Canadians Tell it like it is to Krugman
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.as...

Are you reading the truth, or what Editor Scott Angus wants you to hear ? It seems Mr. Angus has taken up censorship on other articles on the Gazette Extra.....

http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2009/jul...

Sorry to disappoint all you Democrats, but I can almost guarantee you that the "evil" insurance companies will benefit BIG TIME from this government system. It will be much the same as it was with the banks. The government will essentially merge with the major insurance companies. Much like what has happened with most all of your big banks. All the top people will be taken care of; as usual (even though you will hear public statements on how they are cracking down on the very people they are helping). Your elected officials and top top officials at corporate giants (who all contribute to the elected officials) will come out of this with even more wealth and power, while the average citizen gets screwed.

Gary:
More accurately; government programs are nothing more then a giant pyramid scheme! The biggest, of course being social security. Bernie Madoff was given something like 150 years in jail for a $60 billion ponzi scheme. How many years in jail should our elected officials get then? After all the social security ponzi scheme DWARFS anything Madoff did. Medicare/cade, and soon to be government run health care, will turn out to be much like social security. A massive ponzi scheme where the $$$$ coming in can only support the $$$ going out for a given amount of time, and then comes the giant house of cards crumbling down. It really is just a matter of time before the nation is completely broke.

MikeHahn...Nah...I didn't miss the point...I made one of my own that you failed to pick up on; namely, that we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with if health / medical insurers didn't treat the insured as they do vehicles and property.

Analogies are cute...but do little to solve problems.

Here is what is coming down the pipe for Dear Ole Mom & Dad. This should scare the bejeezers out of you..
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/pos...

Whatever the outcome of the debate, the laws of supply and demand will prevail. This is true in whatever system and wherever it exists. Politicians continue to promote what is really a notion of something for nothing and eternal life and health for all regardless of cost. The simple truth is that the demand side of the equation must be accounted for. That does not mean no health care, it means individual responsibility. Health care should be purchased the way we buy a car or a refrigerator. Our local carriers have been spoiled by UAW and Teacher's Union insurance. We converted to a high deductible policy and it was an eye opener. Janesville carriers are far more expensive than elsewhere. Controlling costs requires accountability, responsiblity, and honest truthtelling by government. Both political parties, but in particular the Obama administration, have failed to do so though McCain and Paul Ryan have made some good faith efforts. If the Obama plan goes through the demand side will be controlled by rationing. The option will by even higher inflation and sky high taxes.

The Democrats Health Plan
http://www.rollcall.com/pdfs/healthchart...
TOO much government between us and our Doctors

garyprimer: LOL. Too funny, my man! I always appreciate good sarcasm.

National health insurance now! No more excuses for blood-sucking insurance companies. They are nothing more than sophisticated pyramid schemes.

"By shifting more care from cure to prevention. An ounce of prevention..."
-
Zoom, you are again making an assumption. What proof do you have that all that are not covered now will use preventive medicine? If as you say prevention is better, please provide any data that those already insured are even doing this now.

All these feel good ideas about why this would be better than what we have now does not match the details when you start to look at them from a rational and not emotional point of view.

"Hmmm, sounds like a national health care option to me. If the government doesn't set up a national option, who will? How many companies operate nation wide?"
-
Zoom, you are ignorant to current law that keeps this from happening! Under current laws all states set their own requirements for any policy sold in each state...thus keeping a national policy from being legal; if you are going to keep supporting something like universal coverage it would be wise to understand the limits the current system is forced "BY GOVERNMENT" to work under.

Zoom.......What reality are you living in? You honestly think that Americans will fall in line with the "shifting more care from cure to prevention" mindset? Americans are quickly becoming one of the fattest, laziest societies in existence. It's actually quite pathetic, and scary to an extent to witness what's going on with the younger generations. It seems like we are becoming a society where hard work is avoided at all costs and that people expect everything to be handed to them as opposed to actually working for anything. Seriously.....what is the incentive or motivation to get up and strive to do your best day in and day out, when capable, but lazy people can simply live lives of apathy and force those that work hard day in and day out to pay their way as well???? Whatever....If Obama keeps this up, we should all quit our jobs and get on the "I want free everything please" bandwagon.......Do you think he could come up with a socialized cable tv and internet program?

Zoom, you make a big leap to say that only the federal government can provide a national option. That isn't what was suggested. Current federal law prohibits purchasing an insurance plan sold in a different state than a person resides. This is silly. Why can I purchase auto insurance online from another state, but I can't purchase health insurance the same way. If a company in Minnesota or in New York wants to write the check for my health care costs, why is that wrong?

We spend too much as a nation on health care, which is why we need to raise taxes to pay more for health care.

There aren't enough jobs in the economy, and small businesses are our main engine of job growth, which is why we have to raise taxes on the small businesses that have the most employees.

There are not enough good jobs with good benefits, which is why we have to drastically increase taxes on employers based on the number of employees that get those benefits.

We are on a path to insolvency in this country because we can't afford our entitlement programs, which is why we need to develop another entitlement program.

Get it?

"The majority of proposals put forth so far address the cost issue by adding more to the roles as a means to balance the cost; how does adding millions more who can’t afford it now, lower the cost?"

By shifting more care from cure to prevention. An ounce of prevention...


"What about the cost of insurance? Why does an insurance policy in one state from company X cost change when purchased in a different state from the same company? Each state requires mandates for insurance policies, why not the same policy nation wide at the same price? Lower overhead, lower prices."

Hmmm, sounds like a national health care option to me. If the government doesn't set up a national option, who will? How many companies operate nation wide?

SuperDave, if you pay for health insurance, either through your employer or independantly, you are already paying for those who don't have insurance, in the most inneficient way possible. Emergency rooms (when their preventable problems escalate into serious problems) and tax right-offs and bankrupcy costs. Hospitals don't provide their services for free. They charge enough to cover the costs for those that don't have insurance, or can't pay their medical bills.

"This bill discriminates against the elderly and disabled."

Show me how. The elderly and disabled already have Medicare and Medicaid.

"The quality of care you will receive will be in direct relation to your ability to fit the "profile" that our overseer's prescribe to our Doctors. 5 guys sit in a room somewhere in Washington D.C. and try to figure out ways to cut costs on a money sucking system, unfortunately those cuts are in quality, quantity and changing prescriptions to fit the budget."

Substitute "5 guys sit at an insurance company" for "5 guys sit in a room somewhere in Washington D.C.", and you've described our current health insurance system perfectly.

Socialized medicine, justified by the Preamble! Folks, Mr. Eyster is a stunning example of the liberal/socialist mindset that permeates the government school system. I really hope he hasn't polluted the minds of any of your children. And he writes like a twelve-year-old girl.
Soon, almost all of us will have "free" healthcare, and we'll all be queued up behind the millions of illegal aliens. Oh, and why did I say "almost all"? C'mon, you didn't expect the politicians to stand alongside the great unwashed, did you?

"theone" - You are missing the point wildly on this. Not everyone is going to be able to afford the top of the line health care insurance. I suggest that one way to fill the gap and avoid many of the bankruptcies is to have catastrophic care policies available to all. These policies have high deductibles but would cover the cost of cancer treatments or bypass surgeries and similar procedures.

It is the same logic that is behind collision coverage on your car.

And "RetiredAirForce" hit the nail on the head with his comments about not being informed consumers. It doesn't make a lot of sense that you can walk into BestBuy and make a more informed decision about your next TV or computer (especially in terms of quality and warranty) than about most of your health care decisions.

"Eternal Vigilance Is the Price Of Liberty"
Read the entire Bill! BE VIGILANT! This piece of unread tyranny contains some very heavy chains of financial and personal enslavement. This bill includes FREE medical to all illegals. This bill is a noose that gets pulled tighter around the neck of LIBERTY with the passing of every day and year. A painfully slow but guaranteed end to liberty and if we ever want it back? well READ YOUR HISTORY.
This bill discriminates against the elderly and disabled. The quality of care you will receive will be in direct relation to your ability to fit the "profile" that our overseer's prescribe to our Doctors. 5 guys sit in a room somewhere in Washington D.C. and try to figure out ways to cut costs on a money sucking system, unfortunately those cuts are in quality, quantity and changing prescriptions to fit the budget. Then they pass it on to the next group of strangers who pull your entire health history up from the Internet "No Privacy?" Not a chance, you are going to be EXPOSED on the World Wide Net. Please read the bill and hold your Constitution close at hand.

Most people in this country have lost the meaning of rights (from the Constitution) and confused them with wants.

The majority of proposals put forth so far address the cost issue by adding more to the roles as a means to balance the cost; how does adding millions more who can’t afford it now, lower the cost?

Why not address this issue of costs directly? When you purchase a TV do you go in blind grab one take it home and wait for the bill to see what it will cost you? I would hope not, and neither should we be expected to do the same with healthcare. There are practicalities involved here; if in a car accident and the need for urgent care from the nearest or specialized trauma center of course reasoned minds can see this expedites care vs penny pinching. Why does the same hospital and doctors offer the same level of care and service at different price levels depending on what person/insurance/Medicare/group is paying? This is price reform…the same that is not addressed in anything going on now.

What about the cost of insurance? Why does an insurance policy in one state from company X cost change when purchased in a different state from the same company? Each state requires mandates for insurance policies, why not the same policy nation wide at the same price? Lower overhead, lower prices.

There are many things that should be done well before some massive new system is thrown in place that will continue on in infamy as a national entitlement.

Oh, yes, I forgot one thing...Eyster of course has to bring up Norway. Hey, John, perhaps if the US was floating on a sea of oil like the Norse we could pay for this massive increase in the nanny state. It would also help if we had a tiny population like Norway. Norway is comparatively tiny, in part, because the people who didn't like living with no chance of ever making their lives better left--for America. Just like your ancestors, right John? How many left the stagnate Norse state in the 1800s? 1/3 of the country?

Why on Earth would we want to transform this country into a socialist, cradle-to-grave welfare state like Norway and the rest of Europe? Europe hasn't produced anything of merit for nearly a century. Europeans are a dying society--they aren't even breeding enough to replace themselves. One doesn't have to wonder why, just look at the drudgery of their daily lives, run by a myriad of bureaucracies all the way up to Brussels. Why on Earth do the Democrats think that is something to emulate?

It's very amusing that the biggest advocates for socialism are often those who have never actually done a day's work--like teachers.

The blogger doesn't understand liberty. He should remove it from his slogan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys...

It's disgusting the "We The People" blogger is advocating stealing your your money to pay for someone else's healthcare...the antithesis of liberty. Liberty, the principle on which constitution was written.

" Think of it as full collision coverage on your car."

Sorry MikeHahn....but that is exactly what is wrong with todays health insurance fiasco...the insurance companies look at / and treat us the same way they insure..."cars."

This issue can be quickly resolved once you realize the moral in this short clip of Walker Texas Ranger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ5w4MkFo...

Not shameless Frank. Thanks for the info. You're on topic, which is more than I can say for the folks posting just to compain about Mr. Eyster's blogging style.

Shameless promotion: Paul Ryan and Tammy Baldwin weigh in on health-care reform in Thursday morning's Gazette.
-- Gazette reporter Frank Schultz

Why does this guy get a forum for his propaganda? He hates his Medicare system, but wants to push it on those of us that already have health care. Oh, and 10's of thousands of people are employed by the health insurance industry. Lets put them under the nanny state too (sarcasm).

Profits made by insurance companies will be replaced by government waste and fraud. How will that decrease the cost of health care?

Would it be too much to ask the Washington to put medicare in the black first, balance the budget, then we'll talk..

"...i do NOT want the govt deciding what my treatment would be or how i should have it. Thats between me and my doctor..."
-
But it's not just between you and your doctor unless you are independently wealthy. It's between you, your insurance company and your doctor. Your doctor wants to get paid, you want to get healthy and your insurance company wants to maximize its profits. The problem is the insurance company has the control, barring some external regulation. Those who want to get a single payer option (and I'm not necessarily one of them) want to remove profit as a component of Health Care (at least to some extent). Some will counter with the argument that a free market will minimize costs with each provider undercutting the others until they get to the lowest profit point they are comfortable with (or they will go out of business for being unprofitable). Unfortunately in many parts of the country there is not a lot of competition. It's also very difficult for patients to get accurate data on how much something costs (and in many cases they don't care). It's a very difficult problem to solve which is one of the reasons it has pretty much stayed the same for the last 25 to 50 years (I'm not sure how big the changes were before the HMO boom in the 80s, but since then it's been pretty stagnant).

It is a very sad day when John Eyster has become nothing more than a shill for Our Dear Leader Obama. When Our Dear Leader exhorts his followers to promote the largest government social spending program known in our country, John Eyster ever the sycophant does so with GUSTO! Congressman Ryan's Patient's Choice Act is reform; not fear. When faced with a choice between liberty or government control, even our Founding Fathers were willing to die for liberty (a fact John myopically or conveniently forgets). What happened to personal responsibility? Is it too much to ask that people actually pay for a health insurance premium? John can be forgiven for his big government mindset since for his entire career he worked as a government employee. However, whoever said that government officials are bathed in the blood of the Lamb? Are they not just as greedy, power hungry, and short-sighted as any other human being? Why then would the government sponsored health care be better than a patient-first private plan reform? If you enjoy your experience at the DMV, you will absolutely love Our Dear Leader's government health care plan.

While i value and respect Mr. Eyster as a former instructor/mentor and all around good person, i am forced to disagree vehemently on this issue. Govt. run health care is the next step in the govt slowly taking over our lives. First it was GM. Now its health care. The last thing this country needs is the govt sticking its nose into people's personal business and making more red tape the norm. "Gee...i discovered i have a cureable disease that if treated immediately has a good chance of recovery ...lets wait 9 months so that my paperwork can clear the beauracracy and a govt official make sure im actually sick and then i might get my treatment...if im not dead already". Obviously that was an exaggeration. However the larger point remains that i do NOT want the govt deciding what my treatment would be or how i should have it. Thats between me and my doctor. This is just the next step in the socialization of America and its disgusting. This country used to be that you worked hard for everything you earned and you got to keep it. Now its..."work hard for yourself...but you need to share it with others who didnt work as hard". Thats not right. While far from perfect, our healthcare system is better than most, if not all other nations. Why do doctors from foreign countries come to study medicine here and not a "govt run" country?? Because our system is better than other countries. I am very frightened that if this passes, we might as well the USA the USSR...United Socialist States of America....and that is sad.

Just a couple of quick points:

1) No one should dispute the need for reform, the question must be what form that comes in and how costs our contained while quality is maintained. I for one support a much different type of reform than Mr. Eyster, but his cause for concern is not unwarranted. I would much rather see reform in terms of cost transparency and the ability to purchase insurance across state lines for starters. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, but the goal needs to be patient first health care where all Americans can afford health care. Government should play only a minor role.

2) The fact, unfortunate though it may be, that many people do live in fear of a medical problem bankrupting them is real. This is not a result of poor planning, but of the way our system is structured. We need to ensure that high-deductible catastrophic care insurance is available to all people. Think of it as full collision coverage on your car.

3) I know Mr. Eyster quite well and his writing style - if you stress the CAPS - is exactly how he talks, with each post I can almost hear him talking. Though I disagree on how we should get that reform, I believe that this debate is EXACTLY what he wanted to happen. He's a civics teacher, what could be better than to trigger lively debate?

Firstly, my friend, lay off the CAPS LOCK. How were you ever employed educating young people when it's clearly evident that you cannot write in a fashion that is easy to follow? I mean, I know you taught government and the main job of government is to confuse its constituents to the point where they give up trying to understand it, but this is ridiculous.

[Oh, and really, Gazette--how many openly partisan hack shill cheerleaders for the DNC does this newspaper or website need? Isn't the usual gang from AP/Reuters/etc. enough?]

Secondly: *We live worrying about a major health crisis knowing it would readily “steal” our savings for retirement and could bankrupt us fast. *

Great, so let's steal everyone else's savings now just because you and the thieving teacher's union couldn't pad your own nest egg enough while you were working. People get old and get sick--that's life. You didn't know that might happen someday? You couldn't plan accordingly? You were employed for several decades when the economy was robust. It's not everyone else's duty to pull your fat from a potential fire, now.

Enough confiscation! Younger people are tired of paying for the boomer's and their parents short-sightedness.

Medicare is definitely not the be all, end all of health care. I get sick of seeing it's low administrative cost and reimbursements held up as some great thing. There are a lot of misconceptions about medicare (and medicaid) that never seem to get cleared up. Health care in this country is a wasteful mess, but I don't see it getting better any time soon. And when it does get better I worry that there will be a negative impact on jobs (both in healthcare and insurance).

For those of you still debating WHY we need health care reform, here are some statistics:

- Health care costs have been rising for several years. Expenditures in the United States on health care surpassed $2.2 trillion in 2007, more than three times the $714 billion spent in 1990, and over eight times the $253 billion spent in 1980. (all current dollars)

- In 2007, U.S. health care spending was about $7,421 per resident and accounted for 16.2% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP); this is among the highest of all industrialized countries. Total health care expenditures grew at an annual rate of 6.1 percent in 2007, a slower rate than recent years, yet still outpacing inflation and the growth in national income. Absent reform, there is general agreement that health costs are likely to continue to rise in the foreseeable future.

- Although Americans benefit from many of the investments in health care, the recent rapid cost growth, coupled with an overall economic slowdown and rising federal deficit, is placing great strains on the systems used to finance health care, including private employer-sponsored health insurance coverage and public insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Since 1999, employer-sponsored health coverage premiums have increased by 119 percent, placing increasing cost burdens on employers and workers. With workers’ wages growing at a much slower pace than health care costs, many face difficulty in affording out-of-pocket spending.
http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?i...

It would be nice if there was a healthcare program for everyone, one that doesn't make pharmaceuticals rich on pills costing $60 a piece (one of my mother-in-law's prescription). Because of my husband's pre-existing condition, we're paying $1,500 a month for coverage that doesn't include dental or vision. Yes, I'm thankful we can afford it (barely) but what about others who can't? What about promised coverage taken away later with the flick of Union pen...GM retirees too old to go back to work have now lost their dental and vision care. In another case, a family friend who's wife was killed and three of their kids mangled in a car wreck is worried the care two of the kids with permanent disabilities now requiring extra care for the rest of their lives will max out the $1M limit.
With so many other countries (big or small) having national healthcare systems (good or bad) why can't the USA, home of the best and the brightest, build on those countries' concepts, fix the bugs and have an amazing healthcare system for all of its people?

Excellent article, Professor Eyster. Thanks for the contact information, and your insightful viewpoints.
+
To THOSE WHO CONSTANTLY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE CAPS...the reasoning behind them has already been explained in the author's introductory blog. For those of you who missed it, it can be found here:
+
http://www.gazettextra.com/weblogs/we-pe...
+
If you still take issue with this particular style of writing and are unable to stop complaining about it, I ask you to please stop coming to this particular thread. When I first met Professor Eyster, it was in a Terrorism course he taught at UW-Rock County. I'll admit, I was a little confused as to why this man seemed to be unable to type without randomly hitting the caps lock key, but you get used to it. I'd argue that it adds a certain "style" to his work.

Equal time: "Congressman Paul Ryan (WI-01) offers amendment to strike the government-run plan"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMdud5TDV...

The sheer amazement I had when I read this quote amazes me John. "AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE, we support major reform of health care NOW! We have been blessed with very good health care through the years of active employment. That ended when we became 65 and went on Medicare we lost major benefits. We live worrying about a major health crisis knowing it would readily “steal” our savings for retirement and could bankrupt us fast."

You were perfectly fine with your private insurance, and now that you are on a government run health care program you are worried. That statement is the very reason we should be worried about state run healthcare. Geez, I can't believe your hipocracy.

This grand attempt to move more government into our lives is such a power grab and is being done at such a pace that no one knows what is truly in the package that the Dems are shoveling. Why are so many people, so eager to have government run this? Who out there really believes that a government run bureaucracy like this is going to be done right and at a savings to the people of the US? Or do you believe this is being done, so the people in Washington will have more power over what we do in our lives? Don't forget people, every dollar that is spent on this boondoggle is money that comes from us the taxpayers. Every single dollar spent on this, is a dollar that has been taken out of our economy and our pockets. Before we let Big Brother take over 1/8 of our nations GDP, we better think long and hard, because once it becomes a government run plan, there's no way to remove it, or take it back. The more liberties we relinquish to the government, the less freedom we have.

The "scare tactics" that you speak of are facts. We should all be scared of what is coming if this brand of socialized medicine is adopted. Having a government "competitor" for healthcare creates an unfair advantage for them, will put many providers out of business and more Americans out of work. While I do not agree 100% with the alternative bill Congressman Ryan is proposing, I am familiar with it and it is a bit more practical.

I must say, that I am surprised at your position, Mr. Eyster -- it seems like quite a biased stretch to interpret the Preamble's language of 'promoting general welfare' to mean we must socialize health care in the U.S. -- if we would use that rationale, then the gov't should own our homes, our cars and determine our employment -- wow, that is getting scary.

I find it interesting that you use the Constitution as your basis for health care reform. When you taught Washington Seminar, you made it a requirement for students to attend Sunday Service during the trip. Does not the first amendment state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"? I also believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that public education is covered under this amendment. This did not stop you from requiring it to every student when I was enrolled.
Why did you not champion health care reform when you were under your teacher's insurance? Is now that when you may be impacted it is suddenly important?
Funny, I would think you could have used much more persuasive arguments, such as long term costs to society of an unhealthy USA and the resulting tax impact of that as more of a rationale to support reform.
If one of your students had submitted an essay written as this, would you not have put red ink all over it for improvement?
You can do much better than this to gather support for much needed health care reform.

Oldtimer, they have better health care because they are BETTER than us!

Why cant we have the same health insurance that all the feds have?

Can anyone give me a valid reason that health care is treated differently than education. A person can't be healthy without an education. A person can't be educated if not healthy. We are guaranteed an education. It would seem to me that first we should be guaranteed health so we can receive and put to use that education.

Sannio - excellent point about living naturally, I never thought of it in that way.

I'm sorry, I have to make this comment also. Your comment about losing major benefits at 65 and worrying about a health crisis really struck a nerve. My self-employed parents could only dream of having coverage as good as yours, and when they retired they did the research and bought a Medicare supplement. It wasn't a Cadilac policy but it did pretty well. You cannot tell me you don't have access to the same type of policy. Now who is using "scare tactics", talking about major health crisis wiping you out?

John,
can you explain why we need to pass this bill in a matter of weeks without any meaningful debate or, for that matter, even reading the bill? I have real problem with people like you Stan Milam who proclaim that Paul Ryan is only using "scare tactics" when what I see is him working for our best interests by raising serious questions about many aspects of this bill. Was Paul using scare tactics by asking why would it be illegal for Assurant Health to write new policies after 2013? Assurant is in Pauls district and employs 800 people. How will they be able to stay in business if they aren't allowed to write new policies? How many people would even be aware of this if our congressman hadn't brought it up?
Health reform is coming, but why does this "plan" have to be rammed through, no debate allowed?

It must really burn GI Joe to know that COBRA is getting help from the government.

tomwolfe53, The stimulus package helps only those with COBRA, nothing helps individuals who are purchasing individual health plans and trying to survive on unemployment, where's the protection for everyone. I'm tired of all decisions being made too quickly and by people whom do not have a clue how the real world works.

While I can sense the passion with which this blog author writes, I cannot, nor will not take it seriously until said author can get control of either (1) the Caps-Lock key, or (2) the shift button. The creative use of capitalization makes your writing look like the ramblings of a ransom note, and equally hard to read I might add. Get control of your keyboard John- sheesh.

This is an editorial? My 10 year old could have written as well. I've scoured it twice and found no facts in the whole diatribe.

Something I find odd is all the talk I hear about going green, eating organic, living naturally. When it comes to health care though, anything goes. Drugs, knives, radiation, do whatever it takes to prolong the life regardless of the cost or consequences. Get your heart transplanted, get a new hip, or knee. Keep stringing your life out in an unnatural way with pace makers and drugs until you're sick, in pain, and a huge burden on society. Why not live naturally, which also includes dying naturally?

crunch_munch - excellent ! If health care is a right, then those who need an auto should have a right to that ! ;)

If you would like to help pressure Congress to pass single payer health care please join our voting bloc at:
http://www.votingbloc.org/Health_Bloc.ph...

TIME for me to complete yesterday's blog...

FIRST, THANKS to you TOM for adding the information re. COBRA. FORTUNATELY, my son is now working full-time with benefits at Oscar Meyers in Madison. What a blessing!

Second, I do want to post the LINKS to further encourage readers to express their views to OUR - WE THE PEOPLE - respresentatives in our US Congress:
Senator Russ Feingold = http://feingold.senate.gov/contact_opini...
Senator Herb Kohl = http://kohl.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Congressman Tammy Baldwin = http://tammybaldwin.house.gov/get_addres...
Congressman Paul Ryan = http://www.house.gov/ryan/email.htm

And, President Barack Obama = http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

DO IT TODAY!

Mr. E.

JOHN, thank you for your interesting perspective. Although it appears to late for your son, readers should know that there is a provision in the STIMULUS package for workers who are laid off that pays 65% of their COBRA coverage for up to 9 months. Now having said this it isn't a simple process, since it is administered by the federal government, none the less it is available and hopefully helps cover the gap between jobs and hopefully the next employer coverage.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective.

Former Board President Wolfe