Is anybody for the new proposed nationalized health care plan and why??

[Guest]

It is such a jammed up political scam, I allow I may have missed something in my haste to condemn.
What am I missing? Please enlighten me. Please no Obama saids.

btk

[Guest]

Nothing to enlighten you with. It's a scam to even think the cost will be lower. Did you hear Bidden in front of the AARP? "We have to implement health care to prevent the country from going bankrupt". So we have to spend more to prevent us going bankrupt? How dumb does he think we are. Anyone who thinks you can provide health care to an additional 40 to 50 million people and lower cost is insane.

[Guest]

Only a couple simple reasons...

The cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP is increasing as an unsustainable rate. Legislative action is needed to bring those costs under control. The free market has not accomplished that in over thirty years and there is no evidence that it can or will in the near-term future.
Americans are not counted among the healthiest populations on the planet, not even close. That's in spite of the egregious costs we incur for such care compared to other countries.
For a country that counts itself among the best educated and most economically advanced to have tens of millions of its people with no healthcare whatsoever is almost criminal to think of. Something needs to be done about this problem.

If you can think of other ways to solve these problems other than a comprehensive new set of laws and regulations, and probably taxes to pay for them, please share them with us.

[Guest]

Does anyone know or have an idea of THOSE WITHOUT HEALTHCARE in the United States.....how they breakdown...as how many on welfare, unemployed, employed, illegal immigrants counted, etc. ?

[Guest]

Does anyone know or have an idea of THOSE WITHOUT HEALTHCARE in the United States.....how they breakdown...as how many on welfare, unemployed, employed, illegal immigrants counted, etc. ?I suppose it can be researched, Bucco. But I don't have a real precise answer other than it's a big number.

For one, I would support the idea of refusing to provide any government-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants or their families, even if by being born here they were "legal". But as far as those that are unemployed, on welfare, etc., I still believe that society has a responsibility to provide them with healthcare.

To reduce the number of illegal immigrants who are enjoying government-funded healthcare would require some pretty tough measures to tighten up our borders. You have often asked what the effect of proposed legislation might be on small businesses. What effect do you think not having ready access to cheap labor which is willing to work hard might have on small businesses? That's exactly the reason why we're not likely to see any significant immigration reform. But we're still stuck with tens of millions with no healthcare.

Kind of a Catch 22, isn't it?

[Guest]

I suppose it can be researched, Bucco. But I don't have a real precise answer other than it's a big number.

For one, I would support the idea of refusing to provide any government-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants or their families, even if by being born here they were "legal". But as far as those that are unemployed, on welfare, etc., I still believe that society has a responsibility to provide them with healthcare.

To reduce the number of illegal immigrants who are enjoying government-funded healthcare would require some pretty tough measures to tighten up our borders. You have often asked what the effect of proposed legislation might be on small businesses. What effect do you think not having ready access to cheap labor which is willing to work hard might have on small businesses? That's exactly the reason why we're not likely to see any significant immigration reform. But we're still stuck with tens of millions with no healthcare.

Kind of a Catch 22, isn't it?

Millions without health care, millions without jobs, millions without cars, millions without cellphones, millions without cable TV, millions without.....

It's always easy to say that society needs to pay more taxes to provide "millions" with something. Where does it end?

If the goal is to provide health care for millions, why don't we give something else up to pay for that, instead of adding to the burden of the depleting pool of taxpayers?

Let's start by cutting the US Agency for International Development by half, and instead of trying to take care of the world, we spend that money here? How about an import tax all foreign-imported goods at an additional $1 for declared value of $1,000? Let's add to that a fine for every person illegal in the US at $1,000 to cover the cost of detention and deportation (most have assets which can be confiscated).

The government is no different than the average family - you want to buy something new and don't have any discretionary funds, then you must give up something to get the new item. The alternative is borrow the money from someone (like the Chinese) and then steal the money from someone else (like a taxpayer) to pay back the lender.

There are other options than higher taxes. If not, eventually, there will be no taxpayers left from whom to rob. Then what?

[Guest]

Does anyone know or have an idea of THOSE WITHOUT HEALTHCARE in the United States.....how they breakdown...as how many on welfare, unemployed, employed, illegal immigrants counted, etc. ?

Something on the subject from PBS.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/health/uninsured/whoaretheuninsured.html

[Guest]

Something on the subject from PBS.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/health/uninsured/whoaretheuninsured.html

Thank you for the link....it helps....a few things jumped out at me, and this is not being unsympathetic at all...

43.1 % of the uninsured are NOT american citizens

21 % of the uninsured make OVER 50,000 per year (almost 8 % over 75,000)

88% of the uninsured were not born in the US !

Most of the children are eligible for Medicaid but the government has done a bad job in getting the info out.

About 85% of all americans are insured ! Used the Pop of 305 million and the sites estimate of almost 45 million uninsured.

Just these three things tell me that this needs some discussion ! Assuming I read the site correctly and did my math correctly.

This is not being unsympathetic...I am FOR health care, but now I am sure we are moving much too fast on this huge amount of money !

PS...Please check my math everybody !!

[Guest]

Millions without health care, millions without jobs, millions without cars, millions without cellphones, millions without cable TV, millions without.....

It's always easy to say that society needs to pay more taxes to provide "millions" with something. Where does it end?

If the goal is to provide health care for millions, why don't we give something else up to pay for that, instead of adding to the burden of the depleting pool of taxpayers?

Let's start by cutting the US Agency for International Development by half, and instead of trying to take care of the world, we spend that money here? How about an import tax all foreign-imported goods at an additional $1 for declared value of $1,000? Let's add to that a fine for every person illegal in the US at $1,000 to cover the cost of detention and deportation (most have assets which can be confiscated).

The government is no different than the average family - you want to buy something new and don't have any discretionary funds, then you must give up something to get the new item. The alternative is borrow the money from someone (like the Chinese) and then steal the money from someone else (like a taxpayer) to pay back the lender.

There are other options than higher taxes. If not, eventually, there will be no taxpayers left from whom to rob. Then what?

Sounds good to me, Steve. This particular forum has been most educational, interesting sans antagonistic negative comments. Strictly issue-driven. Wonderful, just wonderful.

barb

ps....Well maybe one thus far; Just read 12ridehd.

[Guest]

Just a thought about those uninsured numbers:

I work in a company with terrible insurance. I think every employee with a working spouse has the spouse's insurance just because it's better for them and their family.

Now, I'll wager that in most two-worker families, the whole family is covered by only one's insurance. Does that drop the worker who is not taking his/her company's insurance into the "uninsured" cohort?

I am sure that when employers are questioned by the insurance carrier about the number of employees eligible for insurance, and that number is compared to the number using the available insurance, there is a gap. Is that gap added to the "uninsured" number?

I don't know, but it seemed worth wondering about.

[Guest]

Nothing to enlighten you with. It's a scam to even think the cost will be lower. Did you hear Bidden in front of the AARP? "We have to implement health care to prevent the country from going bankrupt". So we have to spend more to prevent us going bankrupt? How dumb does he think we are. Anyone who thinks you can provide health care to an additional 40 to 50 million people and lower cost is insane.

AGREED:beer3:

[Guest]

Just a thought about those uninsured numbers:

I work in a company with terrible insurance. I think every employee with a working spouse has the spouse's insurance just because it's better for them and their family.

Now, I'll wager that in most two-worker families, the whole family is covered by only one's insurance. Does that drop the worker who is not taking his/her company's insurance into the "uninsured" cohort?

I am sure that when employers are questioned by the insurance carrier about the number of employees eligible for insurance, and that number is compared to the number using the available insurance, there is a gap. Is that gap added to the "uninsured" number?

I don't know, but it seemed worth wondering about.

You have a valid point GEEZER ! These numbers have really given me pause and it bothers me with the generalizations about americans going without healthcare and 85% have it, and actually it is higher since over 40% of those "uninsured" are not even american citizens.

Then of course there is the "under insured" ! All of this bothers me because it does not seem like an issue that our congress should address in haste or in with such blatant policitism on either side.

[Guest]

It is easy to tell who knows the facts about health care in america and who is taking a position based on a bias.

When you debate your political biases please understand this one basic fact: There are people living in america who do not have health insurance for many reasons. However, there is not one person without medical care available to them.

I was an executive directer of a medical center. We could not and did not refuse our full sevices to anyone. We gave these services
even when the patient had no money, no id's , or could not speak englih.

When you say millions of americans are without medical care you just not know your country.

[Guest]

Thank you for the link....it helps....a few things jumped out at me, and this is not being unsympathetic at all...

43.1 % of the uninsured are NOT american citizens

21 % of the uninsured make OVER 50,000 per year (almost 8 % over 75,000)

88% of the uninsured were not born in the US !

Most of the children are eligible for Medicaid but the government has done a bad job in getting the info out.

About 85% of all americans are insured ! Used the Pop of 305 million and the sites estimate of almost 45 million uninsured.

Just these three things tell me that this needs some discussion ! Assuming I read the site correctly and did my math correctly.

This is not being unsympathetic...I am FOR health care, but now I am sure we are moving much too fast on this huge amount of money !

PS...Please check my math everybody !!

Thanks for doing the math Bucco. The 21% that make over $50,000 tells alot about priorities. It also includes many young people who realistically would rather spend their monies on other things.
Once you subtract the non-americans (19 million) and the people who make over $50,000 and chose not to purchase (9.5 million) it sheds a new light on the urgency factor.

[Guest]

Thanks for doing the math Bucco. The 21% that make over $50,000 tells alot about priorities. It also includes many young people who realistically would rather spend their monies on other things.
Once you subtract the non-americans (19 million) and the people who make over $50,000 and chose not to purchase (9.5 million) it sheds a new light on the urgency factor.


I know I will be slammed for this but.....

$50,000 sounds like a lot of money but that is about the starting salary for persons with a college degree. Then you have to look at the amount of their college loans...I have a niece and nephew both MD's they make about that, interns and resident, and you wouldn't want to know the amount they owe. (they do get healthcare) Then you need to factor in where these people live...any big city has big housing and cost of living.

It is not all black and white....

[Guest]

I know I will be slammed for this but.....

$50,000 sounds like a lot of money but that is about the starting salary for persons with a college degree. Then you have to look at the amount of their college loans...I have a niece and nephew both MD's they make about that, interns and resident, and you wouldn't want to know the amount they owe. (they do get healthcare) Then you need to factor in where these people live...any big city has big housing and cost of living.

It is not all black and white....


Agreed there are alot of people in that situation. There is, however, alot of blue collar people who are in the $30,000-40,000 bracket who have to work alot of overtime or a second job to reach that plateau. You know...like Caterpillar where they are still looking for those jobs to come back as promised if the gigantic bill was passed by congress.

[Guest]

I know I will be slammed for this but.....

$50,000 sounds like a lot of money but that is about the starting salary for persons with a college degree. Then you have to look at the amount of their college loans...I have a niece and nephew both MD's they make about that, interns and resident, and you wouldn't want to know the amount they owe. (they do get healthcare) Then you need to factor in where these people live...any big city has big housing and cost of living.

It is not all black and white....


Not sure why anyone would slam you....this is valid and then of course even those who count as insured but are underinsured.

My point after looking at these numbers and hearing very little if any public debate and very little if any details on what our congress is doing...WHY DO WE NEED TO SHOVE THIS DOWN OUR THROAT SO QUICKLY ?

Are we going to cover NON citizens, etc ???

[Guest]

Only a couple simple reasons...

The cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP is increasing as an unsustainable rate. Legislative action is needed to bring those costs under control. The free market has not accomplished that in over thirty years and there is no evidence that it can or will in the near-term future.
Americans are not counted among the healthiest populations on the planet, not even close. That's in spite of the egregious costs we incur for such care compared to other countries.
For a country that counts itself among the best educated and most economically advanced to have tens of millions of its people with no healthcare whatsoever is almost criminal to think of. Something needs to be done about this problem.

If you can think of other ways to solve these problems other than a comprehensive new set of laws and regulations, and probably taxes to pay for them, please share them with us.

Here is MY example increasing healthcare cost
My Healthcare costs: One person, monthly

Jan-April 2007..............monthly $573.88
May-Aug " .................." 663.23
Sept-Mar 2007-2009..................887.27
Apr increased to 1,110.00

[Guest]

Here is MY example increasing healthcare cost
My Healthcare costs: One person, monthly

Jan-April 2007..............monthly $573.88
May-Aug " .................." 663.23
Sept-Mar 2007-2009..................887.27
Apr increased to 1,110.00

Up 93% in two years! Yikes!

[Guest]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?opinionid=20636

[Guest]

Yes, I am for the proposed health care plan. I am a retired RN and have seen too many people who had no or very limited coverage.

I am a breast cancer surviver. Mine was caught extremely early, and I received great care, but know of others who were not screened and treated on time do to cost and many lost their lives.

My grandson was born in France (Father working there, and family living there). He was extremely sick when he was born. It was touch and go. He received wonderful care, recovered and is now doing fantastic. French doctors were top rate.

Cousin in the UK had quadtriple bypass surgery. Great doctors, great recovery.

I believe health care is a right. We lost our health insurance before we were on Medicare. Bought an expensive private policy, but it excluded anything that had to do with cancer. Once on Medicare I was once again covered.

JUst seems like there should be a better way. Also, I don't think a profit should be made from health care.

[Guest]

Yes, I am for the proposed health care plan. I am a retired RN and have seen too many people who had no or very limited coverage.

I am a breast cancer surviver. Mine was caught extremely early, and I received great care, but know of others who were not screened and treated on time do to cost and many lost their lives.

My grandson was born in France (Father working there, and family living there). He was extremely sick when he was born. It was touch and go. He received wonderful care, recovered and is now doing fantastic. French doctors were top rate.

Cousin in the UK had quadtriple bypass surgery. Great doctors, great recovery.

I believe health care is a right. We lost our health insurance before we were on Medicare. Bought an expensive private policy, but it excluded anything that had to do with cancer. Once on Medicare I was once again covered.

JUst seems like there should be a better way. Also, I don't think a profit should be made from health care.

I know very few who are AGAINST any health care changes !!!

My problem is the RUSH to get there. This is a big deal and a big committment !!

[Guest]

Only a couple simple reasons...

The cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP is increasing as an unsustainable rate. Legislative action is needed to bring those costs under control. The free market has not accomplished that in over thirty years and there is no evidence that it can or will in the near-term future.
Americans are not counted among the healthiest populations on the planet, not even close. That's in spite of the egregious costs we incur for such care compared to other countries.
For a country that counts itself among the best educated and most economically advanced to have tens of millions of its people with no healthcare whatsoever is almost criminal to think of. Something needs to be done about this problem.

If you can think of other ways to solve these problems other than a comprehensive new set of laws and regulations, and probably taxes to pay for them, please share them with us.

:agree:

Oh by the way have a read
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090619/healthcarereform_discussiondraft.pdf Draft of the health care house version

[Guest]

Thank you for the link....it helps....a few things jumped out at me, and this is not being unsympathetic at all...

43.1 % of the uninsured are NOT american citizens

21 % of the uninsured make OVER 50,000 per year (almost 8 % over 75,000)

88% of the uninsured were not born in the US !

Most of the children are eligible for Medicaid but the government has done a bad job in getting the info out.

About 85% of all americans are insured ! Used the Pop of 305 million and the sites estimate of almost 45 million uninsured.

Just these three things tell me that this needs some discussion ! Assuming I read the site correctly and did my math correctly.

This is not being unsympathetic...I am FOR health care, but now I am sure we are moving much too fast on this huge amount of money !

PS...Please check my math everybody !!

If you have ever had to go to the emergency room at TV hospital.... you will see why we need something better than we have. It is full of young people with US as thier Primary Care Provider $$$$

[Guest]

If you have ever had to go to the emergency room at TV hospital.... you will see why we need something better than we have. It is full of young people with US as thier Primary Care Provider $$$$


Have not seen ONE person on here or otherwise not support health care reform.....it is the speed and lack of debate and details that are scary !

Selling reform is not a problem !!!1

[Guest]

As a society, we can have whatever we altogether can afford. The problem is, we can't have everything, as no society can afford that.

When the supposed way to afford something is to selectively tax any portion of the population, the taxed folk find ways to avoid what they think is a bigoted tax, and the burden shifts further down the pyramid. After a while, we're all taxed beyond belief.

So, here we sit, in a society already $10+Trillion in debt and growing, with rising unemployment (shrinking the taxpayer pool). How do we respond? We charge into another financial abyss with no real idea what it will cost and requiring a more bloated government (which we must pay for in addition) to "manage." Does this make any sense?

So, before this money-monster rips us up, how about a dollar-for-dollar reduction elsewhere in government? What in God's name makes us think we can afford everything when the only way we've been getting more is just acquiring another government credit card, running it to the limit, and then paying its bill with one more new credit card.

This is insanity, and I'm not sure that condition is covered by the proposed health care bill....

[Guest]

I turned my back on Obama's attempt to reform our health care problem when he took such a pig-headed arrogant position on including tort reform as part of the process. I hope his initiative falls flat on it's face. He needs a wake up call anyway.

[Guest]

I turned my back on Obama's attempt to reform our health care problem when he took such a pig-headed arrogant position on including tort reform as part of the process. I hope his initiative falls flat on it's face. He needs a wake up call anyway.

Me too.

[Guest]

As a society, we can have whatever we altogether can afford. The problem is, we can't have everything, as no society can afford that....This is insanity....Believe it or not, I'm pretty much with you on this, Steve.

You're right. We can have whatever we can afford. It's a matter of establishing a collective will for what the most important things are that we desire and are willing to pay for. The problem is that the electorate has been inattentive and our elected representatives have made no effort whatsoever to establish any priorities for over a decade. They have been on a wild-eyed spending spree and continue to do so. They are continuing to spend on whatever they and the special interests they represent desire, paying for it with borrowed money and by doing so obligating future generations of Americans to pay for their self-serving largesse. So far, those that have been agreeable to lend the U.S. as much as it wants to borrow have continued to do so. That will not continue.

We should be forewarned that this situation is just as ridiculous and unsustainable as the value of houses increasing 10% a year and banks being willing to lend money to people who clearly can't repy the loans. We know what the outcome of that period of lunacy has been. As we told ourselves after the financial crisis became evident, common sense should have told uas this couldn't continue. The near future holds a similar and dramatic outcome in my opinion. Common sense should tell us that.

If you are referring to the need for healthcare reform as insanity, I disagree. For the same reasons I noted in an earlier response in this thread, I support such reform and the costs that accrue to it. What is necessary is a long hard look at the other stuff that our government spends money on. A long hard look at expenditures that should be eliminated in order to afford things that are truly important to our society.

There's no sense confusing this thread with another recitation of spending reductions that are possible. But I might start with stopping wars that we can't afford, military expenditures that we don't need, and a deep across-the-board cut in government spending on everything else. Those would be "way of life changing" cost reductions. We'll either do it ourselves or those that until now have loaned us money will do it for us.

[Guest]

As long as I still have choice and it does not cost me more than I am paying now.

[Guest]

Does anyone know....

1. If the current legislation addresses the 43% of uninsured that are NOT citizens of the US ?

2. In countries where there are versions of national health care, does it cover those who are NOT citizens of their country ?

[Guest]

Yes, I am for the proposed health care plan. I am a retired RN and have seen too many people who had no or very limited coverage.

I am a breast cancer surviver. Mine was caught extremely early, and I received great care, but know of others who were not screened and treated on time do to cost and many lost their lives.

My grandson was born in France (Father working there, and family living there). He was extremely sick when he was born. It was touch and go. He received wonderful care, recovered and is now doing fantastic. French doctors were top rate.

Cousin in the UK had quadtriple bypass surgery. Great doctors, great recovery.

I believe health care is a right. We lost our health insurance before we were on Medicare. Bought an expensive private policy, but it excluded anything that had to do with cancer. Once on Medicare I was once again covered.

JUst seems like there should be a better way. Also, I don't think a profit should be made from health care.

I agree with you 100%...........anyone who has great coverage, congratulations, however, if you get sick and for some reason lose your coverage, you have what is now known as a pre-existing condition and can go up the creek for the next five years. I AM FOR THE PROPOSED HEALTHCARE PLAN!!!!

[Guest]

I agree with you 100%...........anyone who has great coverage, congratulations, however, if you get sick and for some reason lose your coverage, you have what is now known as a pre-existing condition and can go up the creek for the next five years. I AM FOR THE PROPOSED HEALTHCARE PLAN!!!!


Well, I cannot say I am for the proposal as you....while I favor healthcare reform, under the proposal that you support, those you mention that may have great coverage through an employer will probably lose it, as employers will probably drop it in favor of the cheaper US Government plan that will be offered which I assume will be some sort of BIG Medicaid program. While that is happening I would assume that the government will then be bailing out insurance companies because the private versions will be dropping by the wayside.

It will also TAX and penalize any company with over 25 employees for not offering insurance putting a ton of small business's in a situation that will require to decide whether to continue or not and if they do, they will pass this additional cost on to you !

I also object, IF IN FACT this bill does, to insuring NON citizens to the same extent as citizens.

I also have concerns about what happens to my Medicaire program as I understand the President wants to save by cutting cost there.

All in all, I am without a doubt a supporter of health care reform, and I also realize that no bill will satisfy everyone, but this rush is scary. This congress is not a body I trust in any way shape or form.

Glad you found your bill to support...I am still looking !

I am confused by the entire thing frankly, and was hoping for a nice public debate or even a debate in what we call our legislative bodies but I suppose that is not going to happen.

[Guest]

Big NO on the health care plan. Who's going to pay for it? I can't afford any more costs or higher taxes, can you?

Ok, make the rich and the employers pay for it. You think unemployment is high now? LOL just wait and see what happens...

[Guest]

to retain the same coverage!!
When the re-distribution is taken into account, what ever will be the new standard offering will be less than you have today. There will of course be all kinds of supplements available.

On another note, I am sure there are not many small business owners here in TV. The new reform will require the owners to insure all who they employ that do not have insurance and the owner will be paying 72% of the cost. How many small businesses will be able to afford such an increase in operating expense.

Obama has the rush on so as to not allow too much information to be digested to create a negative back lash. In addition, he wants it to go as quickly as possible before his popularity ratings tank any further.

Other than the generalities, have you seen or understand any of the details? Of course not. Even the Dems in Congress are nervous about the lack of information and how it will work. And none of us including Congress has ANY idea of the cost and it's impacts.

It is one thing to say reform is needed. It is quite another to ASSUME what is being ram rodded is going to fix ANYTHING!!!

It will end up costing more....there is no way for it not too.

btk

[Guest]

...

If you are referring to the need for healthcare reform as insanity, I disagree. For the same reasons I noted in an earlier response in this thread, I support such reform and the costs that accrue to it. What is necessary is a long hard look at the other stuff that our government spends money on. A long hard look at expenditures that should be eliminated in order to afford things that are truly important to our society.

There's no sense confusing this thread with another recitation of spending reductions that are possible. But I might start with stopping wars that we can't afford, military expenditures that we don't need, and a deep across-the-board cut in government spending on everything else. Those would be "way of life changing" cost reductions. We'll either do it ourselves or those that until now have loaned us money will do it for us.
Depends what we call "health care reform."

I don't agree with the establishment of a "Health Czar," coupled with a White House Office of Health Reform, positioned to become a new Department of Health (or equivalent) with a cast of thousands (mainly contractors at $XXBillion to run this monster for years), and a host of political appointees to boot. That's a lot of government tail wagging a very small public dog. That's a lot of "buck" for a barely audible "bang."

I'm not for having US taxpayers picking up the health care tab for illegal aliens. That will just encourage more border jumpers, and we have too many here now.

I'm for providing health care assistance to people in need, but the need has to be real, and not just because they optioned to spend their money on other things not considered necessities of life. Don't take taxes from someone on the edge to pay the bills for another who squanders.

I'm not for promising free or subsidized health care coverage to any population segment in exchange for votes.

So, Reform, Yes! Political stupidity and greed, No!

[Guest]

response I have seen to date:

"Reform, Yes! Political stupidity and greed, No!"

:eclipsee_gold_cup:

btk

[Guest]

Question....If 9 out of 10 are getting health care..why do we need reform? For the 10%.....I say we just tweak it a little.

PS. I am part of the 10% and don't want reform on my account.

[Guest]

Under Obama care you are required to get insurance. If you don't, you pay a penalty to the government in the form of a tax.

When I was 18, 19, 20 and struggling to get by I didn't have any health coverage. In my mind I didn't need it. I was young, healthy and never went to the doctor. Later as I got better jobs I eventually was covered under an employers plan.

So under Obama care I would have been forced into buying something I couldn't afford or pay a penalty tax I couldn't afford.

That is so wrong on so many levels I can't even express it and it makes me absolutely furious just thinking about it.
barf :swear: :oops: :cus: :yuck:

[Guest]

...I'm not for having US taxpayers picking up the health care tab for illegal aliens. That will just encourage more border jumpers, and we have too many here now...I agree with you, Steve. But the number of illegal aliens already here and flooding over our borders every day--all of whom will get free healthcare if and when the need it--highlights another problem with our government...and with the U.S. residents who elect them, particularly small business owners.

I'm convinced that a major reason why our borders remain as porous as a sponge is because business owners and the members of Congress they support want it that way. If we seriously wanted our borders to be secure, it could happen pretty quickly and easily. But the special interests who benefit from the cheap but illegal labor have the Congress in their pockets on the issue. The cheap although illegal labor that business wants creates the Catch 22 problem that the public has to foot the bill for the healthcare for the illegals they hire.

There's a considerable amount of logic that seems to support the idea in one of the current versions of the healthcare reform bill that small business owners either provide insurance to their workers or pay a fee or surcharge. In that business owners are the ones benefitting from the illegal laborers, it seems right to me that they pick up the tab for their health insurance--not the general public as a whole.

[Guest]

Here is MY example increasing health care cost
My Health care costs: One person, monthly

Jan-April 2007..............monthly $573.88
May-Aug " .................." 663.23
Sept-Mar 2007-2009..................887.27
Apr increased to 1,110.00


Although I do not have anything more than experience for proof to rebut your example, I do not believe them. It does not make sense at all.

Please define what you mean by health care cost.

Yoda

[Guest]

...I am sure there are not many small business owners here in TV. The new reform will require the owners to insure all who they employ that do not have insurance and the owner will be paying 72% of the cost. How many small businesses will be able to afford such an increase in operating expense.With all due respect, have you ever tried to talk to any of the workers who clear the land, pour the concrete, build the houses, install the landscaping and irrigation systems or maintain any of The Villages-owned property? My experience has been that you would have a tough time finding even one such worker who spoke any English at all. I had my driveway resurfaced with pavers a few months ago. The job was done by five Brazilians who bent over to install the pavers and never straightened up until the job was done. I never saw five guys work as hard. Not a single one of them spoke even a single word of English.

Does anyone think that all of these people have green cards, or better yet U.S. citizenship? Get real. There are many small business men in The Villages who employ illegals. All of us who live here benefit and willingly enjoy the fruits of their labor.

But should I be expected to also pay for their health insurance, albeit indirectly? I think not. The proposed bill that places at least some responsibility on small business owners to insure these types of workers is OK with me.

[Guest]

Here is MY example increasing healthcare cost
My Healthcare costs: One person, monthly

Jan-April 2007..............monthly $573.88
May-Aug " .................." 663.23
Sept-Mar 2007-2009..................887.27
Apr increased to 1,110.00And this is under the system of private insurance that we have now. Not a single dollar of the almost doubling of Shirlevee's health insurance premiums can be blamed on the Democrats or the Obama administration. I'm not suggesting that the blame lies with the previous administration either. What I am saying is that the system of for profit private insurance companies that we have now is becoming unaffordable for many Americans. Healthcare costs are out of control and something needs to be done about reigning them in. At the same time, we need to provide some form of healthcare coverage for millions who don't have it, trying to place the cost of such additional coverage in the appropriate place.

I don't know whether I will agree with all of the details of the healthcare reform bill that is wending its way thru the House and Senate. But I know one thing--it would have to be pretty awful to be worse than what we have now.

One thing is almost for sure. If health insurance premiums double every two years as they have for Shirlevee, there will be a whole lot more people that will line up at the doors of emergency rooms for "free" insurance in the future than there are now. And we all know who pays for the "free" insurance in this free-market system we have, don't we?

C'mon folks, can anyone seriously posit that MAJOR changes aren't necessary in our healthcare system? I don't know whether it's a "government option", "single payer", "medical co-op" or what, but I know that almost anything would have a more affordable result than what we have now.

[Guest]

response I have seen to date:

"Reform, Yes! Political stupidity and greed, No!"

:eclipsee_gold_cup:

btk

BTK I MUST AGREE What they are proposing now I am 100% against.
Let them put their heads together and work on something more realistic. I presently have fantastic health care but mt company has their hands deep in my pockets. I don't want to see a cut in MEDICARE and more coverage in MEDICAID as in present proposal.:agree:

[Guest]

The proposed bill that places at least some responsibility on small business owners to insure these types of workers is OK with me.

Except the vast majority of small business don't employ illegals. So your OK with penalizing them all or anyone else that doesn't buy into the system?

Don't forget, there are still some of us out here that need jobs...

[Guest]

With all due respect, have you ever tried to talk to any of the workers who clear the land, pour the concrete, build the houses, install the landscaping and irrigation systems or maintain any of The Villages-owned property? My experience has been that you would have a tough time finding even one such worker who spoke any English at all. I had my driveway resurfaced with pavers a few months ago. The job was done by five Brazilians who bent over to install the pavers and never straightened up until the job was done. I never saw five guys work as hard. Not a single one of them spoke even a single word of English.

Does anyone think that all of these people have green cards, or better yet U.S. citizenship? Get real. There are many small business men in The Villages who employ illegals. All of us who live here benefit and willingly enjoy the fruits of their labor.

But should I be expected to also pay for their health insurance, albeit indirectly? I think not. The proposed bill that places at least some responsibility on small business owners to insure these types of workers is OK with me.

Ok...small business here in The Villages MUST insure or pay a fine/tax whatever.

IF they stay in business, who do you think will pay that extra cost ????

[Guest]

none are illegal. Several have insurance due to a spouse or they are single with their head screwed on right.

We did an estimate if half needed to be insured...then just arbitrarily took a private policy and cut the cost in half (just for the sake of calculation). On the owner would pay 72% of the premium, the overall expense increase to the business ranges from 20-30%.

How would you deal with a 30% increase in your monthly living expenses?

This is not corporate America where they have the ability to swallow or off set the expenses to maintain their profitability.

These are small....SMALL...businesses most of which are less than a million $$ in revenues. These are the businesses that account for a very large share of total jobs in this country.

Two more observations. The kids have heard via their respective feed backs in their businesses, that some employees can't wait for the new law to pass so they can cancel their insurance and get if for 22% of what they used to pay (the business gets stuck with the rest).
Small businesses will get hurt. Many will have to cut expenses and for small businesses that means JOBS!!!!!!!!

As far as somebody else helping pick up the tab so others won't be burdened with paying for those that today do not have.....hopefully I didn't misinterpret that one is in favor of the new reformed health care for the don't haves, as long as somebody else pays the bill?

The only advocates for the bill are Obama, the media and those who stand to gain from it's passage.

I still don't know why the majority have not picked up on the fact their coverage is going to change. That you will be paying more to keep or get the equivilent of what you have today.

If anybody is for the reform, then they are in favor of paying their share to provide for the have nots and those who will figure how to exploit the new provisions.

I view the information available to make a good decision is about as useful as the dimensions of a passing cloud!!!!!!!!!!!!! And it will stay that way ala the recent bail out "clouds"!

btk

[Guest]

The impact from adding more reporting and overhead requirements on small business could be the death knell for many businesses.

Folks can come to their own conclusions about the good-bad-ugly of additional government requirements to small business owners. The link here is to the most recent Small Business Administration's Economic Report to the President (July 2009) - http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/sb_econ2009.pdf The textual commentary is edited by political appointees of this Administration (that's the way it is), but that has not changed the bleakness. The statistics speak for themselves.

So, with our exports and overseas markets shrinking due to non-competitiveness, and domestic markets shrinking to foreign (mainly from socialist nations) product-dumping, is there any wonder why jobs are evaporating?

Regardless of the moral outcry, is this a good time to add more of a burden on domestic businesses without some kind of commercial offset (e.g., tariff increases) to balance the scales? The last thing we especially need now are more domestic businesses deleting jobs or going bankrupt because one more nail in their competitive coffin has been added.

[Guest]

If you only want to add americian citizens -ok but what about all the illegal aliens he wants to include in the plan -if its so good why is congress and the pres not included in it-its their "good" plan for all isn't it

[Guest]

If you only want to add americian citizens -ok but what about all the illegal aliens he wants to include in the plan -if its so good why is congress and the pres not included in it-its their "good" plan for all isn't it

Yep, seems to me that if you add 50 million to a system and do not increase the amount of doctors, you will obviously have to do some serious rationing. They will do triage based on the patient's age and statistical life expectancies. For instance, people who need a knee replacement will be put on the list. Who do you think will get their knee replaced faster? A 50 year old or the 70 year old? Their statistical software will determine that the 50 old goes higher on the priority list because he will have more years to be in the work force. When they add another to the list the 70 year old goes further down the list.
But don't worry, they may issue the 70 year old a walking cane and prescribe an aspirin for the pain.

[Guest]

With all due respect, have you ever tried to talk to any of the workers who clear the land, pour the concrete, build the houses, install the landscaping and irrigation systems or maintain any of The Villages-owned property? My experience has been that you would have a tough time finding even one such worker who spoke any English at all. I had my driveway resurfaced with pavers a few months ago. The job was done by five Brazilians who bent over to install the pavers and never straightened up until the job was done. I never saw five guys work as hard. Not a single one of them spoke even a single word of English.

Does anyone think that all of these people have green cards, or better yet U.S. citizenship? Get real. There are many small business men in The Villages who employ illegals. All of us who live here benefit and willingly enjoy the fruits of their labor.

But should I be expected to also pay for their health insurance, albeit indirectly? I think not. The proposed bill that places at least some responsibility on small business owners to insure these types of workers is OK with me.

VK, Your observations are correct, but we need to ask 'Why?' My son, now in his thirties, has been in the home construction business for years. A few months ago, we were playing some old home movies that included a few shots of our lawn having new sod laid down after the chinch bugs killed the old lawn. He broke out laughing - "White men laying sod!!!" That could never happen today. We have bought into the nonsense that the illegal immigrants are doing jobs that American citizens won't do. This is pure BS. What is true is that American citizens will not do the jobs for a sub-minimum wage.

My son observed that his drywall crews in particular were all Mexican citizens, here illegally. A number of them would share a shack, drive together to work in an overcrowded, uninsured car and send as much money to Mexico as they could. They are great workers, but they are filling jobs that Americans can and have done up until about twenty years ago.

As I noted, the car is uninsured, so when they are in an accident, the American citizens have to pay, they have no health coverage and when they get sick, once again we get to pay, they compromise 30% of the Federal prison population, and I can go on and on. Costs to house, costs to educate, costs attempting to control the Mexican Narco Gangs, etc. Costs to American citizens for having these criminals, and yes they are criminals, is conservatively estimated to be in excess of $300 billion per year. If you want to know where we can find the money to fund health care for American citizens, I suggest we start here. We would also go a long way towards reducing the unemployment of American citizens and balancing our state budgets. Our President has already committed to providing health care for children here illegally. Does anyone think it will stop there?

[Guest]

BBQ, you and I are in complete agreement. But the illegals are here, working in jobs Americans could do and having their education and healthcare paid for by us BECAUSE WE WANT THEM HERE!

Your son might be a good person to ask about this. Ask if the illegal Mexicans were suddenly not available to do his drywalling, how long would it take him to get Americans to do the job? Could he ever expect to get Americans to work as hard as the Mexicans for the same wage? (The free market has set the value of labor for drywalling houses in your son's area--it's what he's paying the Mexicans!)

My guess is he'll answer that there's no way he could get Americans to do the work. Even if he could find them, they wouldn't work as hard, they'd probably be less reliable and they'd certainly expect a higher wage.

Multiply that scenario by hundreds of thousands of employers and that's why we have so many illegal immigrants flooding across our borders. They could be stopped, for sure. But there would be lots and lots of small--and large--businesses which would feel the effect, maybe even going out of business. That's why there has been so little attention paid by Congress to immigration reform. The politicians are hiding behind the debate for or against amnesty. All that is a delaying tactic so that they don't really have to address the issue of securing our borders.

Business certainly doesn't want reform, and if the truth be known, the general public is also pretty comfortable with the work done for them by illegal labor and wouldn't want to "trade up" to American workers who would not work as hard, be less reliable and cost more.

The bottom line is WE DON'T WANT IMMIGRATION REFORM.

That being the case, the chances are pretty high that, like it or not, we'll keep paying for the "fringe benefits" (education, healthcare and the cost of crimes done by the criminals that cross our borders with those that want to work honestly) that the businesses who employ illegal workers are responsible for, but who don't pay for. When you think about it, the situation is not an awful lot different from when the floods of European immigrants came into the U.S. 70-80 years ago. They did work that Americans here wouldn't do, for wages less than Americans would accept, and under working conditions that were even criminal. We paid for the education of their children and their healthcare back then and we still are. Not much has changed, has it?

[Guest]

BBQ, you and I are in complete agreement. But the illegals are here, working in jobs Americans could do and having their education and healthcare paid for by us BECAUSE WE WANT THEM HERE!

Your son might be a good person to ask about this. Ask if the illegal Mexicans were suddenly not available to do his drywalling, how long would it take him to get Americans to do the job? Could he ever expect to get Americans to work as hard as the Mexicans for the same wage? (The free market has set the value of labor for drywalling houses in your son's area--it's what he's paying the Mexicans!)

My guess is he'll answer that there's no way he could get Americans to do the work. Even if he could find them, they wouldn't work as hard, they'd probably be less reliable and they'd certainly expect a higher wage.

Multiply that scenario by hundreds of thousands of employers and that's why we have so many illegal immigrants flooding across our borders. They could be stopped, for sure. But there would be lots and lots of small--and large--businesses which would feel the effect, maybe even going out of business. That's why there has been so little attention paid by Congress to immigration reform. The politicians are hiding behind the debate for or against amnesty. All that is a delaying tactic so that they don't really have to address the issue of securing our borders.

Business certainly doesn't want reform, and if the truth be known, the general public is also pretty comfortable with the work done for them by illegal labor and wouldn't want to "trade up" to American workers who would not work as hard, be less reliable and cost more.

The bottom line is WE DON'T WANT IMMIGRATION REFORM.

That being the case, the chances are pretty high that, like it or not, we'll keep paying for the "fringe benefits" (education, healthcare and the cost of crimes done by the criminals that cross our borders with those that want to work honestly) that the businesses who employ illegal workers are responsible for, but who don't pay for. When you think about it, the situation is not an awful lot different from when the floods of European immigrants came into the U.S. 70-80 years ago. They did work that Americans here wouldn't do, for wages less than Americans would accept, and under working conditions that were even criminal. We paid for the education of their children and their healthcare back then and we still are. Not much has changed, has it?

If there was ever a subject near-and-dear to my heart, it's the topic of immigration, especially the why-and-how of illegal immigration.

We could all remember when many professions (e.g., meat-packing, the building trades, etc.) were decent-paying union jobs. Now, many of those working these jobs are doing so in sweatshop conditions with communities which claim to "care about people" turning a blind eye to the OSHA-less working conditions and child labor exploitation.

I could go into all of the "why" these folk are within the US, but the pro-abortion folk won't want to accept the fact that these folk are replacing that missing portion of the population pyramid which should be 18+ years old and doing the semi-skilled labor. Just follow the abortion and illegal immigration curves, and they overlap, but that's a reality most vote-hungry politicians don't want to admit, so they play all sides against each other.

Illegal immigration fulfills the economic principle of "supply and demand." There would be no "supply" if there was no "demand." And there would be no "demand" if the work force which traditionally filled entry-level and manual-skilled labor existed in sufficient numbers. But, they were killed off for the sake of convenience, and now this unintended consequence (illegal immigration) is here to fill the gap.

The myth that the illegals fill those jobs Americans won't do is just that a myth. The real line is Americans won't do many of these jobs at slave wages, so the illegals are exploited instead. With a close-to-10% unemployment rate, the illegals are finding themselves now competing with Americans for the jobs illegals have been doing for the last 20 years.

There are already visa categories in the law for temporary and unskilled/semi-skilled labor, and the number of folk who can receive these visas are determined solely by Congress (within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended). All Congress has to do is amend the visa numbers, reinstate what used to be Sections 212(c) and 245(i) of the INA, and the majority of the "illegal" population issue is fixed. It IS that simple, and the law is maintained. Any private immigration attorney will agree to that, and most government immigration attorneys will admit that simple fixes to today's laws will suffice to resolve most immigration issues.

But, why fix things with a simple "molehill" approach when you can turn it into a political mountain?

[Guest]

BBQ, you and I are in complete agreement. But the illegals are here, working in jobs Americans could do and having their education and healthcare paid for by us BECAUSE WE WANT THEM HERE!

Your son might be a good person to ask about this. Ask if the illegal Mexicans were suddenly not available to do his drywalling, how long would it take him to get Americans to do the job? Could he ever expect to get Americans to work as hard as the Mexicans for the same wage? (The free market has set the value of labor for drywalling houses in your son's area--it's what he's paying the Mexicans!)

My guess is he'll answer that there's no way he could get Americans to do the work. Even if he could find them, they wouldn't work as hard, they'd probably be less reliable and they'd certainly expect a higher wage.

Multiply that scenario by hundreds of thousands of employers and that's why we have so many illegal immigrants flooding across our borders. They could be stopped, for sure. But there would be lots and lots of small--and large--businesses which would feel the effect, maybe even going out of business. That's why there has been so little attention paid by Congress to immigration reform. The politicians are hiding behind the debate for or against amnesty. All that is a delaying tactic so that they don't really have to address the issue of securing our borders.

Business certainly doesn't want reform, and if the truth be known, the general public is also pretty comfortable with the work done for them by illegal labor and wouldn't want to "trade up" to American workers who would not work as hard, be less reliable and cost more.

The bottom line is WE DON'T WANT IMMIGRATION REFORM.

That being the case, the chances are pretty high that, like it or not, we'll keep paying for the "fringe benefits" (education, healthcare and the cost of crimes done by the criminals that cross our borders with those that want to work honestly) that the businesses who employ illegal workers are responsible for, but who don't pay for. When you think about it, the situation is not an awful lot different from when the floods of European immigrants came into the U.S. 70-80 years ago. They did work that Americans here wouldn't do, for wages less than Americans would accept, and under working conditions that were even criminal. We paid for the education of their children and their healthcare back then and we still are. Not much has changed, has it?
Your joking of course, huh? I always thought that the people who came here 70-80 years ago tried and did assimilate into our society and they wanted to be Americans. They tried real hard to learn our language. And they certainly were not so arrogant as to steal jobs. On the contrary, we used to put out signs that said Irish Need Not Apply. Also, during the great Depression, jobs went to citizens of the United States and there was a pride here.
Also, what history doesn't advertise very much is how many illegals were shipped back to where they came from. Alot of them voluntarily because they didn't want to or could not adjust.
Also, there was no welfare office for people to get free handouts like they do today. Everybody pulled his weight. If you took the free-loaders off the government payrolls and sent the illegals home...yoiu would see many jobs open up.
Starving does funny things to people....kinda makes them want to get a job so they could eat. Many people would chop your firewood for a handout. Today, a person "In Poverty" has a car, television, food stamps, cell phone, microwave, washer-dryer etc. etc. All paid for by you and me. Tell me again how the War on Poverty is working out???

[Guest]

I could go into all of the "why" these folk are within the US, but the pro-abortion folk won't want to accept the fact that these folk are replacing that missing portion of the population pyramid which should be 18+ years old and doing the semi-skilled labor.That's a statistical description that would be easy to accept. But the chart of the population doesn't seem to bear it out. Here...

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj316/Villages_Kahuna/USAgeDistribution.jpg

The chart seems to be counter-intuitive. Certainly, the number of abortions and the trend of both family formations and the birth rate has been declining. Why, then, is that not reflected in the chart?

[Guest]

That's a statistical description that would be easy to accept. But the chart of the population doesn't seem to bear it out. Here...

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj316/Villages_Kahuna/USAgeDistribution.jpg

The chart seems to be counter-intuitive. Certainly, the number of abortions and the trend of both family formations and the birth rate has been declining. Why, then, is that not reflected in the chart?
Data available from the Center for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm) and the Office of Immigration Statistics, DHS (http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/) provides the numbers. Of importance is the period of time from 1992 onward, as the DHS data shows a tripling of the rate of illegal information from that point. 1992 is 18 years after Rowe v. Wade, when the first of the aborted population would have started entering the work force. The chart seems to corroborate it.

[Guest]

http://www.newmajority.com/americas-healthcare-system-still-works/



http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332723342557746

[Guest]

I don't see how the stats from PBS bear out the statement that "81%" of those who have no health insurance are foreign born.

It's also time, once again, to remind our anti-immigration friends that there is a vast pool of undocumented workers- who have no interest in becoming American citizens- whoi only want to make money to help feed their families in their native countries. Those countries, due to corruption, poverty or lack of opportunity, pay individuals pennies a day. So $6 bucks an hour for backbreaking work is a gold mine.

Illegal immigration- those who want to live here without following the rules, or the law- is a completely different longer-term problem. It's easier to throw darts at an inflated dartbord.

That doesn't provide a solution to health care costs- but at least stops pundits from lumping in all in one place.

[Guest]

Yes, I support a radical re-thinking of health care in America:

Honesty: We do NOT have the best healthcare system in the world- not even close, if you look at morbidity rates, percentage of individuals (citizens or other) who cannot afford even basc care, etc.

Honesty: We have among the BEST specialized health care services in the world. People come here from all over the world not to treat a sprained ankle or sore throat, but for the highly specialized treatments in which we excel.

Honesty: According to the Pew Foundation, 55% of all health care dollars are expended by 5% of the population. These are commonly terminal illnesses and geriatric illnesses. Illegal immigrants are not an issue.

Factor: Our pharmaceutical companies run rampant with high-costs. This is not an issue of what the "free market" will bear, since these medicines are held by monopolies, and real competition, as in overseas versions of the same drugs are prohibited for import. Thank you lobbyists & Congress.

Factor: Health insurance may have been "competitive" for larger employers at one time, but like all else in the recent orgy of non-regulation, now there are only two or three companies where many may have been involved before.
Blue Cross, United Health and others have had to pay BILLIONS in penalities for market-area price-fixing- not exactly a competitive spirit, is it?

Factor: We, as a culture, especially older folks, have been indoctrinated by religious forces and the medical industry, to think that: 1. We are invulnerable to death; 2. All conditions are curable, and, 3. most importantly, "Pulling the Plug" in any situation is murder (see T. Schiavo). I have worked in hospitals where families, usually older members, refused to allow their spouse to die with diginity under any cirsumstance, even when the sufferer is in great pain. The health care costs involved with this mentality have over-whelmed our system.

Factor: As long as the hospital can get reimbursed, they can continue these end-stage marathons when the family so chooses. The costs of this are passed on in dangerously high insurance hikes, which can create situations where the self-employed (ME!) cannot obtain insurance.

Factor: Although tort liability is becoming the law in may states (including Florida), malpractice insurance rates continue to skyrocket, some doctors won't even carry it, and there's no coherent or cost-effective system to protect good doctors or malpracticed patients.

Factor: The so-called insurance for the self-insured is oftentimes a scam, as described vividly by Consumer Reports last year about "Assurant Healthcare." These companies do not cover "pre-existing" illnesses. Big Problem.
In fact, these companies also write these policies for six months at a time. If you get sick in March, when your "new" policy kicks in in June, you now have a non-covered "pre-existing" illness. Bigger Problem. Solution, Pay big bucks to a lawyer to fight individually for your health care. Who's got that kind of money? I could worsen or die before the case is settled. I may not fall into an extreme enough case that warrants a legal battle, etc.

Example: I have suffered from chronic kidney stones for more than 30 years. With my good company-offered insurance in the past, I have been able to have every test under the sun, every dietary possibility explored, and have had once-miraculous, now routine, lithotropsy 3 times. Several times I've also had to go to the emergency room for pain relief and extraction. Good Enough.

But now, although I'm through with testing, etc., if I get a chronic attack, I cannot even find insurance that will cover that. Forget the "2 year rule." Doesn't apply to individual purchasers.

Example: Catastrophic Insurance? Cost for self-employed me? $890.00 a month! And it isn't even tax deductible- And I pay 1 & 1/2 times your social security taxes as well. Solution? I cannot find decent insurance, and cannot afford catastrophic insurance. So I pray I stay healthy, I use Walgreen's prescription program, and I avoid going to any doctors for any reason.

Ladies & Gentlemen- There's your health crisis. Between the obscenely profitable insurance industry, high costs of virtually all medical services and the monopoly of the drug lobby laws, and the cost of malpractice insurance to practitioners, the old "go slow and ignore it" mentality is going to crush individuals AND the country.

Conclusion: If you notice the PBS Insurance chart, one very telling factor about health care is that on 1.2% of seniors don't have health insurance. Why? Medicare and Medicaid of course. But what if a coherent system could be put in place that cuts costs, makes efficient use of resources, limits tort issues, helps to prevent illnesses through preventative care, and the like. So WHAT if it's operated by the government!? Is the private sector really doing such a great job?

Spiraling costs and deficient health care have been issues since Harry Truman was president. Government employees and the military have benefitted from government-run health plans for centuries.

If you hear someone taunting with the words "socialism" or "loss of choice" or "boondoggle" you are listening to the people who would really rather spin a lie tham acknowledge that a major part of our government's responsibility to ensure that all Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is to keep people alive.

For once, just once, please don't assume that the vitriole of radio talk hosts and politicians, interested more in creating a political Waterloo than in creating workable health care system, are interested in anything remotely discussing the common good for all Americans.

[Guest]

Yea right, womb to tomb. Our government's responsibility to ensure that all Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is to keep people alive? I don't think so. The government will protect us from enemies so you can pursue those things.

Americans do not need nor can we afford the Nanny state. And yes, I hope that this attempt at Socialized medicine is B Hussein Obama's Waterloo. Maybe we will be able to get new blood in there in 2010 and save this Nation like we did in 1994.


http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gop-touts-alternatives-to-obamacare/

[Guest]

And for the sake of argument let us assume all can be 100% varified and valid.
There has been nothing presented in the proposals that address what will be fixed, specifically. It is one of the major stumbling blocks in the attempt(s) to put a price on the reform.

It is kind of like being convinced to go on a cruise. The selling points could be the past cruises problems were many....BUT....we have this new, improved cruise everybody is going to love....c'mon get on board....the ship is new and will depart "soon"....we don't have an itinerary yet, but don't worry you will really like it....we don't know how long the cruise will be as the details are not available yet, but not to worry you will like it....no, we don't know how much it will cost but that will not be a problem either because you will really like THIS cruise better than any cruise you have ever been on. And one other detail the cruise will have a slot for every American or anybody inside our borders....and should you elect to not take the cruise there will be an annual penalty to be paid with your income taxes....we don't know how much that will be yet, but not to worry we will let you know!!!!

All aboard!!!!!!!

btk

[Guest]

Factor: Government NEVER runs anything efficiently.

Factor: It always costs about 10 time more than they say it will.

Factor: Over a thousand pages and no one has even read it yet they want to ram it through in weeks. Why?

Factor: Hawaii government health care plan for children dismantled after only seven months. Total failure.

Factor: Massachusetts government health care plan. Total failure.

Factor: Medicare bankrupt.

Factor: Medicade bankrupt.

Factor: Social Security bankrupt.

Factor: 10 Trillion dollars in debt.

Factor: No way to pay for any of it.

Factor: It will KILL jobs which is something we need MOST right now.

Factor: 78% of people are happy with their current plan.

Factor: This has nothing do you with health care reform. It’s all to do with control and power over the American people.

Factor: Congress will NEVER subject themselves to the same plans they are trying to force on us.

Conclusion: Maybe you like your life controlled by the Federal Government.. most don't. Some of us still fight for freedom and fight against tyranny.

[Guest]

Yes, I support a radical re-thinking of health care in America:

Honesty: We do NOT have the best healthcare system in the world- not even close, if you look at morbidity rates, percentage of individuals (citizens or other) who cannot afford even basc care, etc.

Honesty: We have among the BEST specialized health care services in the world. People come here from all over the world not to treat a sprained ankle or sore throat, but for the highly specialized treatments in which we excel.

Honesty: According to the Pew Foundation, 55% of all health care dollars are expended by 5% of the population. These are commonly terminal illnesses and geriatric illnesses. Illegal immigrants are not an issue.

Factor: Our pharmaceutical companies run rampant with high-costs. This is not an issue of what the "free market" will bear, since these medicines are held by monopolies, and real competition, as in overseas versions of the same drugs are prohibited for import. Thank you lobbyists & Congress.

Factor: Health insurance may have been "competitive" for larger employers at one time, but like all else in the recent orgy of non-regulation, now there are only two or three companies where many may have been involved before.
Blue Cross, United Health and others have had to pay BILLIONS in penalities for market-area price-fixing- not exactly a competitive spirit, is it?

Factor: We, as a culture, especially older folks, have been indoctrinated by religious forces and the medical industry, to think that: 1. We are invulnerable to death; 2. All conditions are curable, and, 3. most importantly, "Pulling the Plug" in any situation is murder (see T. Schiavo). I have worked in hospitals where families, usually older members, refused to allow their spouse to die with diginity under any cirsumstance, even when the sufferer is in great pain. The health care costs involved with this mentality have over-whelmed our system.

Factor: As long as the hospital can get reimbursed, they can continue these end-stage marathons when the family so chooses. The costs of this are passed on in dangerously high insurance hikes, which can create situations where the self-employed (ME!) cannot obtain insurance.

Factor: Although tort liability is becoming the law in may states (including Florida), malpractice insurance rates continue to skyrocket, some doctors won't even carry it, and there's no coherent or cost-effective system to protect good doctors or malpracticed patients.

Factor: The so-called insurance for the self-insured is oftentimes a scam, as described vividly by Consumer Reports last year about "Assurant Healthcare." These companies do not cover "pre-existing" illnesses. Big Problem.
In fact, these companies also write these policies for six months at a time. If you get sick in March, when your "new" policy kicks in in June, you now have a non-covered "pre-existing" illness. Bigger Problem. Solution, Pay big bucks to a lawyer to fight individually for your health care. Who's got that kind of money? I could worsen or die before the case is settled. I may not fall into an extreme enough case that warrants a legal battle, etc.

Example: I have suffered from chronic kidney stones for more than 30 years. With my good company-offered insurance in the past, I have been able to have every test under the sun, every dietary possibility explored, and have had once-miraculous, now routine, lithotropsy 3 times. Several times I've also had to go to the emergency room for pain relief and extraction. Good Enough.

But now, although I'm through with testing, etc., if I get a chronic attack, I cannot even find insurance that will cover that. Forget the "2 year rule." Doesn't apply to individual purchasers.

Example: Catastrophic Insurance? Cost for self-employed me? $890.00 a month! And it isn't even tax deductible- And I pay 1 & 1/2 times your social security taxes as well. Solution? I cannot find decent insurance, and cannot afford catastrophic insurance. So I pray I stay healthy, I use Walgreen's prescription program, and I avoid going to any doctors for any reason.

Ladies & Gentlemen- There's your health crisis. Between the obscenely profitable insurance industry, high costs of virtually all medical services and the monopoly of the drug lobby laws, and the cost of malpractice insurance to practitioners, the old "go slow and ignore it" mentality is going to crush individuals AND the country.

Conclusion: If you notice the PBS Insurance chart, one very telling factor about health care is that on 1.2% of seniors don't have health insurance. Why? Medicare and Medicaid of course. But what if a coherent system could be put in place that cuts costs, makes efficient use of resources, limits tort issues, helps to prevent illnesses through preventative care, and the like. So WHAT if it's operated by the government!? Is the private sector really doing such a great job?

Spiraling costs and deficient health care have been issues since Harry Truman was president. Government employees and the military have benefitted from government-run health plans for centuries.

If you hear someone taunting with the words "socialism" or "loss of choice" or "boondoggle" you are listening to the people who would really rather spin a lie tham acknowledge that a major part of our government's responsibility to ensure that all Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is to keep people alive.

For once, just once, please don't assume that the vitriole of radio talk hosts and politicians, interested more in creating a political Waterloo than in creating workable health care system, are interested in anything remotely discussing the common good for all Americans.

The problem with our health care system is that health care, as an industry, keeps growing while the rest of the economy has stalled. All of the "fixes" in the world won't change the fact that health care does not have foreign competition inthe domestic market, while virtually every other industry fights day to day (and often loses) to survive. Political "silver bullets" rarely kill anything, except our pocketbooks. So the thought that just because "the government" is going to do anything just doesn't mean anything will be better.

The CBO report on HR 3200 (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf) is as non-biased as it gets, and it says the numbers are askew, especially the public-perceived cost effect that medical malpractice has on health care costs. No medical association has rebutted the numbers, leading to the belief that the CBO's assessment is correct.

When I had my own business, I too paid about $1,000/mo for family health care and the employer's contribution to Social Security. That goes with the turf when you are your own boss.

I agree with you that it is strange the drug companies can sell their products almost everywhere else in the world for significantly lower prices. It has the hefty aroma of price-fixing monopoly-style, yet no Attorney General for as long as I can remember has ever disclosed if this phenomena has ever been investigated as a "Sherman Act" violation. If Mr. Holder would care to pursue this issue, his popularity would increase.

Let us not kid ourselves on how long it will take to implement any new system nationally, regardless of what it looks like. No matter what the statute says, regulation-writing takes a significant amount of labor, public review and comment, revision and posting. Right now, there is no labor to do that. Acquiring the labor, by contract or federal employees or both, will take a few months based on preparing the personnel warrants, interviewing, screening, getting on -the-job, finding places for them to sit, getting office materials, and that's just to get the regulations written. The comes setting up the field offices to administer, hiring and training more folk (in the thousands!), new forms (that's a thrill to create!), and the list goes on. We are talking about YEARS before any new system trying to be fielded nationally can even work halfway right.

Congress and the Administration are trying to give the impression that they are heroes with the passage of legislation - unfunded legislation at that! Any statute is only step-one of one hundred. Yet, the public will see the confetti being thrown like a miracle has happened, and expect it all to be working in a week or so. Projection (mine): After any statute is passed 2 /12 years before regulations of substance (and only some of many) will be fielded; another year to two before the complaint process (adjudication of claims, set-up of administrative courts and special hearings, etc) works, and that will have docket backlogs spanning many months; for the first 5 years, the contractor-to-employee ratio will be 2:1 at best (and contractors won't have any authority to settle complaints). In the meantime, the costs to set up all of this (new agencies, logos, documents, facilities, people, training, IT system conversions and interfacing, court battles) will reign supreme. Compared to this, establishing the Department of Homeland Security was child's play!

I have to hand it to Canada. They had the good sense to make it work in one province first, and then other provinces came onboard one-at-a-time. We, in our arrogance, want to just blast forward nationally and hope for the best. Does that REALLY make sense?

[Guest]

Before discussing the us healthcare issues it would be wise to
learn some facts.
For example to say that there are americans without healthcare is wrong. Everyone in america has healthcare. However, some do not have health insurance for a number of reasons.

[Guest]

I am a proponent of one state at a time. Let us start in Massachusetts. If they can turn around this quagmire in my state (hopefully for not long) I will be less skeptic and maybe be a supporter. I think Missouri's "Show Me" motto is appropriate here. Show me how it works in Massachusetts.

[Guest]

The problem with our health care system is that health care, as an industry, keeps growing while the rest of the economy has stalled. All of the "fixes" in the world won't change the fact that health care does not have foreign competition inthe domestic market, while virtually every other industry fights day to day (and often loses) to survive. Political "silver bullets" rarely kill anything, except our pocketbooks. So the thought that just because "the government" is going to do anything just doesn't mean anything will be better.

The CBO report on HR 3200 (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf) is as non-biased as it gets, and it says the numbers are askew, especially the public-perceived cost effect that medical malpractice has on health care costs. No medical association has rebutted the numbers, leading to the belief that the CBO's assessment is correct.

When I had my own business, I too paid about $1,000/mo for family health care and the employer's contribution to Social Security. That goes with the turf when you are your own boss.

I agree with you that it is strange the drug companies can sell their products almost everywhere else in the world for significantly lower prices. It has the hefty aroma of price-fixing monopoly-style, yet no Attorney General for as long as I can remember has ever disclosed if this phenomena has ever been investigated as a "Sherman Act" violation. If Mr. Holder would care to pursue this issue, his popularity would increase.

Let us not kid ourselves on how long it will take to implement any new system nationally, regardless of what it looks like. No matter what the statute says, regulation-writing takes a significant amount of labor, public review and comment, revision and posting. Right now, there is no labor to do that. Acquiring the labor, by contract or federal employees or both, will take a few months based on preparing the personnel warrants, interviewing, screening, getting on -the-job, finding places for them to sit, getting office materials, and that's just to get the regulations written. The comes setting up the field offices to administer, hiring and training more folk (in the thousands!), new forms (that's a thrill to create!), and the list goes on. We are talking about YEARS before any new system trying to be fielded nationally can even work halfway right.

Congress and the Administration are trying to give the impression that they are heroes with the passage of legislation - unfunded legislation at that! Any statute is only step-one of one hundred. Yet, the public will see the confetti being thrown like a miracle has happened, and expect it all to be working in a week or so. Projection (mine): After any statute is passed 2 /12 years before regulations of substance (and only some of many) will be fielded; another year to two before the complaint process (adjudication of claims, set-up of administrative courts and special hearings, etc) works, and that will have docket backlogs spanning many months; for the first 5 years, the contractor-to-employee ratio will be 2:1 at best (and contractors won't have any authority to settle complaints). In the meantime, the costs to set up all of this (new agencies, logos, documents, facilities, people, training, IT system conversions and interfacing, court battles) will reign supreme. Compared to this, establishing the Department of Homeland Security was child's play!

I have to hand it to Canada. They had the good sense to make it work in one province first, and then other provinces came onboard one-at-a-time. We, in our arrogance, want to just blast forward nationally and hope for the best. Does that REALLY make sense?

Your ideas and proposals make good sense to me!! We've wasted so many years allowing this juggernaut to happen- it's the perfect storm of government complacency and collusion with corporate greed and blatant amorality.

Time is running out financially for both federal programs and for the ability of private corporations to offer affordable policies and still remain profitable or retain employees. Let's not forget the self-employed while we're at it too.

As long as "go slow/be thorough" does not mean a "Waterloo gotcha" or refusal to do anything, let's work for the best program possible for all Americans- let's get it right

[Guest]

Your ideas and proposals make good sense to me!! We've wasted so many years allowing this juggernaut to happen- it's the perfect storm of government complacency and collusion with corporate greed and blatant amorality.

Time is running out financially for both federal programs and for the ability of private corporations to offer affordable policies and still remain profitable or retain employees. Let's not forget the self-employed while we're at it too.

As long as "go slow/be thorough" does not mean a "Waterloo gotcha" or refusal to do anything, let's work for the best program possible for all Americans- let's get it right

So you think it is the government's responsibility to have a program for all?
And what kind of track record does our government have on programs?
Seems to me that our government programs have put us so deep in the hole that we will never dig our way out.

There must be a way to use our free enterprise system to make things work. Why would anybody in their right mind dismantle a system that 90% of the people are happy with?

[Guest]

It is easy to tell who knows the facts about health care in america and who is taking a position based on a bias.

When you debate your political biases please understand this one basic fact: There are people living in america who do not have health insurance for many reasons. However, there is not one person without medical care available to them.

I was an executive directer of a medical center. We could not and did not refuse our full sevices to anyone. We gave these services
even when the patient had no money, no id's , or could not speak englih.

When you say millions of americans are without medical care you just not know your country.

:agree: The emergency room of the US are inundated with people without health insurance every day. Who pays for this free service? We all do, either through higher premiums for those with insurance or all of us through taxes. I have insurance, like 85% of the country, so I pay both higher premiums and higher taxes!

[Guest]

Up 93% in two years! Yikes!

Don't you love having to cover the costs of "free" care through your higher premiums? And, you I'm sure that you "want" to do your civic duty and cover all those who aren't legally in our country, don't want to spend their money on insurance, or incapable of holding a job that offers insurance?

[Guest]

So you think it is the government's responsibility to have a program for all?...In this situation, yes. The cost of healthcare is growing at an unsustainable rate--four times the rate of inflation. And more and more Americans are finding that they either can't afford or don't have health insurance every day. There are varying estimates, but the number may be as many as 40 million. That's almost criminal for a society who wants to consider itself the richest, kindest, fairest and most sophisticated in the world. It looks to me like the government is the only party that has a chance to correct the problem....And what kind of track record does our government have on programs?...Well, about 40% of Americans have Medicare as their primary healthcare insurer. Given the complaints here that the proposed healthcare legislation will "change" Medicare, it sounds like those that have it are pretty satisfied with the government-provided and government-administered Medicare insurance. I might also point out that the government provides the primary healthcare insurance for my wife and I at a cost that's about 1/3 of what my secondary insurance company charges me for their secondary coverage. My friends with Veteran's Administration hospitalization and prescription drug insurance seem even happier than the Medicare folks. But then, the government isn't trying to make a profit like the insurance companies operating under the free enterprise system....There must be a way to use our free enterprise system to make things work...I hate to point this out to you, but it has been the free enterprise system that's gotten us into this mess. It's the free enterprise system that has proven for years that it is incapable of providing top quality healthcare at a reasonable cost.

I know it's really tough to try to tear the idea that "the free enterprise system is best" from your cold dead hand, but IT HASN'T WORKED. It hasn't worked in much the same way that it didn't work with regard to the mortgage mess that has dropped us all into the worst recession in almost 100 years.

Do I think the free markets are the best economic system over the long haul? Absolutely! But the people who ran the businesses and banks and the government under the free enterprise system for the last 20-30 years have gotten things so screwed up--as the result of their greed and singular self-interest-- that a different approach is needed to stop the bleeding and get the patient off life support. Maybe then we can go back to the free enterprise system with somewhat more knowledge on how to run it the right way.

[Guest]

I hate to point this out to you, but it has been the free enterprise system that's gotten us into this mess. It's the free enterprise system that has proven for years that it is incapable of providing top quality healthcare at a reasonable cost.

What????

I think that's total bull pucky. It's free enterprise that's given the the greatest health care not to mention health care technology in the world.

It's government meddling, regulation, interference, corruption and plain incompetence that's mostly responsible, not the free market. That's just ridicules, and to suggest that government is the only one that has a chance to fix it is even more absurd.

Health care in America isn't broken. There's an insurance problem among other things that needs to be addressed. The government fix it? What a joke!!

God almighty.

[Guest]

Do I think the free markets are the best economic system over the long haul? Absolutely! But the people who ran the businesses and banks and the government under the free enterprise system for the last 20-30 years have gotten things so screwed up--as the result of their greed and singular self-interest-- that a different approach is needed to stop the bleeding and get the patient off life support. Maybe then we can go back to the free enterprise system with somewhat more knowledge on how to run it the right way.
You mean the free enterprise system that we have been using for over 230 years? It has had it's up and downs (like a marriage) but I would never want to abandon it.
You want to try socialism and then come back to capitalism? What kind of parallel type world are you living in?
I just watched a program on the Veterans Health program that is run by government bureaucracy. You want the government to run a system for over 300 million people? Man...you haven't seen broke yet!!!!!!!

[Guest]

I just don't get some folks logic. Is basic common sense really dead in America?

[Guest]

What????

I think that's total bull pucky. It's free enterprise that's given the the greatest health care not to mention health care technology in the world.

It's government meddling, regulation, interference, corruption and plain incompetence that's mostly responsible, not the free market. That's just ridicules, and to suggest that government is the only one that has a chance to fix it is even more absurd.

Health care in America isn't broken. There's an insurance problem among other things that needs to be addressed. The government fix it? What a joke!!

God almighty.

Here Here! :beer3: The Government is MORE broken than health care and some expect the Government can fix it??:a20:

[Guest]

Your absolutely right. What's really broken is any shred of common sense, moral decency, fiscal responsibility and the basic ability to tell the truth. What's broken is government and it blows my mind that so many put their faith in government for our solutions. Simply unbelievable.

[Guest]

is one we are "Free to Choose" One where we are free to educate ourselves (or not) free to live where we want, to work , to play. We are free to achieve our greatest goals or to wallow in our ignorance or self pity. We are free to choose what health care package we want or can afford. We are free, not equal. Our freedom is in opportunity, not entitlement. To assume that the world should be fair to all is wrong at face value.

There will always be some that will work for a better education, or work harder than the rest, have inventiveness greater than others, better eye sight, hearing or athletic abilities. Should government level the playing field so that some who have lack of effort in education, or are lazy or don't have sale-able talents, or criminal minds be afforded equality to YOU?

YES, we have an obligation as a society to help the physically handicapped, the mentally handicapped or any number people of REAL disabilities. But to provide for the unwilling to take care of themselves is not the governments responsibility. Some are where they are because they chose to be there, lacked effort to do better or feel entitled to a free ride in life.

One gets out of life in portion of what one puts in. Society willl take of those truly in need.

[Guest]

What????

I think that's total bull pucky. It's free enterprise that's given the the greatest health care not to mention health care technology in the world.

It's government meddling, regulation, interference, corruption and plain incompetence that's mostly responsible, not the free market. That's just ridicules, and to suggest that government is the only one that has a chance to fix it is even more absurd.

Health care in America isn't broken. There's an insurance problem among other things that needs to be addressed. The government fix it? What a joke!!

God almighty.:agree:Perfectly stated. Our health care is the best. We have the best trained providers--physicians, nurses, P.A.'s, techs etc and the most amazing medical technology anyone could imagine. The current "delivery" and payment methodology is a mess. Here is just one tiny examole. When we opened our mail today there was a letter from my wife's primary care provider who is new to the area. It was a bill for over 600 dollars. There was a hand written note attached. "When we provided these services to you in June (this year)we were not yet paneled as providere for BC/BS--- we thought we were" Thus, what we thought was covered wasn't. What a mess.

[Guest]

is one we are "Free to Choose" One where we are free to educate ourselves (or not) free to live where we want, to work , to play. We are free to achieve our greatest goals or to wallow in our ignorance or self pity. We are free to choose what health care package we want or can afford. We are free, not equal. Our freedom is in opportunity, not entitlement. To assume that the world should be fair to all is wrong at face value.

There will always be some that will work for a better education, or work harder than the rest, have inventiveness greater than others, better eye sight, hearing or athletic abilities. Should government level the playing field so that some who have lack of effort in education, or are lazy or don't have sale-able talents, or criminal minds be afforded equality to YOU?

YES, we have an obligation as a society to help the physically handicapped, the mentally handicapped or any number people of REAL disabilities. But to provide for the unwilling to take care of themselves is not the governments responsibility. Some are where they are because they chose to be there, lacked effort to do better or feel entitled to a free ride in life.

One gets out of life in portion of what one puts in. Society willl take of those truly in need.

:agree: Good post, Buddy. Also, I'm tired of hearing the same erroneous figures being bandied about. If you take the illegals and the people who can afford health insurance but opt not to, the figures are probably closer to 10-20 million uninsured. The government is broke and they want to add insult to injury. That is like boarding the Titanic after it hits the iceberg.

[Guest]

What????

I think that's total bull pucky. It's free enterprise that's given the the greatest health care not to mention health care technology in the world.

It's government meddling, regulation, interference, corruption and plain incompetence that's mostly responsible, not the free market. That's just ridicules, and to suggest that government is the only one that has a chance to fix it is even more absurd.

Health care in America isn't broken. There's an insurance problem among other things that needs to be addressed. The government fix it? What a joke!!

God almighty.

I agree. But I still believe that nothing is going to change without Tort reform. One of the biggest$$$ lobbying is by the Lawyers. Doctors will keep ordering unnecessary tests as long as they think that they might get sued. I won't bore you with details but I can personally state that I have been subjected to superfluous tests ordered by too careful doctors. Nothing is left to chance and decisions are based on law not the patients well being.

[Guest]

I agree. But I still believe that nothing is going to change without Tort reform. One of the biggest$$$ lobbying is by the Lawyers. Doctors will keep ordering unnecessary tests as long as they think that they might get sued. I won't bore you with details but I can personally state that I have been subjected to superfluous tests ordered by too careful doctors. Nothing is left to chance and decisions are based on law not the patients well being.
All the tort reform in the world won't change "defensive medicine," unless there is blanket immunity from seeking damages for malpractice. Period!

Medical malpractice costs are less than 2% of overall health care costs. To remove that 2% will take a blanket immunity. Maybe that will reduce "defensive medicine" actions, and maybe it won't. But if all the care provider has at risk is his/her license, and that only if a medical review board says they were so negligent and incompetent the board recommends the state revoke the license, what good is that to you? The care provider may lose their license (and that's highly doubtful), but you have still been harmed with no recourse. Is that what folk want?

[Guest]

Rather than keep this thread going--it is getting heated at times--I started another one with some facts regarding our healthcare system. I gathered sme facts from studies done by unassailable sources. I'd recommend that folks consider the research that I've done, and then do more on their own, before reaching personal conclusions on whether the reforms being considered in Congress are right, wrong, necessary or unnecessary, too expensive or not. This question is a pretty important one for our country.

[Guest]

What????

I think that's total bull pucky. It's free enterprise that's given the the greatest health care not to mention health care technology in the world.

It's government meddling, regulation, interference, corruption and plain incompetence that's mostly responsible, not the free market. That's just ridicules, and to suggest that government is the only one that has a chance to fix it is even more absurd.

Health care in America isn't broken. There's an insurance problem among other things that needs to be addressed. The government fix it? What a joke!!

God almighty.

We do NOT have the greatest healthcare system....not even close. We do have some of the best healthcare technology.

In the beginning we had non-profit hospitals and now we have for profit healthcare systems. That is part of the problem. Another part of the problem is the insurance companies which are again....for profit.

While I believe in capitalism it is NOT my God. The free market system does have its faults...as we all saw recently.

This system works best when things work for everyone...not just for business but for the workers also. The system is out of balance the stock market is going up and profits are up. The problem is people are still losing their jobs and wages are falling. That cannot be denied.

Many of the bankruptcies in the US are caused by lack of healthcare and the under insured. Something has to be done.

[Guest]

All the tort reform in the world won't change "defensive medicine," unless there is blanket immunity from seeking damages for malpractice. Period!

Medical malpractice costs are less than 2% of overall health care costs. To remove that 2% will take a blanket immunity. Maybe that will reduce "defensive medicine" actions, and maybe it won't. But if all the care provider has at risk is his/her license, and that only if a medical review board says they were so negligent and incompetent the board recommends the state revoke the license, what good is that to you? The care provider may lose their license (and that's highly doubtful), but you have still been harmed with no recourse. Is that what folk want?Last weekend my wife and I were visited by a friend and his wife. He was at a medical mtg in Orlando. He and I went to college AND medical school together. Although we were good friends, I have not seen him OR spoken with hime since the day we walked off the stage at graduation from med school with our diplomas. He and his wife pulled up in front of our home last Sat afternoon and when he went to get out of the car his wife went to the trunk and got his wheelchair.... I couldn't believe my eyes. He had told me he was a very successful invasive cardiologist in Louisiana but had some physical problems. Well, I has not seen Dave since May of 1976 and was shocked to see him in a wheel chair. It turns out he had severe cervical disc disease from decades of wearing a heavy lead apron around his neck while doing heart caths. In 1995 he finally needed surgery. Unfortunately, during the early phase of the operation a very necessary piece of equipment malfunctioned.... the back-up piece was also broken so the surgeon proceeded on doing something that should not have been done and my friend ultimately was left with a spastic hemiparesis from the waist down. He is still a very successful and active cardiologist. He had endured 2 more operations but is now in a wheelchair. Obviously he had a number of prominent attorneys advocating for him but, according to Dave, in the state of Louisiana there are "malpractice caps". He never sued.
I have a widened perspective of the scope of what malpractice reform would involve.