance and health care industries victimize people for profit, and it's wrong."

The fed (statists) victimizes and oppresses people by robbing them of their liberty (private property) and redistributes it in their quest for a "Great Society". We just might be a more resourceful society today had we not spent billions on social programs (and wars). Just think of all the progress social programs have hindered by emitting a "no incentive to work" mentality.

RAF,
You do realize that, in most cases, not-for-profit agencies pay their employees, right? Free clinics, social services, some credit counseling services just to name a few.

" letting people's well being become entangled in a business was a terrible idea from the get go. The insurance and health care industries victimize people for profit, and it's wrong. "
-
Feel free then to start up your own new market without changing those that like what they have. Your idealistic approach sounds great until you start paying people to provide services, then you realize it is all profit based...

"IMO, they are only middle men that add a significant expense to overall health care costs and provide no benefit whatsoever in improving the health care system."
-
Red, is your life insurance carrier and car insurance carrier also middle men? Have you forgotten what insurance is for? Insurance provides funding in-case of emergencies, that is the reason people purchase insurance, to offset future unpredictable and unforeseeable costs. When these events do happen the insurance you paid for covers what you asked it too.

If you find no benefit from it why are you paying for insurance?

NoLeftist,
You can dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist if you want. It doesn't make what I've said any more or less true. It just sounds like you don't want to believe that these things are true. My point wasn't that insurance companies didn't want to pay for preventative care because it kept people alive. You're cherry picking words from my post to make your point on a false premise. It is clear from reading my entire post that I meant insurance companies refused to pay for preventative procedures because over time they would have to pay out more than their profit formulas would allow. This was done at the expense of the insured person's health as was pointed out in the above article. You can try to write me off as a nut job if you want, but letting people's well being become entangled in a business was a terrible idea from the get go. The insurance and health care industries victimize people for profit, and it's wrong. Just because you want to deny it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

“Do you not understand what an insurance company does? It is in the carriers best interest to handle medical cases early before having a person get too sick, which effects the bottom line.”
Perhaps RAF, you could go in to more detail about all the benefits insurance companies provide for their customers. IMO, they are only middle men that add a significant expense to overall health care costs and provide no benefit whatsoever in improving the health care system. In what ways do they add value to our health care system?
-
Insurance companies base their rates on your age and the worse case scenario of the health risks you face at that age. Your actual physical condition is of no consequence when it comes to determining your premiums. Why? Aside from the tobacco issue, any preventative measures I take to decrease my health risks will make no difference in my premiums. Why?
Very few individuals posting here pay FULL PRICE for their health care. It is subsidized by either your employer and/or the government. Your employer passes the cost of your health care through to their customers.
We do not have a system that determines your premium based you YOUR need for health care. Without health care reform we are heading towards a health care system that provides for only those with enough assets to afford needed treatment. Basically if you don’t have the money necessary to cure whatever ails you, you die. Simple as that. Is your insurance carrier dropping you because your treatment is cutting in to their profits? Well by golly, they are a business which gives them the right to put profits over your quality of life, no matter how much you have paid them over the years. If you have enough money to receive the necessary care you need, then you will live. Should only money and our ability to pay determine the quality of our life? Technological advances prevent me from affording many new products and services which I can very easily live without but the cost of new technology is also making it difficult for many to afford health care. Whats the alternative, pay up or suffer?
-
It's clear to me why lefties can't get through life without government help.”
Another stupid comment from a clueless conservative who is more concerned with rhetoric than actually offering solutions.

1. Preventive measures cost more than becoming sick. This is false and contradicted by any sort of health management studies and the vast about of money spent by health insurance companies and self-insured companies in disease management. It is contrary, however, to the fairy tale that insurance companies "wouldn't pay for preventative procedures because paying for them kept you alive," thus your willful ignorance.

2. "...they sit around and figure out how to pay out as little as possible while collecting premiums for as long as possible." This is different than the original contention that insurance companies "wouldn't pay for preventative procedures because paying for them kept you alive."

Regardless, managing costs is what any insurance program does, including Medicare and Medicaid. If you don't manage costs, prices go up, which is the biggest problem with health insurance.

To control costs, insurance programs (whether run by the government or non-profit insurers or for-profit insurers) deny treatments not legally requred as a part of doing business. In Medicare's case, they also cut payments to doctors to the point where one quarter of all doctors are are expected to go out of business or drop out of Medicare altogether as a result of ObamaCare (CBO figures, by the way.) Those that don't drop out are forced to raise prices to cover their costs, which again leads to higher health insurance rates.

3. You've "been aware of" the practice that health insurance companies "wouldn't pay for preventative procedures because paying for them kept you alive." I suspect it would be difficult for anyone to determine what you've "been aware of" at any point.

4. "If they were not covering preventative procedures, then they were in on it..." The nice thing about conspiracy theories is they are difficult to prove wrong, which is why lefties like them so much. Perhaps you could educate the thousands of HR professionals and benefit consultants on how your "awareness" contradicts theirs.

5. "Sending out a few fliers is a drop in the profit bucket..." So health insurance companies and self-insured employers are wasting billions of dollars in care management as part of an elaborate conspiracy theory that only you are "aware" of. Got it.

6. "They want healthy members that pay them for a long time and are willing to pay for their own preventative care. That way they only have to pay for the really bad short term stuff at the end." Did your "friend" tell you that? I somehow doubt it. And again, thousands of large sophisticated self-insured companies are all in on this diabolical conspiracy.

Regardless, just reading that sentence out loud should make any sane person laugh, and again illustrates why conspiracy theories are so popular among the left. Specifically, they allow you to be "aware" of things contrary to reality.

NoLeftist,
You can call them presumptions. I'll call them the truth. Either way here are my answers to your 6 whatevers:
1. One preventative procedure doesn't cost more, but over time, yes, enough preventative procedures keep a person healthier and thus more preventative procedures occur. That does cost more.

2. NO, they sit around and figure out how to pay out as little as possible while collecting premiums for as long as possible. They have actual formulas for this. It's a sad fact. A close friend of mine has worked for 2 major health insurance companies and has told me that those meetings occur regularly.

3. It hasn't really been kept quiet. I've been aware of the practice as long as I've been aware of what health insurance is for. Plus, didn't you see the film Sicko?

4. If they were not covering preventative procedures, then they were in on it whether they intended to be or not.

5. Sending out a few fliers is a drop in the profit bucket when compared to paying for preventative medicine.

6. NO. They want healthy members that pay them for a long time and are willing to pay for their own preventative care. That way they only have to pay for the really bad short term stuff at the end. (given that actually happens of course)

I'm pretty sure no one gets through life without the government's help. For example, those roads you drive on didn't pay for themselves. Everyone helped pay for them (vaguely socialistic, isn't it?). They didn't build themselves either. The government, in one form or another, made sure they got built. It's how they get repaired when damaged as well.

No they would not fight to keep costs high. They know with each passing day as the premiums increase they are losing customers. If premiums suddenly went down by 70%, one could expect a likewise increase in the number of customers to cover the revenue lost due to decrease in premium cost. Actually more customers is what they would want. I think insurance companies are freaked about the same things you and I are which is the ridiculous cost of health care itself. Whether the middle man is doing more harm than good is a debate to have. What is driving up costs is huge demand and people making poor health care decisions because their pocket book is not covering the major portion of the bill (in my opinion.) So going along with your line of reasoning and extending it with mine, yes the middle man is likely increasing costs because it encourages irresponsible behavior on the part of consumers. Again, not in all cases, not everybody who gets cancer or diabetes displayed bad habits, but a huge portion get cancer and diabetes due to some behavior they knew was bad for them (cigarettes, drinking, laying out in the sun all day, eating cruddy foods like they will never be available to you ever again.)

"The reason insurance companies wouldn't pay for preventative procedure was because paying for them kept you alive longer meaning that they would have to pay for a lot of preventative procedures." How inane! Does anyone really believe this? Here are the presumptions;

1. The preventative procedure costs more than the cost to treat the deadly ailment after it becomes chronic and then fatal.

2. Insurance company employees sit around a table trying to figure out how to get its members sicker so they die sooner and then can't pay premiums.

3. This conspiracy across thousands of health insurance companies has been kept quiet for decades.

4. All businesses that self-insure (which is most of them in terms of membership) are in on the conspiracy, since they adopt the same medical policies that insurance companies have.

5. All the literature that health insurance companies send out about paying for health club memberships and health checkups are a ruse to hide the true conspiracy.

6. Health insurance companies want to get the sickest possible members so they die quickly.

It's clear to me why lefties can't get through life without government help.

legendre,
If most of the insurance industry's profits come from the interest from premiums collected, wouldn't they fight the lowering of health care costs tooth and nail. Don't they already lobby in Washington to keep health care costs up? Aren't many members of Congress in their pocket? It seems to me the middle man between Americans and health care is no longer necessary (was it really ever necessary?) and it is doing more harm than good. Health insurance needs to go away. I've never heard of a doctor prescribing a dose of capitalism to cure an illness.

lovemycountry,
Certainly Republican President Nixon's HMO Act turned out to be poor legislation. That doesn't mean that the government should not try to reverse the negative effects still being felt today. Also, it wasn't until the early 1980s under President Reagan who lifted most of the government regulation on HMOs that they really started to choke out other options.
(http://ushealthpolicygateway.files.wordp...)
-
p.s. lovemycountry:
I found this exact sentence from your post:
"Combined with Medicare, the HMO Act eventually eliminated the market for affordable individual health insurance."
in this article:
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index....
-
When the words are not your own you should, at the very least, use quotation marks. To be thorough, you should also cite your source.

I don't disagree that insurance companies are a business. They have policies set forth in order to make money. I think trying to go after the insurance companies is a lost cause. They will simply raise rates to maintain a profit margin or they will disappear. The real problem is escalating health care costs. Why is the market continuing to support higher and higher costs? This is the real issue. I may disagree with you about what people "ought" to have or what our government "should" do, but there is no doubt we both share the concern of rising costs. That is the real discussion. If health care costs came down, insurance premiums would as well. Most insurance companies are budgeted to lose over 100% of the money they collect in premiums. They make a small percentage due to interest from carrying collected premiums. That amount does turn out to be a large sum of money but that is neither here nor there. Costs to provide the actual care are the issue.

Also, the reason insurance companies wouldn't pay for preventative procedure was because paying for them kept you alive longer meaning that they would have to pay for a lot of preventative procedures. Plus, if/when one of those preventative procedures turned up anything that had to be taken care of, the insurance company would have to pay for that as well. Their belief is by not paying for the procedure until the insured person is symptomatic, they'll pay for chemo, radiation, etc, but really it's probably already too late. The insured will die and the insurance company will have paid less in the long run. For the insured person that paid for the preventative procedures after the insurance company refused to, the insurance company only pay for the treatment of the illness which would probably be less expensive because the illness was found earlier in the preventative procedure paid for out of pocket by the insured person. These companies knew exactly what they were doing, and that is why they have all finally been forced to do away with the corrupt practice. Now if only the government would step up and do away with insurance companies completely, we'd really all be better off.

uwwalum - hasn't the government done enough damage to the health care industry and the doctor-patient relationship already ? You do know it was the HMO Act of 1973 that gave the ultimate power to HMO insurance companies, forcing companies to adopt HMO insurance. Combined with Medicare, the HMO Act eventually eliminated the market for affordable individual health insurance. Now, the government wants to "fix" the affordability problem they created with more regulation ?

legendre,
Some people simply can't go to their "bank account and make it happen". What about those people? Should they be denied a preventative procedure? Do they deserve to get cancer because they can only get a job in fast food or at a convenience store and are not offered insurance or can't even afford to buy it when offered? What the government needs to do is step in and regulate health care costs. Every check up, preventative procedure, operation and follow up as well as any prescribed medicine should be available to anyone, and the cost should be based on income. I understand that people with more money just get to have more things, but that should only apply to big screen tv's, luxury cars, etc. A colonoscopy is not a Mercedes, and someone should not be denied this potentially life saving procedure because they're not in a high enough tax bracket. This country has allowed the health care industry and the health insurance industry too much power in raising costs to astronomical heights. It has gotten so out of control that they are basically deciding who has a better shot at living and who will probably just die. It is shameful that Americans would allow this to happen to other Americans, and it is even more shameful to read so many condoning it in their comments on here.

RAF,
The article states that this man's insurance company and most others had to be forced by the Federal government to pay for preventative medicine. This man's insurance only paid for the cancer screening after he started exhibiting symptons of actual cancer. His insurance wouldn't cover the screening 4 years earlier because it was "routine". You'd think, as you said, it would be in the insurance companies' best interest to head off catastrophic illness, but most did not until the new health care bill.

I personally think it's bull to cover adult working "children" to the age of 26. I also believe the "real" problem with health insurance is the insurance companies themselves. Denying preventive measures because of being "routine" (someone please explain that to me) now results in the insurance company paying more out on chemotherapy and radiation. Make sense??
.
And if Obamacare is so great, why aren't the senators and congressmen/women not on it? They have their own special program. Nice.

Thank you guest1234. I did a post earlier basicaly same the same thing, but not as direct. Some people just like to rant and rave and their opinion is the only thing that matters. Just shoving their opinion down the throats of others who disagree with them, they always have to have the last word.

Health care costs should be going down soon. Rumor as it that the TSA will be checking your prostate and giving free pap smears.

Prevention,
"Therefore, we will continue to see a rise in premiums and people dealing with terminal cases" Really? More people are terminal? "More and more people FORCED to deal with worst case scenario". Really? Forced? You make it sound as if the insurers are standing at the door to the hospital in some dramatic display blocking the entrance. Again, do not mistake health insurance for health care. They are two separate things. What you appear to be angry about is that insurers will not PAY for the care. That is something different altogether. Maybe your insurance company provides coverage for preventative care maybe not, but if "prevention" is important to you, and it looks as if it is, go to your bank account and make it happen. Take some personal responsibility for your own health and put your money where your mouth is.

I'm left wondering if many of the posters here actually read this article. About changing some of the regulations on insurance companies. That was about it. Just some regulations. Many insurers already did that, now they all have to. Might even save money because it could catch serious illnesses sooner, when they are less expensive to treat.
.
Did anyone else actually read that part of the article? Just the article.

There should be a NEW AGE in HEALTH EDUCATION. It's the lack of proper health education that's made this country so "unhealthy".

"Especially when the health insurance 'industry' itself provides nothing to enhance/protect anyone's health."
-
What an absurd statement. Do you not understand what an insurance company does? It is in the carriers best interest to handle medical cases early before having a person get too sick, which effects the bottom line. But keep on complaining about how much someone makes...if that makes you feel better.

Or, you could do some research and find an insurance company that pays it's ceo very little and send your dollars there to protect you.

Sure, there's a lot of credit to be given to politics, but insurance companies also play a huge part in refusing to cover routine and preventative things. That is why our premiums continue to rise because more and more people are forced to deal with the worst case scenario... such as going through the chemo, etc. because insurance companies seem to have to play everyone's doctors from afar. Therefore, we will continue to see a rise in premiums and people dealing with terminal cases.

YES! Holy cow! Somebody gets it. Your father paid his insurance and purchased the understanding and assurance that "just in case" something ever happened, he was covered. The money was paid to offset releasing your father from possible future liabilities. Thank heavens he never needed it. Imagine if your uninsured father walked through the door of an insurance agent and said, "I crashed my car two weeks ago and I want you to insure it so I can get it fixed." It sounds stupid but that's what Americans expect of health insurers! When their premiums rise because they are a wreck health wise, boy then they really are mad at the evil insurance company. It just baffles me.

Wow, Gina, you sure are naive about the role of government in our lives. Let me ask you a question. What U.S. government entitlement program has ever resulted in a net positive benefit to the citizens of this country?
Name one. And be very careful, I worded my question very precisely.

This is just like people taking out auto insurance. You pay and pay and pay, let's say you never have an accident, where does the money go? I know my father paid faithfully for all his adult life into this type of insurance, never, ever had an accident and never got anything in return. So, when people pay for private health insurance, isn't this kind of the same thing? Especially if you never need it? Just curious.

Sorry but another point needs to be made. Insurance is for...get ready for it...events that have not occurred yet. If you come to me, a health insurer, in poor health, overweight, smoker, drinker, and with diabetes, expect me to either deny you outright or cover you with strict exclusions. Why? Because the item you want insured is already BROKEN!

One thing that we forget is that we seem to have enough money for several TV's and several cars and several cell phones but no money to pay for health care???
Health care is something that you can usually plan on and save for and if it gets bad we have a house to sell and other property. Sad, for sure, but truth in a free country.
I will miss that freedom that is going right before our eyes. I love that freedom to be responsible for MY cost of living.

Many companies have no intention of paying for the treatment.

chelleandlou, It is not as common as common sense. I asure you, the insurance companies have done a cost benefit analysis to determine how much money they would save by pushing screenings. If the overall cost of the screenings for all members exceeds the cost of just paying for cancer treatment for a limited number of members, then why would they pay for the screenings? To be nice? They are not in business to provide your health care. You, like too many Americans, think health insurers are in it to keep people healthy. Quit trying to impose that good intention on them.

"The people on Medicare/Medicaid would cost the health insurance companies money whether they were on the government programs or not." Yes, they would cost money, but NOT AS MUCH MONEY. In fact, Medicare Advantage programs spend less per participant after adjusting for benefits than traditional Medicare does. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE MANAGED FOR A PROFIT.

The government, however, has decided to pull the plug on the Medicare Advantage model (evil profits, don't you know) and go the tired old route of having caring beaurocrats that have no financial incentives managing your healthcare dollars. Which is also why fraud is so rampant with Medicare (several times larger than all health insurer profits combined, by the way) and not nearly as big an issue with for-profit insurers.

"Too bad the insurance companies don't get diseases and suffer the side effects of treatments whether chemo, radiation, diseases, etc. Would they treat themselves the way they treat us?"

I guess the implication is that
1. People who run insurance companies don't get sick, and

2. They have some sort of magical health insurance that others don't.

Both are laughable. I won't even bother with 1, and I can assure you that health insurance at health insurers is worse than most, especially worse than most policies in Wisconsin.

"The government can do it for 3-5% overhead; the 'industry' is at about 15%"

The government does it for 3-5% on much larger premium (a Medicare insured costs three to four times what a commercial insured does because people are older and sicker.) Add to that you have no medical management for Medicare (see Medicare Advantage discussion above) and the $100 billion a year in fraud due to the fact that Medicare is basically a big checkbook and all of a sudden the 3-5% doesn't look so good.

You leftists kill me: your leaders know all these facts but choose not to tell you because they like you ignorant. If I saw this behavior from the people I look up to, I'd resent it. Instead, you just go back for another helping of thin leftist gruel.

Soup's on!

So insurance of any kind certainly does provide a service. They purchase that liability for a price.

Insurance companies buy liability for a price determined by your risk and make bets based on probabilities. It is true they are not in the healthcare business. Of course they are for profit. If you don't like what they sell, don't buy it. If you seek compassion, empathy, and healing, see the doctor but don't expect it from the insurance company. Don't ever confuse medical insurance for medical care. Many of you, I would never buy your liability because you are too much of a risk.

Pay back to the insurance company is simple. Pay a couple hundred for colonoscopy or thousands for cancer treatments.....yes, I'd chose to spend the thousands too....NOT.

This is the number one issue I have with insurance companies other than expensive premiums. Common sense goes a long way in every aspect. Too bad the insurance companies don't get diseases and suffer the side effects of treatments whether chemo, radiation, diseases, etc. Would they treat themselves the way they treat us?

The majority of your list--with the exception of other insurances--provide a service. Doctors actually provide medical care; lawyers provide legal service. The health insurance companies provide NOTHING except a 'business', which has as its primary, legal duty, a motive to make a profit. Health care is secondary to profit. The government can do it for 3-5% overhead; the 'industry' is at about 15%. They simply exchange money. Call it class warfare if you want; call it socialism if you want--not that most can even define that term. I don't care. It sucks money from consumers and provides nothing in return.

Go to cnbc.com- results are from a review done by the good old IRS from last year apparently

buckyboy,
sure would like to read this article. let's have a link please.

NoLeftist,
The people on Medicare/Medicaid would cost the health insurance companies money whether they were on the government programs or not. So your point is moot.
Just because it is in the insurance company's best interest for you to stay health doesn't mean they're actually doing anything to keep you healthy. They're there to take money from you when you are healthy and do their best to keep it from you when you are sick.
As for all the insurers on your list, you're right. The rest of your list actually profits from trying to make you feel better when you feel bad. There is a big difference.

Noleftist, That is the best, most clear, and honest post about this issue I have seen. Totally true, and I could not have said it better. Anybody that doubts what noleftist said, go ask somebody that actually runs a hospital. That is why I have believed forever that government should not be in the health care business. Premiums go up because costs rise due to the shift in costs, plain and simple.

The level of paranoia and misinformation on the right is astounding when it comes to this topic. It's impossible to have a discussion when the two sides aren't even agreeing on what the facts are. And how can you have a serious debate with people who honestly believe the president is "trying to bankrupt this nation"? All logic is lost.

"The series of checks and balances that has to go from shareholder to board of directors to ceo is really just a convoluted way of making sure that most shareholders have no real influence on how things are run." No THAT is ignorant.

uwwalum-new article out just today that FEDERAL employees owe the government over 3.3 BILLION in back taxes. These are people employed by the government including retitred military,postal employees,as well as White House employees!! So tell us all again exactly how well the government runs things and how this health plan will not add trillions more to our deficit -so don't complain about the system of "checks and balances" in the private sector when uncle sam is worse than anyone else out there. Of course, we always have that top 2% that should always pay more in taxes to cover this shortfall, don't we?

For those who profit from others' misfortunes, how about:

Doctors
Lawyers
Chiropractors
Auto insurers
Property and casualty insurers
Home insurers and
Funeral home directors!

As for the canard that health insurance companies do "nothing to enhance/protect anyone's health": it is in their interest to see you as a member stay healthy. Either their profits go up, or their prices go down (and they get more business.)

The government, on the other hand, has absolutely no such incentives. Thus, you get government health care programs that are bankrupt and insolvent like Medicare and Medicaid: their members use medical services like water and are bankrupting the programs as a result. But at least they're not making a profit!

I don't believe that there's one for profit health insurance company that can't pay its claims, in stark contrast to the government programs.

In fact, the health insurance companies pay hospitals and doctors about 20-40% above costs (i.e. hospital profits) in order for the hospitals to be able to afford to take Medicare and Medicaid, which they lose money on. This is really the single largest reason health insurance is so expensive: because the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which are half of all medical expenditures in the country, don't pull their weight.

And it will get worse: as ObamaCare cuts $500 billion from reimbursement to non-profit hospitals, guess where the hospitals make it up? Either they will refuse to take Medicare (which many are already starting to do, and according to the CBO will get MUCH worse), or they will charge health insurers (and thus their members) even more. That's called "cost shift," look it up.

Please keep the liberal drivel coming: healthcare is a petri dish for the rotted, warped thinking of liberals to show the true nature of its perversions.

packersfan1,
I think you meant to post, "Obama isn't the savior you might believe him to be". It's important to make it clear that you don't actually know what I believe as I did when addressing you. Some mutual respect would be nice. Thank you.

ok legendre,
Don't give us the whole list then. Just give a couple examples of other industries that profit off of other's misfortune's and exactly how they do it. That would be very interesting.
The series of checks and balances that has to go from shareholder to board of directors to ceo is really just a convoluted way of making sure that most shareholders have no real influence on how things are run. To honestly think differently is to be completely naive (see also ignorant).

But a lot of industries profit from people's misfortunes. There are too many to list. What do we do about those? Also, if you are upset about CEO pay, when your proxy ballot arrives, you as a shareholder have a right to vote out the board of directors and replace them with a group that will not allow obscene pay and perks. There are a series of checks and balances already in place. It seems this argument is the good ole class warfare argument.

uwwalum, Obama isn't the savior you believe him to be.

Right on Professor. I have a good friend who works for a large health insurance company. He has told me that his company discourages health care networks from investing in more advanced technology because the expense will require the insurance company to pay out more and reduce their profit. At least one health insurance company not only provides "nothing to enhance/protect anyone's health", it also attempts to limit what can be provided by health care providers for the sake of profit. I can't imagine this is a practice limited to just one company.

packersfan1,
Read Paul Ryan's "Roadmap". He calls for cuts to Medicare benefits. Paul Ryan is not the savior you might believe him to be.

I believe this article is biased toward Obamacare. I trust Obama about as far as I can throw him. He's trying to turn this country into a socialist nation. I believe he's trying to bankurupt America. I agree with lovemycountry. Obamacare isn't a good thing. Kudos to Paul Ryan for standing up to Obama and suggesting an alternative to Obamacare. My parents are both on Medicare now. That will be reduced when Obamacare goes into effect. When are people going to realize Obama doesn't care about us? He only cares about himself. He lies constantly and never admits he's wrong.

Even if one were to accept your overbroad, if not incorrect statement, RAF, that still does not justify the obscene salaries CEOs draw. Not to mention the perks. More important, is the concept that somehow it is ok to allow an entire industry to make a profit on sick and dying individuals. Especially when the health insurance 'industry' itself provides nothing to enhance/protect anyone's health.

No more emotional than "The government is trying to steal our freedom through healthcare!" What a joke. Maybe I'll have to jump on board with newly elected Congressman Allen West's would be chief of staff, Joyce Kaufman. At a campaign rally she said, "If ballots don't work, bullets will". How's that for some change you can believe in. Not an ounce of emotion there.

It all comes down to some people make more than they should...typical class warfare emotional argument. Sadly some people forget people are placed into ceo positions to ensure the investors, stock holders and millions of people with 401k's, have their money working for them.

lovemycountry, You are correct to point out the waivers. This healthcare bill is nothing other than a power grab by government from free individuals. First the bailout, now healthcare. "We'll give you a waiver or bail you out if you do our bidding." Nice how it works that way huh? (See also the US tax code). Remember the more the government "helps" the fewer freedoms you will have because as the saying goes, "those that giveth, taketh away."

lovemycountry,
I have no idea what 14-year-old second hand connection you're talking about. The link you posted is directly from the Americans for Tax Reform website. I was giving background information on the organization that funded the study you cited. And if you're talking about the time difference between 1986 and now, that would be 24 years.
-
As for the jsonline article you posted the link to. Assurant health, a health insurance company that's part of a tremendously bloated insurance industry had to shed some jobs. That is unfortunate, but let's look a little further into the head honchos mentioned in the article:
Donald Hamm
Executive Vice President; President and Chief Executive Officer of Assurant Health
Total Annual Compensation: $2,057,577.00
(as of 2008 fiscal year)
http://people.forbes.com/profile/donald-...
-
Robert Pollock
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Assurant, Inc.
Total Annual Compensation: $6,444,198.00
(as of 2009)
http://people.forbes.com/profile/robert-...
-
Over $8.5 million in overall pay for two men. Perhaps taking a look at restructuring the CEOs' compensation packages could help Assurant adjust to the changing health insurance industry and, perhaps, save some of those jobs.

uwwalum - usually people who can't argue the facts and data attempt source smear jobs with a 14 year old, second hand connection.

Here's my point from my very first comment. These media articles are designed to sway public opinion in favor of Obamacare. I'd like to see something in the Gazette, e.g., discussing premiums going up for everyone, including employers, in consideration of President Obama stating (while lobbying to get it passed): "When it becomes law, families will save on their premiums"
Premiums for 2010 were up 10% and are predicted to keep growing at the same rate in coming years.
Or how about a story on the 111 waivers, so far, given to companies who won't need to follow the rules of Obamacare, totaling over 1M employees, including several insurance companies and unions.
130 jobs lost in Milwaukee directly as a result of Obamacare was a story the Gazette didn't pick up...
http://www.jsonline.com/business/1011018...

lovemycountry,
Here is something everyone should know about the article you cited. The study was paid for through a grant from the Americans for Tax Reform foundation. Americans for Tax Reform was founded within the Reagan White House. It was basically started as an in-house lobbying operation for the 1986 tax reform bill. It eventually became independent of the Executive but continues to fight for huge tax cuts. In fact, in 2004, The Nation magazine quoted ATR head Grover Norquist as saying, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub".

Peacenik - your link is not the same article I cited.

I find it truly amazing that most of the comments here missed the subject of the article. If Chet would have been allowed to have his doctor recommended colonoscopy at the time he turned fifty, he more than likely would not be in the condition that he is in now. He is employed and is paying what is required of him to pay according to his labor agreement that was negotiated with the county. The insurance company denied him the care that his doctor thought was necessary because of his age. Colonoscopies are a form of preventative care that is used to head off any possible problems. If he was given the test, it would have probably saved the insurance company several thousands of dollars, and more than likely his life. The part of this health care bill would have made it a requirement for the test to be completed. The whole bill may not be perfect, but it is a start. Chet, hang in there.

Old people, children that are ward of the state etc.. It is a merciful generocity to care for them. This does NOT equate to a right.

People on this thread talk about people deserving health care... We deserve things we earn.

If money grew on trees than it would be wonderful to generously provide socialized care for everybody.. Unfortunatly it does not.

The new healthcare system cannot work because there are not enough resources period..! All the blather about rights mean nothing.

well, Joe Pregont is wrong, and he's banking on the fact that most bloated americans are woefully ignorant and unable to think for themselves and will believe his remarks because "they make sense".

and also, the Republicans did make their attempts at health care reform. Take a look at the Medicare bill they passed. Cost the taxpayers quite a few billion and effectively took away state rights and individual rights concerning medicare and health care decisions. So much for "smaller gov't" and less intrusion.

lovemycountry: your article was debunked--you got to check your sources and keep up.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010102...

legendre,
I guess you've just got it all figured out don't ya. So, what would you have us do with children that becomes wards of the state due to the death or incarceration of their parents? What about the elderly who can no longer care for themselves and have no relatives to care for them either. According to your position, they deserve absolutely nothing from tax payers. Perhaps they should just be turned loose in the streets so we can all watch them die. What else could we do? Euthanize? That would probably cost too many tax dollars, wouldn't it?
-
I think we complicate things with dollars signs and the idea of tax payers and free loaders. I think it's a much simpler situation: human beings that need help from their fellow human beings.

Yes, doing well but not that well. I just take responsibility for myself and stay healthy. I make good decisions but also take responsibility when I screw up. Which means pay out of pocket if I have to, save up or sell a possession(s) to get proper treatment. I however find it morally wrong to encourage bad habits, unhealthy behavior, and poor decision making as you do by taking responsibility from the individual and putting it onto the taxpayers. I find it reprehensible. Call me whatever name you like, because in my world the sticks and stones rule applies. By the way, your quote...
"Republicans had control of both chambers of Congress for much of the past 20 years and never even attempted to reform health care." Why should they? We can argue all day an night but I fundamentally believe government is not supposed to be involved in this business so I could care less who had control of congress.

"many people will be better off for it." We shall certainly see about that.

Jesus Christ (healed the sick), people! This article is talking about the part of health care reform that changes the regulations on private insurance companies. It is like the regulations on private car insurance companies, private meat packing companies and the like. Federal regulation of industry isn't Socialism, Communism, Nazism, or Buddhism. It is a mixed economy, a free market where the government selectively intervenes to protect the consumer or improve the market, just like we already have.
.
For some perspective, see the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906. Between one-fifth and one-quarter of GDP is regulated by the FDA. The federal power to regulate private industry is firmly rooted in law and history.

ok doc,
So, you believe that citizenship status determines one's value as a human being. That seems pretty cold hearted to me. As an American, I believe the words inscribed on a plaque at the Statue of Liberty say it all:
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she with silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

legendre,
if you can afford to pay for ALL of your health care directly out of your pocket, good for you. You must be doing well for yourself. Just know that you are in a very small minority. Most people need help dealing with a health care and health insurance system that is for profit first and healing second. It is out of control. Republicans had control of both chambers of Congress for much of the past 20 years and never even attempted to reform health care. Obama has made the effort and many people will be better off for it.

UWW,
Label me selfish, but I do not believe it is government's job to take care of all people. In my time of need I will not be looking to the government to help me and I would never obligate you to pay for my mistakes, shortcomings, misfortunes, what have you. Health care costs will come down when the market dictates they come down. That is when the consumers can comparatively shop, pay from their own pockets for their healthcare, and learn to take better care of themselves. They stubbornly refuse to do so right now.

uwwalum~ I didn't say ALL on welfare, I am referring to the people who are here Illegally they are the ones that are sucking the system dry and do not even deserve to be on American Government run welfare programs, please read what I say before you go off on your holier than thou statements and try to make me look like I'm bashing American Citizens that are on hard times.... Some people just don't get it!!!

right doc, because everyone on welfare is just living it up in the lap of luxury. Oh how I envy those on public assistance. I hope I can have what they have one day.

Why does Mr. Pregont think he gets to decide who should or shouldn't be dependent on their parents? He should concentrate on running Prent and stop worrying about running American families. Secondly, how does extending insurance coverage to an age group that hardly ever goes to the doctor make a company less competitive against foreign competition? Sounds like profit is more important to Prent than the health of their employees and their employees' families. Perhaps it is because Mr. Pregont unprodcuctively spends his time whining about health insurance that he has to worry about his company being less competitive.

A Socialist Government at it's finest, now quit blogging and go to work because the Illegal Immigrants that are living here need your money so they to can live in comfort, after all we owe it to them for some reason.....

Joe Pregont, President and CEO of Prent Corp - "Insurance is being extended to young people who, “at 26 years old, should not be dependent on their parents anyway,” he said. “Our costs are increased for no good reason without any corresponding savings or productivity gains, thus making us less competitive against foreign competition.” This is just one local example of how Obamacare will cost us jobs.

and just one more comment on the "covering Jr. till 26" and increasing costs.

really the 21-26 year old range is the range of ages least likely to cost an insurance company anything. it's your young and old that cost money, this part of the bill does very little, much like the entire bill

Hate to break to you, but what providers can charge has been based on medicare and different multipliers for various regions of the country for a long time. Nothing to do with "obamacare"

and what is paid is set by the insurance companies if you're in network, regardless of what you want to charge.

legendre,
I believe that your view point is incredibly selfish. Taxes go to programs that help millions of people in this country. The increase in health insurance costs that have occurred were to be expected. Many unhealthy people that couldn't get help are now being helped. As the new health care program increases the overall health in this country, those costs should beging to decrease. However, I don't think health insurance companies will allow the costs to go down. They love profit too much, so they'll keep their rates sky high and continue to blame the health care costs and Obama's health care plan. What Obama did fail to do was forge ahead with the unpopular idea of the public option. That would have provided the competition necessary to force down health care costs and take away the insurance companies' built in excuse for astronomical premium rates.

gmaof3 I'm with you. Employers get to claim a full deduction on any heathcare they provide their employees. As for putting nursing staff out of work I'm not so sure. The Journal of American Nursing is for the plan. They say they plan will have a fund to pay for up to 90% of schooling for nursing students.

When the plan bank is open it should open up a lower cost option so small business can give their employees heath care to compete with big business for top employees.

One more thought, remember the economic law of supply and demand. The cheaper a product is, the more demand there will be for it. Forcing insurance companies to pay for all these new tests will have the effect of lowering the costs to nothing to the consumer. That will also have the effect of raising demand for these tests no doubt beyond all estimates since the consumers of these tests pay nothing. So health care providers will have no reason to control the costs, or the price and therefore the profits of these tests since that price is of no concern to the customer whatsoever and someone else, the insurance companies, will get the bill which by law they will have no choice but to pay. So, what's the alternative to that then? Will Obamacare dictate to the health care providers how much they can charge for a test and also dictate how much profit a health care provider will make? If so, won't these health care providers begin to restrict how many tests they will do since they won't get paid what they want to get paid for the tests they administer? That's the situation we have now with Medicare, a shortage of health care providers willing to take Medicare patients since Medicare doesn't pay enough. So now, everyone will be able to have free tests, but there will be few who are willing to provide the tests since Obamacare won't pay full price for service. Obamacare doesn't really solve anything.

I have used my head, and actually looked at the bill, I don't rely on getting my info from talking heads on tv. About all this thing amounted to is continuance of the status quo. yeah they have to cover Jr. till 26 and they also get a new pool of 40+million cusstomers that will get insurance on their own or with gov't help. That was the deal the lobbyists made with the legislatures. It really affects nothing. yeah they have a few more expenses, and the gov't is giving them 40 million + more customers so they have more cash flow. and if they can't afford it the gov't is paying for it. Like they do now.

all this talk about the "gov't" making your health insurance go up is nothing but marketing. They're doing what they have been doing for years, but they know you hate the gov't more right now than the insurance company, so they take advantage of it.

This sweet little insurance deal was made in washington by lobbyists, like all our other laws are these days, doing nothing for us in the long run.

Uwwalum, I would quit paying all those if the law allowed but I cannot. I will however continue to crusade against the cradle to grave welfare state that the US has become. A lot of what government does nowadays is not what I believe they should be doing. The causes are noble, but misguided, and I feel will ultimately be our undoing.

Obamacare was sold as a health-care-for-all solution for folks who neglect their health due to a lack of health care coverage. It was going to cover 40 million folks with no coverage who it was assumed couldn't (or wouldn't) afford it, particularly children and the sick. And Obamacare was sold as a way to save money!!! So we were all told stories, like the one n the story above, of people who are seriously ill due to a lack of health care, or more accurately, a lack of paid for health care. Look at the story above. Mr. Waldhart wasn't denied a colonoscopy 4 years ago, his insurance declined his request to pay for it for him. He chose not to have it since he apparently felt at the time that it wasn't worth investing his own money in the test either. So, apparently, Obamacare will now force insurance companies to buy such tests for everybody since folks like Mr. Waldhart who in hindsight should have invested in that test himself, wouldn't. These are the kinds of expenses that Obamacare dictates that will make health insurance much more expensive in the future. In short, free tests for everybody. But that's just like promising a free lunch for everybody. Nothing's free, you just get the bill later disguised as something else.

It's not free to help out our fellow human beings. Get over it. All I ever see in this criticism of health care reform is ME ME ME ME ME and I I I I I I I. "I don't want to pay for this" and "I don't want that to affect me". If you're so mad about "paying for other people", you should probably stop paying state income tax, federal income tax, property tax, social security and on and on.

That's true classy but obama/pelosi/reid et al had everybody convinced they could have their cake and eat it to! Now they're mad when 2+2 does not equal 7.

But zdog, use yur head. If Insurance companies now have to cover jr until he is 26 and cover existing conditions, rates are going to reflect that.We all have to pay for them instead of just our own health ins. Did you think it would be free?

But zdog, what about the political ploy by reform advocates that this was supposed to make insurance cheaper and more affordable?

I would like someone to show me ONE year since, let's say 1980, that premiums haven't risen. Now you want me to believe "obamacare" is the reason? Sorry, I pay too close attention to fall for that simple political ploy.

I bet in the past 10 years there's been plenty of double digit increases with NO signs of slowing down. In fact we're almost at one out of every 5 dollars spent is spent on health care right now.

The health care/health insurance industry is a big bloated pig, like so many of my fellow Americans. It's amazing how bent out of shape people get about this health care law as it will do little of what the left thinks, and is nowhere near as bad as the right thinks.

gmaof3 The health care bill will put people out of work because of the extra costs to employers now to provide heath care to its employees and as far as it discouraging hiring of new employees that is for the same reason and it discourages entrepreneurial activity it again goes with the rising costs of now providing health insurance to their staff. Plain and simple I am sure it has good intentions but has just been put to paper in all the wrong ways, not to mention all of the other things in the health care bill that have absolutely nothing to do with health care! If you doubt me sit down and read the whole health care bill sometime, it will really surprise you at some of the things included in this big scam that was forced down everyones throats, I again remind you of Nancy Pelosi's response to Republicans when they asked what was all in it and she said "we have to approve it to find out". What does that tell you right there???

gmaof3 - in short, the employer mandate amounts to a tax on labor. Just as a new cigarette tax reduces cigarette use, a new tax on labor reduces employment, while also reducing new business activity and hiring. A detailed study of how Obamacare will end 400k jobs is here.
www.atr.org/userfiles/BHI%20Health%20Car...

I'm sure those mandates help, you're right.

Premiums and costs rise regardless of mandates. My premiums have always subsidized uninsured individuals who receive health care services. Lovemycountry -- what should replace it? Does the Party of No have the answers? We certainly can't continue as we always have.

Could you explain these two please?
* Put people out of work
* Discourage hiring and entrepreneurial activity

I can tell you quotes for our company will increase about 18 percent. When you add mandates premiums will increase. Its not rocket science.

From that amazingly one-sided, biased, myopic article, one would think Obamacare was good for America. Healthcare reform was needed primarily to reduce healthcare costs. What will Obamacare do ?....

* Add $1 trillion to the cost of U.S. healthcare.
* Raise the national deficit
* Put people out of work
* Discourage hiring and entrepreneurial activity
* Increase waiting times to receive care (no new providers)
* Reduce services to Medicare patients, and
* Discourage people from entering or staying in health care.

It must be repealed and replaced.