But No One Has A Better Idea

[Guest]

Oh, the criticisms of the proposed healthcare reform. I'd guess there's someone or some group against every single section. The problem is that no one has a better idea. If we're lucky, the traction being built against the proposed plan will result in it's defeat. But we'd be left with the same problem of too expensive and underfunded healthcare. No one seems to have a comprehensive better idea.

A couple things are for sure. Reform is necessary in order to bring down the cost of healthcare in this country and getting everyone insured. Whatever reforms are put in place should not add to the deficit or national debt. Those are simple objectives, really. Difficult and tough to achieve, for sure. To cut costs while insuring 20% more people means that someone's ox will be gored. There's simply no other way. The objective should be to eliminate the least necessary costs.

Here are a few ideas...again. I wish I had a Government Budget Office (GBO) to price them out.
Set a standard, minimum coverages, for any healthcare insurance policy offered in the U.S. This could be done quickly by a consortium of the largest private insurance companies and then approved by the government. Or the standards could be set by the government itself.
Stop reducing the funding of Medicare. This "cost cutting" idea is lunacy at a time when the number of Medicare-qualified people is increasing. All it does is drive more providers away from the system, resulting in more uninsured citizens.
Use the terrifc technology we already have to assist doctors in diagnosis and the development of a medical plan or a protocol of prescription drugs. Once that data base of medical diagnostic data is in place, it should be used to determine whether certain treatments, procedures or drugs are paid for by insurance. Some will argue that we shouldn't adopt a "one size fits all" approach, but such use of technology would definitely result in reduced costs.
Means test for government-provided healthcare insurance, Medicare or any new program. If people can afford to pay more in premiums, co-pays or deductions, they should.
Include preventive medical measures either in the proposed legislation or in the tax code. The degree to which actions by individuals to prevent the onset of bad health will reduce future costs. What could this include? Maybe items like increased taxes on tobacco products, increased premiums for people not showing progress towards reducing obesity (that's me!), tax deductions for health club memberships...those sorts of things.
Firm limits on how much any kind of insurance, government or private, will pay for experimental procedures and/or medical research. These are costs that should be funded privately.
Enact medical tort reform. Some will argue that it won't work. But strict tort reforms do work in countries with national healthcare insurance. Remember one of the prime objectives of any reform--reduce spending on healthcare. Even if legal reforms saved a few percentage points, it's a step in the right direction. The reforms could be as simple as "loser pays" as a start.
Permit the government, or some consortium of private companies or agencies, to determine the maximum price that will be paid for a formulary of prescription drugs. Drug companies can charge more for their drugs in the free market if they choose. If they can sell them at prices greater than the approved/negotiated price, they would be free to do so. It just wouldn't be paid for by health insurance.
Certain procedures or drugs not necessary for the maintenance of good health should be eliminated as those paid for by any form of health insurance. I'm sure there's a long list that could be developed, but things like in vitro, any kind of cosmetic surgery, abortions not needed to protect the mother, etc. should be identified. The objective of "reform" should be to provide for improvements in the general health of the population at reduced costs--not addressing all health issues. If desired, pay for them privately.
If there's still a "cost gap" after enacting everything anyone can think of, we may be left with increasing taxes to fill the gap. That should be a lst resort, but certainly one that would trump adding to the deficit or national debt.
These are probably just the beginning of a list of reforms that would work to accomplish the objectives. You all can probably add more. I wish we had a GBO to price them out.

One thing is for sure. Just saying "NO" doesn't accomplish the objectives that need to be addressed.

[Guest]

VK Says:
One thing is for sure. Just saying "NO" doesn't accomplish the objectives that need to be addressed.

I beg to differ. Saying NO will put an end to this rush to create a takeover of 17 per cent of our economy. This is not a time to mess with our fragile economic situation. Timing is everything. WE should put an end to this madness and concentrate on creating jobs for the millions of Americans that are on the verge of losing their homes and their way of life.
Fix the economy first. You can't build a house on a weak foundation.

[Guest]

Go after the abuse in these systems.
X-budget the illegal aliens coverages.
Eliminate all proposed programs like death counseling and birth counseling.
Grandfather current participants in existing over 65 programs till death.
Eliminate small businesses from mandatory contribution for those companies with _ _ X _ _ or less employees.

Do not add the newly covered have nots until such time as capacity is verified to be able to handle the surge of services to be required. Have an increasing phase in scale from year 'x' to year 'y'.

Exclude all proposals included that result in an increase in cost with no identified funding or offset.

Do not fix or expand or eliminate any coverages that are working effectively.

Eliminate all proposals that result in any take aways of existing benefits.

to name a few.

btk

btk

[Guest]

One thing is for sure. Just saying "NO" doesn't accomplish the objectives that need to be addressed.[/QUOTE]

There seems to be two parts to this health care debate. The first is weather the government SHOULD mandate health care coverage and the second being weather we SHOULD ram a program through this year, never mind before the summer recess. The just say no's may be equally split between the two parts, but the overall result is they both say NO. Cramming a proposal down our throats just to say we did SOMETHING in OB's first year is not what the people want. WE THE PEOPLE have no problem expressing a NO to higher taxes, social security reform, military spending, etc. ,why is it wrong to say NO to health care at this point? It took a lifetime to get to where we are in health care and it is unwise to think that the government can set a specific date this year to solve the problems.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Villages Kahuna;219592]Oh, the criticisms of the proposed healthcare reform. I'd guess there's someone or some group against every single section. The problem is that no one has a better idea. If we're lucky, the traction being built against the proposed plan will result in it's defeat. But we'd be left with the same problem of too expensive and underfunded healthcare. No one seems to have a comprehensive better idea.


got me thinking of a possible help in the health care problem. A neighboring community's electric utility provider has applied for the state commission to allow them to adjust their rates DOWN (imagine that if you will). MA already has utility commissions in place to set rates, an auto insurance commission to set rates, why not a state run health insurance commission to set insurance rates. Having it work on the state level will compensate for the differences in cost of care from state to state.

All the states would have to have such commissions or the health insurance companies s would jump state if they didn't like the rates determined. (it happened here in MA with auto insurance companies.) Competition for gross $$ should keep companies interested.

No federal government involvement, state only. Total involvement to provide maximum efficiency of scale to costs. Means testing for cost coverage (verifiable under oath or loss of benefits). Multiple plan offerings over a base plan. And anything else that passes the quack test.

In spite of my conservative bent in this issue I do believe health care is a social necessity, if not a right. The argument is for me what roll government has in the process and the rush to provide anything in a fixed time frame.

[Guest]

Kahuna, your blanket criticism of Obamacare critics misses an important element. GNU nails it in his response. A lot of taxpayer critics acknowledge the need for reform. It may or may not come as a shock to you that I believe the healthcare system needs reform. Our difference is in the process used to achieve meaningful, cost effective reform that maintains or elevates the efficiencies of the existing system and eliminates its cost generating, ill conceived flaws and faults.

The present White House/Congress effort was designed to be "rammed" through by creating a "the sky is falling" crisis mentality. I believe the Clinton's were at the top of the list advising Obama to act quickly because Hilliary's plan faltered when the people were given too much time to absorb the details and cost implications. This speaks volumes to the contempt many in Washington have for the American people.

I disagree with you when you say "no one has a better idea." There are plenty of ideas out there including many on the superlative list you compiled. Most of them and others have been previously discussed in the forum. There are plenty of "better" ideas to work with.

Our points of view diverge over process not need. I believe Congress needs to look at a long term plan to implement reform and not a "one shot fix" or sound bite band aid that will bankrupt America. The timing for healthcare reform couldn't be worse. If you concede that premise...you may not...wouldn't it be prudent and responsible to first insure the continued delivery of Medicaid and Medicare. I leave what needs to be done in the world of finance and our economy to you and other forum finance professionals because you are eminently more conversant and articulate in that bailiwick. In the words of Dirty Harry, "A man has to know his limitations", ergo I defer.

Regarding healthcare, tort reform could be implemented without direct funding consequences to the system. The cost of practicing medicine could arguably be reduced. Further, and more important, redundant, unnecessary, CYA testing and procedures that constitute the astronomic cost of "defensive" medicine may come down. Who knows?

Efficiencies of scale could be researched, prioritized, and implemented when funding is in place.....no artificial timetables. Give the taxpayer an opportunity to weigh in. While there will always be critics, the feelings and emotions framed in the mistrust and deceit of Washington politicians and bureaucrats may be reduced enough to arrive at a consensus to move forward on a pay as you go basis. Maybe....

The push to pass this bill now....without a responsible cost projection is manifestly negligent malfeasance. It ranks with fiduciary corruption and would be subject to true tort liability consequences if committed by anybody but Congress, our fiduciary caretakers, who seem to flaunt their immunity.

[Guest]

Kahuna, your blanket criticism of Obamacare critics misses an important element. GNU nails it in his response. A lot of taxpayer critics acknowledge the need for reform. It may or may not come as a shock to you that I believe the healthcare system needs reform. Our difference is in the process used to achieve meaningful, cost effective reform that maintains or elevates the efficiencies of the existing system and eliminates its cost generating, ill conceived flaws and faults.

The present White House/Congress effort was designed to be "rammed" through by creating a "the sky is falling" crisis mentality. I believe the Clinton's were at the top of the list advising Obama to act quickly because Hilliary's plan faltered when the people were given too much time to absorb the details and cost implications. This speaks volumes to the contempt many in Washington have for the American people.

I disagree with you when you say "no one has a better idea." There are plenty of ideas out there including many on the superlative list you compiled. Most of them and others have been previously discussed in the forum. There are plenty of "better" ideas to work with.

Our points of view diverge over process not need. I believe Congress needs to look at a long term plan to implement reform and not a "one shot fix" or sound bite band aid that will bankrupt America. The timing for healthcare reform couldn't be worse. If you concede that premise...you may not...wouldn't it be prudent and responsible to first insure the continued delivery of Medicaid and Medicare. I leave what needs to be done in the world of finance and our economy to you and other forum finance professionals because you are eminently more conversant and articulate in that bailiwick. In the words of Dirty Harry, "A man has to know his limitations", ergo I defer.

Regarding healthcare, tort reform could be implemented without direct funding consequences to the system. The cost of practicing medicine could arguably be reduced. Further, and more important, redundant, unnecessary, CYA testing and procedures that constitute the astronomic cost of "defensive" medicine may come down. Who knows?

Efficiencies of scale could be researched, prioritized, and implemented when funding is in place.....no artificial timetables. Give the taxpayer an opportunity to weigh in. While there will always be critics, the feelings and emotions framed in the mistrust and deceit of Washington politicians and bureaucrats may be reduced enough to arrive at a consensus to move forward on a pay as you go basis. Maybe....

The push to pass this bill now....without a responsible cost projection is manifestly negligent malfeasance. It ranks with fiduciary corruption and would be subject to true tort liability consequences if committed by anybody but Congress, our fiduciary caretakers, who seem to flaunt their immunity.

Plans, no matter what kind, are only as good as the authors. We have yet to hear from anyone who wrote any paragraph or section within HR 3200 or any other such plan.

Why is that? We know the HR 3200's sponsor and co-sponsors have no competence in developing national service management and delivery systems.

I wouldn't buy a car that wasn't labeled showing who made it, or eat at a restaurant that wasn't approved by competent inspectors whose names are on the certificate of inspection. I'm hesitant to believe a "plan" on changing health care within the United States, authored by anonymous sources, has considered all (or even most) of the ramifications for initiating untried, untested, and uncredentialed actions on such a massive scale.

I can agree there is a sizable minority who are not satisfied with health care management and delivery in the USA. However, to risk the health care of the majority to possibly satisfy the minority with untried, untested, and uncredentialed actions authored by anonymous sources who may even have a vested (and profit motive) interest - which may be why the authors remain anonymous - is ludicrous.

One of the greatest advantages we have is the ability for experimentation at the state level. If we can get it right at the state level, success at the national level becomes less risky AND less expensive. Failure at any degree at the national level is highly expensive, both in money and lives. But since that doesn't generate headlines (logic rarely does)........

[Guest]

I agree with what Steve has said. We do not have to accept and either/or position on healthcare. We can go one step at a time. I personally find it unbelievable that people are seriously proposing such a drastic change to our way of living and our economy without having any real life evidence that it would be a good idea for this country. There is a great deal of talk, both pro and con, about the Canadian system. It should, however, be noted that Canada rolled this system out on a Province-by-Province basis. Surely we should take the time to do a test pilot of the ideas in one or two states, rather than “jump off the cliff.”

Candidate states should have both a large city and a rural population. In addition, they should have relatively small populations - you do not want to try to pilot in California or Texas.

My two candidate states would be Arizona and Massachusetts. Others could easily be chosen, but do a pilot. Discover what works and what needs to be changed. Answer such questions as:
“Is tort reform necessary for the idea to succeed?”
“Will the system be open to all who show up or limited to those in the United States legally?”
"Will elective procedures be covered, and if so, which elective procedures?"
“Will all medical providers be placed on a salary rather than a fee for service system?”
“Who will be considered a medical provider, MD, DO, Dentists, Optometrists, Chiropractors, Massage Therapists, Acupuncturists, etc or all of the above?”
“What about Hospice, adult day care, in home assistance, Nursing Homes, Memory Care Facilities, Assisted Living Facilities, etc.?”
The number of questions is nearly endless and the only way to find the answer is to go at it one step at a time.

[Guest]

Medicare works well because in nearly every medical situation the treatment is decided by the doctor and the patient. There are exceptions but nothing is perfect.

If we end up with a government program for all of us regardless of our age ,which is what obama wants, it will only work if it is precicely like medicare.

[Guest]

The problem is that no one has a better idea.

Beg to differ! The attached article by Charles Krauthammer makes abundent sense and is a practicle approach. The only thing I would add to Krauthammer's recommendations is to implement some from of electronic medical records to reduce the long term records cost and ease the access to critical medical records as needed. Of course, the cost to implement a universal electronic medical records system is substantial.

See Krauthammer's article at http://www.redding.com/news/2009/aug/08/charles-krauthammer-fix-torts-taxes-to-cut-costs/?partner=RSS.

[Guest]

Oh, the criticisms of the proposed healthcare reform. I'd guess there's someone or some group against every single section. The problem is that no one has a better idea. If we're lucky, the traction being built against the proposed plan will result in it's defeat. But we'd be left with the same problem of too expensive and underfunded healthcare. No one seems to have a comprehensive better idea.

A couple things are for sure. Reform is necessary in order to bring down the cost of healthcare in this country and getting everyone insured. Whatever reforms are put in place should not add to the deficit or national debt. Those are simple objectives, really. Difficult and tough to achieve, for sure. To cut costs while insuring 20% more people means that someone's ox will be gored. There's simply no other way. The objective should be to eliminate the least necessary costs.

Here are a few ideas...again. I wish I had a Government Budget Office (GBO) to price them out.
Set a standard, minimum coverages, for any healthcare insurance policy offered in the U.S. This could be done quickly by a consortium of the largest private insurance companies and then approved by the government. Or the standards could be set by the government itself.
Stop reducing the funding of Medicare. This "cost cutting" idea is lunacy at a time when the number of Medicare-qualified people is increasing. All it does is drive more providers away from the system, resulting in more uninsured citizens.
Use the terrifc technology we already have to assist doctors in diagnosis and the development of a medical plan or a protocol of prescription drugs. Once that data base of medical diagnostic data is in place, it should be used to determine whether certain treatments, procedures or drugs are paid for by insurance. Some will argue that we shouldn't adopt a "one size fits all" approach, but such use of technology would definitely result in reduced costs.
Means test for government-provided healthcare insurance, Medicare or any new program. If people can afford to pay more in premiums, co-pays or deductions, they should.
Include preventive medical measures either in the proposed legislation or in the tax code. The degree to which actions by individuals to prevent the onset of bad health will reduce future costs. What could this include? Maybe items like increased taxes on tobacco products, increased premiums for people not showing progress towards reducing obesity (that's me!), tax deductions for health club memberships...those sorts of things.
Firm limits on how much any kind of insurance, government or private, will pay for experimental procedures and/or medical research. These are costs that should be funded privately.
Enact medical tort reform. Some will argue that it won't work. But strict tort reforms do work in countries with national healthcare insurance. Remember one of the prime objectives of any reform--reduce spending on healthcare. Even if legal reforms saved a few percentage points, it's a step in the right direction. The reforms could be as simple as "loser pays" as a start.
Permit the government, or some consortium of private companies or agencies, to determine the maximum price that will be paid for a formulary of prescription drugs. Drug companies can charge more for their drugs in the free market if they choose. If they can sell them at prices greater than the approved/negotiated price, they would be free to do so. It just wouldn't be paid for by health insurance.
Certain procedures or drugs not necessary for the maintenance of good health should be eliminated as those paid for by any form of health insurance. I'm sure there's a long list that could be developed, but things like in vitro, any kind of cosmetic surgery, abortions not needed to protect the mother, etc. should be identified. The objective of "reform" should be to provide for improvements in the general health of the population at reduced costs--not addressing all health issues. If desired, pay for them privately.
If there's still a "cost gap" after enacting everything anyone can think of, we may be left with increasing taxes to fill the gap. That should be a lst resort, but certainly one that would trump adding to the deficit or national debt.
These are probably just the beginning of a list of reforms that would work to accomplish the objectives. You all can probably add more. I wish we had a GBO to price them out.

One thing is for sure. Just saying "NO" doesn't accomplish the objectives that need to be addressed.

Let's start here.

Pass a law. Congress may pass no law from which it is exempt.
Do not let them give us crap while they get the cream.


Tort reform. Put a reasonable limit to pain and suffering paymevts. 1 of 2 million. Looser pays court costs. No limit for payment of actual loss.
This alone will save billions. There will be a few less millionair lawyers.

Clamp down on fraud. Jail Doctors and lawyers.

Pass that legislation and wait a couple of years. Then lets see what we really need.

It is not the medical care system that needs to be fixed at this time.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

Let's start here.

Pass a law. Congress may pass no law from which it is exempt.
Do not let them give us crap while they get the cream.


Tort reform. Put a reasonable limit to pain and suffering paymevts. 1 of 2 million. Looser pays court costs. No limit for payment of actual loss.
This alone will save billions. There will be a few less millionair lawyers.

Clamp down on fraud. Jail Doctors and lawyers.

Pass that legislation and wait a couple of years. Then lets see what we really need.

It is not the medical care system that needs to be fixed at this time.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Great link SNOK. Yoda...Really good ideas. I wish that people would get their heads out of their you know what and be active and write their reps and go to Tea Parties. It is exciting when Americans feel threatened and we fight back!!!!!!:crap2:

[Guest]

.....It may or may not come as a shock to you that I believe the healthcare system needs reform....Wow! Cabo, where in the world did you get the idea that my original post was a "blanket criticism of Obamacare". In the second paragraph of my opening post I say, ..."A couple things are for sure. Reform is necessary in order to bring down the cost of healthcare in this country and getting everyone insured. Whatever reforms are put in place should not add to the deficit or national debt."...

If given a choice, would I prefer Congress to put together a Rube Goldberg healthcare reform bill, or wait until next year and thoughtfully craft a piece of legislation that will work. I'll take "wait". If that's what you mean by "blanket criticism of Obamacare", I'm guilty. Congress has been considering then avoiding doing anything on healthcare for decades. We can wait another few months to do it right.

But I don't believe for a nanosecond that a thoughtful reform bill isn't needed. Quite to the contrary, significant reform is needed ASAP.

Notwithstanding the claims that there are other good alternatives out there, I am still a big doubter. There are lots of reform plans that have been published--the supposedly bi-partisan Dole-Daschle-Baker proposal http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/10782 is one that I read today. Having earned a living as a consultant for a few years, the use of "consultantese" in this proposal was maddening. Maybe not as confusing as the "legalese" in HR 3200, but maddening in that it wasn't any more understandable.

What I mean by a good alternative is one that can be understood by the majority of Americans and whose costs and benefits are reasonably measurable.

By the way, even though Dole, Daschle and Baker made an attempt to make their plan look "bi-partisan", I am left with some doubts. Dole and Daschle fail to mention that are both full-time employees of one of Washington's biggest lobbying firms, and that their firm represents 31 major companies in the healthcare industry. And I'm supposed to believe that their counter-proposal is simply a compendium of their "good ideas"? Yeah, right.

[Guest]

I think you may have misread my post or perhaps my point wasn't clear. I never said that your original post was a "blanket criticism of Obamacare". I said, "your blanket criticism of Obamacare critics misses an important element".

The essence of my post was to advocate process over details. I actually agree with you on much of the detail you have recently posted.

When are CD rates going up? Don't hold my breath right?

[Guest]

Kahuana: I have heard many alternatives that I would like to see regarding our health care system. They do not destroy what we have, but they do correct alot of what is currently wrong regarding costs, etc.

If you care to hear alternatives, which in this case are from some Republicans, then I will channel you to their sites. If you are against anything a Republican has to say, then that's okay too.

Your statement is incorrect in suggesting that there are no one has a better idea.

[Guest]

When are CD rates going up? Don't hold my breath right?Oh my. If I could answer that question with certainty, we could all get rich.

I don't know, but the way we're piling on debt, rates have to be going up before they come down. Deposits are just another source of money and if the foreign buyers of our Treasury debt withdraw some of their funding, the effect will be to drive the "price" (rates) of all debt of similar maturities upwards as all borrowers compete with the Treasury to obtain the funds.

The Treasury can forestall such rate increases by increasing the money supply (printing money), but that strategy will only result in inflation, which will also tend to drive rates upwards.

What I'm saying is that cash (CD's) are not a bad place to be these days. I just wouldn't buy CD's with really long maturities, so when rates start to climb you can cash in your CD's and jump on the bandwagon of increasing rates. Watch the chart of the yield curve published in the Wall Street Journal or Investor's Business Daily. Here's the curve from today, as published by Bloomberg.com http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html That will tell you what the market thinks will happen to rates over various maturities.

I began reducing my exposure to equities in favor of cash and high-yielding bonds well more than a year ago. It worked pretty well for me to temper the results of the stock market downturn. I'm still staying where I've been and haven't jumped back on the stock market bandwagon yet. I don't think the weak economic news is over quite yet.

But again, if I could answer the question of when the bottom of the stock market really occurred--that's different from the bottom of the economic cycle, of course--we could all get doubly rich.

[Guest]

Kahuana: I have heard many alternatives that I would like to see regarding our health care system. They do not destroy what we have, but they do correct alot of what is currently wrong regarding costs, etc.

If you care to hear alternatives, which in this case are from some Republicans, then I will channel you to their sites. If you are against anything a Republican has to say, then that's okay too.

Your statement is incorrect in suggesting that there are no one has a better idea.Hey, I've never rejected the discussion of good ideas, regardless of the "party source". Recent history seems to have proven that party labels really don't assure political conduct. (Are all Republicans really conservatives? Are Blue Dog Democrats totally liberal? What's Arlen Specter?)

I've said that I'm a fiscal conservative and left-leaning on social issues. What's that?

Sure, post some good sources of ideas. We can all learn something from them.

By the way, I really liked the two ideas that Charles Krauthammer included in the article that someone linked earlier in this thread. I had the medical tort reform included on my list, as well. But neither my list nor Krauthammer's is what I'd call a total reform program. Then again, maybe we'll never get much further than the enactment of law that reflects some of these ideas. Maybe there never will be a total and integrated program of healthcare reform. Krauthammer's ideas are good. So are some of those in the Dole-Daschle-Baker proposal. For that matter, there are some good elements in HR 3200. And from what I've read, the Danish system works quite well. Maybe some combination of them all would work.

[Guest]

I agree that Krauthammer's are good and would make a sensible first step. I believe that changes to the current system should be guided by the principle, "...first do no harm."

[Guest]

Kahuana:

You're probably leaning Democrat if you are left leaning on social issues. Entitlement programs (government run) like Obamacare would put you in liberal camp.

I'm fiscally conservative and socially conservative. Meaning, I believe in free enterprise, private sector business, no entitlements, responsibility for yourself. There are many aged, poor (who really ARE poor), and children who need help. I'm all for helping them out. That's probably as 'social' as I get.

Since I have paid in to SS and Medicare for more than 35 years, I feel I should get something back. But young people starting out in their careers should be able to invest the way they want to and be responsible for their retirement years.

Nothing is cut and dried, but I think you get the point.

2010 I'm going to vote out anybody I can who voted for TARP, R or D. If everyone really KNEW their candidates in their districts, we would not have this mess. Too many just go to the polls and vote party line. Vote policy. Then we the people will get control back from those whose salaries we pay.

[Guest]

Oh my. If I could answer that question with certainty, we could all get rich.

I don't know, but the way we're piling on debt, rates have to be going up before they come down. Deposits are just another source of money and if the foreign buyers of our Treasury debt withdraw some of their funding, the effect will be to drive the "price" (rates) of all debt of similar maturities upwards as all borrowers compete with the Treasury to obtain the funds.

The Treasury can forestall such rate increases by increasing the money supply (printing money), but that strategy will only result in inflation, which will also tend to drive rates upwards.

What I'm saying is that cash (CD's) are not a bad place to be these days. I just wouldn't buy CD's with really long maturities, so when rates start to climb you can cash in your CD's and jump on the bandwagon of increasing rates. Watch the chart of the yield curve published in the Wall Street Journal or Investor's Business Daily. Here's the curve from today, as published by Bloomberg.com http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html That will tell you what the market thinks will happen to rates over various maturities.

I began reducing my exposure to equities in favor of cash and high-yielding bonds well more than a year ago. It worked pretty well for me to temper the results of the stock market downturn. I'm still staying where I've been and haven't jumped back on the stock market bandwagon yet. I don't think the weak economic news is over quite yet.

But again, if I could answer the question of when the bottom of the stock market really occurred--that's different from the bottom of the economic cycle, of course--we could all get doubly rich.

Thanks for a thoughtful, informative post. We pulled a chunk out of equities last year also. We sold off the balance on the up tick of the recent Obama bounce. I believe we are in the eye of the storm and we have to go through some nasty turbulence before we hit meaningful measurements of recovery. I have to say being out of the market now has a residual peace of mind benefit. Going to miss those dividends and growth windfalls for a while.

Thanks again for the information.

[Guest]

Thanks for a thoughtful, informative post. We pulled a chunk out of equities last year also. We sold off the balance on the up tick of the recent Obama bounce. I believe we are in the eye of the storm and we have to go through some nasty turbulence before we hit meaningful measurements of recovery. I have to say being out of the market now has a residual peace of mind benefit. Going to miss those dividends and growth windfalls for a while.

Thanks again for the information.

Did I hear STORM?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqlybA4gdUg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moonbattery.com%2F&feature=player_embedded

[Guest]

Medicare works well because in nearly every medical situation the treatment is decided by the doctor and the patient. There are exceptions but nothing is perfect.

If we end up with a government program for all of us regardless of our age ,which is what obama wants, it will only work if it is precicely like medicare.

Finally, a sane non-partisan perspective. We simply need "Medicare for all" -- which we participants pay for monthly.3

[Guest]

Again I disagree with you VK on your original premise. There are lots of good ideas out there. And very few of them are in the current proposed bill. Retiredguy, we think much the same way. As to a plan that would improve the current system, move forward one step at a time. It may take 5 or 10 years to get there, but at least when we get there, what we have will work and work well.

1. Do no harm
2. ALL LEGAL US citizens will utilize the same plan including our elected officials.
3. Fix Medicare for the long term
4. Fix Social Security for the long term
5. Resolve tort reform and determine viable caps
6. Create an insurance pool for malpractice insurance to lower cost and eliminate unnecessary testing to CYA.
7. Provide government funded coverage for any annual medical cost that hits someone with over $1 million. With this all private insurance has a maximum exposure so cost will be lowered.
8. Lower Medicare age requirement by 2 years every year for the next 10 years to cover ALL LEGAL US citizens over 45. With this, Insurance cost will drop because the average health of a person under 45 is significantly lower risk then those over 45.
9. Incentives for students going to medical school to become doctors, nurses, and our health care professionals. Probably something like a reverse mortgage for a student loan payment plan. Open to good ideas on this one.
10. MONITOR all these first 9 steps to verify cost, effectiveness, and make necessary adjustments to resolve problems.

This plan will cost around 21% of the current proposed plan and provide a much better solution for most Americans. It does not cover Illegal people in this country. Illegal is Illegal and should be treated as such. It does help small business as it provides for lower insurance cost and makes private insurance more affordable. It moves us in the direction of providing health care for more and reduces the number of people not covered. I am sure my ideas are not the best and a team of smart people who better know all the issues could improve them. However my ideas are miles ahead of those currently proposed by those in Washington.

[Guest]

So far, the majority of comments have been by everyone except those whose professions are directly affected - t health care community itself. What is their consensus opinion. By consensus, I don't mean the AMA or AHA, as that's like AARP speaking for all seniors.

HR 3200 ends up with essentially-capped compensation, controlled working environments, and government supervision/reporting at all steps within the process.

Considering the cost of a medical education/training, will HR 3200 affect the medical school input population, since renumeration appears to be eventually less than now. Is that a negative incentive to go into medicine?

The basis of this question is close to me. I have a niece who was undecided about a medical career (research type) or other industy. In the end she decided on chemical engineering, and one of the largest energy companies just agreed to fund her master's degree in full at one of the top schools in the country. She will end up with her doctorate, and a well-compensated career, all debt-free.

She epitomizes the type of person one would want in the health care industry - at any level. Rather than go into a field with, in her mind, a questionable future, she took the golden route.

I know that some will say that health care "is a calling," and that everything else is secondary. Well, that used to be the situation with public education (pre-1960's), and then the field got flooded with people seeking draft deferments - the result being the start (and continued trend) of ever-decreasing SAT scores. The point of this is that when "we, the people" meddle (with the best of intentions) with any profession, there are unanticipated results, and almost always to the negative.

This is one of those "nasty details" that may or may not have been thought out, and in the mad rush to "pass anything soon" may fall through the cracks.

"We never have time to do it right, but we always have the time (and money) to do it over." We all have heard that one many times. When will we ever learn from it?

[Guest]

Medicare system works fairly well but has it's share of problems. Congress wants to cut it's budget 500 billion. WE who worked all our life waiting for and paying for Medicare will wind up with the short straw. The only persons who will benefit are folks that do not have health care and refuse to work for it. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but just watch the protests and see who is making the noise. Look past the sound bite.

[Guest]

Again I disagree with you VK on your original premise. There are lots of good ideas out there. And very few of them are in the current proposed bill. Retiredguy, we think much the same way. As to a plan that would improve the current system, move forward one step at a time. It may take 5 or 10 years to get there, but at least when we get there, what we have will work and work well.

1. Do no harm
2. ALL LEGAL US citizens will utilize the same plan including our elected officials.
3. Fix Medicare for the long term
4. Fix Social Security for the long term
5. Resolve tort reform and determine viable caps
6. Create an insurance pool for malpractice insurance to lower cost and eliminate unnecessary testing to CYA.
7. Provide government funded coverage for any annual medical cost that hits someone with over $1 million. With this all private insurance has a maximum exposure so cost will be lowered.
8. Lower Medicare age requirement by 2 years every year for the next 10 years to cover ALL LEGAL US citizens over 45. With this, Insurance cost will drop because the average health of a person under 45 is significantly lower risk then those over 45.
9. Incentives for students going to medical school to become doctors, nurses, and our health care professionals. Probably something like a reverse mortgage for a student loan payment plan. Open to good ideas on this one.
10. MONITOR all these first 9 steps to verify cost, effectiveness, and make necessary adjustments to resolve problems.

This plan will cost around 21% of the current proposed plan and provide a much better solution for most Americans. It does not cover Illegal people in this country. Illegal is Illegal and should be treated as such. It does help small business as it provides for lower insurance cost and makes private insurance more affordable. It moves us in the direction of providing health care for more and reduces the number of people not covered. I am sure my ideas are not the best and a team of smart people who better know all the issues could improve them. However my ideas are miles ahead of those currently proposed by those in Washington.

Sounds like a viable plan to me.

[Guest]

So far, the majority of comments have been by everyone except those whose professions are directly affected - t health care community itself. What is their consensus opinion. By consensus, I don't mean the AMA or AHA, as that's like AARP speaking for all seniors.

HR 3200 ends up with essentially-capped compensation, controlled working environments, and government supervision/reporting at all steps within the process.

Considering the cost of a medical education/training, will HR 3200 affect the medical school input population, since renumeration appears to be eventually less than now. Is that a negative incentive to go into medicine?

The basis of this question is close to me. I have a niece who was undecided about a medical career (research type) or other industy. In the end she decided on chemical engineering, and one of the largest energy companies just agreed to fund her master's degree in full at one of the top schools in the country. She will end up with her doctorate, and a well-compensated career, all debt-free.

She epitomizes the type of person one would want in the health care industry - at any level. Rather than go into a field with, in her mind, a questionable future, she took the golden route.

I know that some will say that health care "is a calling," and that everything else is secondary. Well, that used to be the situation with public education (pre-1960's), and then the field got flooded with people seeking draft deferments - the result being the start (and continued trend) of ever-decreasing SAT scores. The point of this is that when "we, the people" meddle (with the best of intentions) with any profession, there are unanticipated results, and almost always to the negative.

This is one of those "nasty details" that may or may not have been thought out, and in the mad rush to "pass anything soon" may fall through the cracks.

"We never have time to do it right, but we always have the time (and money) to do it over." We all have heard that one many times. When will we ever learn from it?Here is what a growing number of physicians support. www.pnhp.org

[Guest]

A growing number of physicians support a single payor system? Did it go from 1.5% to 1.55%? A single payor (which is government run) is not supported by private practice physicians. They do ot want to be government employees. Can you imagine their productivity if that were to happen. Government Healthcare will have the efficiency of the postal service and the compassion of IRS.
A successful system will allow the market to ration care in the same way it rations food and shelter. We should make a commitment to "consumer driven healthcare". Google that phrase.

[Guest]

Here is what a growing number of physicians support. www.pnhp.orgClearly, PNHP is a large group of doctors supporting a government single-payer system. But if their research is correct, adoption of such a system may be justified. It certainly can't be any worse than the collection of alarming and offensive ideas included under HR 3200.

Here's why the doctors support a single-payer system...

...private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans....

I've seen other estimates that the inclusion of medical tort reform would save another $210 billion per year. If my arithmetic is right, that's a little more than a 50% cut in the cost of healthcare as it stands now.

What are we waiting for? Who knows better about this stuff, Congress or the doctors? At least the doctors don't have lobbyists stuffing their pockets with money while stuffing their heads with legislative proposals.

[Guest]

...Can you imagine their (doctors) productivity if that were to happen? Government Healthcare will have the efficiency of the postal service and the compassion of IRS...Alarming words. But they're not borne out by the facts in several other countries that have nationalized, single-payer healthcare. The doctors report that they're happier and so are the citizens in many of the countries with government-run single payer systems. And their costs are significantly lower than we're paying in the U.S.

This is the kind of stuff we hear at the noisy town hall meetings that get people all upset, but bears little relationship to the subject we're talking about. What does the post office have to do with health care? The U.S. Postal Service has been a privately-managed GOC (government-owned corporation) for years. Other similar GOC's are Amtrak, the TVA, PBS, the FDIC, Exim Bank, the Federal S&L Insurance Corporation, almost every water company in the country, etc.

Other than oversight, the Congress has little to do with the operation of GOC's. Someone explain how using the USPS as an example has any predictive value in projecting what might happen under a government-owned health insurance company?

Until we start really thinking about this situation and rejecting the statements being thrown around by either political partisans or special interests with their own agendas, we'll never understand what's going on in the efforts to reform healthcare.

[Guest]

...Again I disagree with you VK on your original premise. There are lots of good ideas out there. And very few of them are in the current proposed bill....

1. Do no harm
2. ALL LEGAL US citizens will utilize the same plan including our elected officials.
3. Fix Medicare for the long term
4. Fix Social Security for the long term
5. Resolve tort reform and determine viable caps
6. Create an insurance pool for malpractice insurance to lower cost and eliminate unnecessary testing to CYA.
7. Provide government funded coverage for any annual medical cost that hits someone with over $1 million. With this all private insurance has a maximum exposure so cost will be lowered.
8. Lower Medicare age requirement by 2 years every year for the next 10 years to cover ALL LEGAL US citizens over 45. With this, Insurance cost will drop because the average health of a person under 45 is significantly lower risk then those over 45.
9. Incentives for students going to medical school to become doctors, nurses, and our health care professionals. Probably something like a reverse mortgage for a student loan payment plan. Open to good ideas on this one.
10. MONITOR all these first 9 steps to verify cost, effectiveness, and make necessary adjustments to resolve problems.
...It does not cover Illegal people in this country. Illegal is Illegal and should be treated as such...I don't know where we disagree. I love this list. Some of the same items are included on my list. But as you said, few of the ideas are included in any of the legislative alternatives being considered.

The challenge is: how do we get the Congress to consider our well thought out ideas?

[Guest]

VK-
The point is that the government never runs anything effeciently. Ask the auto dealers how the cash for clunkers is going. The physicians supporting single payor are typically the academic physicians. They don[t really work for a living. The priviate practice docs hate the idea. There is going to be continued pressure to see more and more patients with less and less physicians. There will have to be rationing based on the ability to pay. Under any plan we are considering, other than the Canadian system, there is a private practice component.
Again, Google "Consumer Driven Health Care" and take a look at that idea. We have to get away from first dollar coverage and provide some incentive for the consumer to shop for care. In our plan, I pay the first $1,250 and the insurance picks up 80% after that to a maximum out of pocket of $3,000. You tie this to an HSA where you can put about $4,000 away every year pre tax. You really decide what care you "need". This makes way more sense than Obamacare, or whatever.

[Guest]

...Ask the auto dealers how the cash for clunkers is going...The priviate practice docs hate the idea. There is going to be continued pressure to see more and more patients with less and less physicians. There will have to be rationing based on the ability to pay. Under any plan we are considering, other than the Canadian system, there is a private practice component....I beg to differ on C4C. My son works for Ford and C4C has provided a much-needed stimulus to late summer sales. There is a risk that C4C will pull buyers who might have bought in the later part of the year into a current buying decision, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

Back to healthcare...

None of the discussion here or any of the legislation being considered has said a thing about eliminating private practice physicians. All the hulaballoo is about healthcare insurance, mainly will it be private or have a public option? I don't think a word has been uttered about nationalizing healthcare in the U.S.

A lot of private practice doctors and their employers would love the idea of being able to avoid dealing with hundreds of different policies, benefits, claim procedures, forms, etc. in favor of a single payer of insurance claims. Some of the best doctors in the country, who work for some of the best known and respected multi-specialty clinics already work for a salary--just as they would in a nationalized system. All the doctors who work for the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic and others of the same quality already work for a salary. One seldom if ever hears complaints of a failing of care from those organizations.

If the doctors who belong to PNHC are even close to being right in their statement that 41% of healthcare costs derive from the inefficiencies of a multi-payer system, the idea of a single-payer insurer certainly seems to justify some consideration.

As far as "rationing healthcare" is concerned--it's already being rationed. Either Medicare or the many insurance companies decide what will be paid for and what won't. When you say that medical care needs to be "between the doctor and the patient", it hasn't been that way for years. Before your doctor prescribes any sort of test or procedure, he checks first whether your insurance company will pay him and how much. The number of days you stay in a hospital has nothing to do with how you feel or whether you and your doctor feel you're ready to go home. It has everything to do with how many days the insurance company will pay for hospitalization for a particular procedure or condition. If they won't get paid, they will not perform the procedure or prescribe the test or let you stay in the hospital. If that's not rationing, I don't know what is.

Regarding your comments on the patient who pays initial claims being "more responsible", I would suggest from first-hand experience that it doesn't work. I have insurance like yours, with even a higher deductible. But once my deductible was met earlier this year, and when an internist prescribed a test as part of a pre-surgery physical (a CYA test?), I wasn't about to argue with him. It wasn't going to cost me much of anything and without his approval, the surgery wasn't going to be performed. So I willingly submitted to the ridiculously conservative test. Your idea that deductibles will motivate patients to "shop" and make decisions to control costs is good in theory, but not practice.

[Guest]

Will you vote for any elected official who votes for or signs a health care bill that exempts themselves or other federal employees?
I wont.
If it is such a good idea, it should apply to them too. Period.

[Guest]

Until the government can run the Post Office and at least break even, until the government can find ways to reduce fraud in medicare and other programs, until the governemnt can learn to run a business, lets not allow them to have more programs to harm this county!! The difference between a business and our government is this, is a business runs in the red all the time, it closes it doors, if our government runs in the red, it just comes to the people for more money and more money and more money and more money, where does it end!!! So why talk about healthcare at all, until we fix these issues

[Guest]

Will you vote for any elected official who votes for or signs a health care bill that exempts themselves or other federal employees?
I wont.
If it is such a good idea, it should apply to them too. Period.

It will. Who told you it wouldn't?

Oh, right. The same people who've been telling you that there would be Death Panels and euthanasia. Oh, I almost forgot. Sarah Palin would have been forced to abort poor little Trig.

(And isn't it funny how Ms. Palin got her panties in a knot when others mention her kids, but she sees nothing wrong in using one of them as the focal point of some really bizarre theory.)

[Guest]

It will. Who told you it wouldn't?

Oh, right. The same people who've been telling you that there would be Death Panels and euthanasia. Oh, I almost forgot. Sarah Palin would have been forced to abort poor little Trig.

(And isn't it funny how Ms. Palin got her panties in a knot when others mention her kids, but she sees nothing wrong in using one of them as the focal point of some really bizarre theory.)

You are right. Some people hear what they want , See what they want and pay more attention to Beck , Limbaugh and others instead of finding out the facts for themselves.:cus:

[Guest]

You are right. Some people hear what they want , See what they want and pay more attention to Beck , Limbaugh and others instead of finding out the facts for themselves.:cus:

Try reading this:

It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536864955329439.html

Is the Wall Street Journal a good enough source?

Please apologize. Thank you.

[Guest]

Try reading this:

It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536864955329439.html

Is the Wall Street Journal a good enough source?

Please apologize. Thank you.

Jim Joe: I don't like the bill and will not vote for anyone that votes for it.
What you should have said was Gotcha and you Betcha. We need more of Sarah.:agree::agree:

[Guest]

Try reading this:

It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536864955329439.html

Is the Wall Street Journal a good enough source?

Please apologize. Thank you.


Thanks for the link JIMJOE !

As for an apology....dont think so. This is the elite group who finds those of us who post here offensive and detracting to the messag board.

THEY dont need to apologize....YOU must be wrong because they are always right !

AND the bill may...not may...WILL change as it passes but your point is well taken !

[Guest]

I do remain suspicious when some of the newbies seem to have taken up where some of the elitists so prevalent in 2008, left off. Could it be some have reincarnated? Sure does sound like it.
Once a person launches into their usual tempo, a style seems to surface.
Anyway the philosophy is sure the same. Died in the wool, staunch partisans whether right or wrong. And yes to a degree aren't we all!!!
Maybe, unlike their predecessors, they will not be so opposed to addressing issues posted instead of personal attacking and party defending. We'll soon see, or have we already?

btk

[Guest]

Thanks for the link JIMJOE !

As for an apology....dont think so. This is the elite group who finds those of us who post here offensive and detracting to the messag board.

THEY dont need to apologize....YOU must be wrong because they are always right !

AND the bill may...not may...WILL change as it passes but your point is well taken !

The only apology I want is from those who attack the speaker and not the speech. I urge anyone on either side of this debate to renounce personal attacks. When Palin is wrong, she is wrong, not stupid. When President Obama is wrong, he is wrong, not stupid.
When you are wrong and shown to be wrong, admit it.

[Guest]

The answer to the health care issue is that we as a nation must decide if we will provide government subsidized care to everyone who is physically present in the country. If so, then we must pay for it through increased taxes. How much health care does the government subsidized care include?
If you believe that the government should cover everyone (including illegal or unauthorized immigrants) and cover everything, you must urge tax increases on everyone to pay for it. It will just not be possible to do this without tax increases on everyone.
That is really a decision to use the force of government through taxes to make all citizens to spend money on health care that they would chose to spend on something else, ( a better house, a better education for themselves or their children, saving for retirement, or just recreation). If you are against tax increases on everyone, then you are in favor of rationing the way current health care is received by some based on wealth, to provide it to all based on lack of ability to earn or refusal to earn their own way.
Those against the public option, are saying citizens should be allowed to decide if they want to spend their money on health care or something else..
But they cannot claim also there is a magical way to cover all health care for everyone without tax increases. They are in favor of health care rationing based on wealth.
Now.. to be honest we ration homes based on wealth, education based on wealth, and recreation, clothes, food, and almost everything else..
People in favor of more welfare spending want less rationing based on wealth.
I believe that this country must use incentives to thrive. We must reward hard work and risk taking. It is what makes us great.
I believe that there must be basic health care for everyone but not perfect health care for everyone. The parameters of that will need extensive debate.
When I buy health insurance I can buy low deductible, high co pays, or gold plated coverage. I don't think people who get health care coverage from the government should get the gold plated when those who pay for their own must make the difficult choices to buy what they can afford. If you say they both should get the same, I say you are in favor of removing the incentives of hard work and risk that make this country great. If there is no reward for hard work, why should I work hard for good grades in high school, prepare for college entrance examines, work hard in college for good grades, prepare for the law school entrance exam, work hard in law school, and work hard in my job? Why would I spend all that money going to college if there was no reward in the future if I was successful, when my high school classmates who did not take the risk of failing law school, flunking the bar exam, running out of money, and not getting a good enough job to pay for school debts of 6 figures? Why would our children go through all the same things to become a doctor? Why would I do all that if I get the same health care no matter what?
I would not.
There is nothing wrong with earning a living. I am proud of what I have done and I am against a health care program as well as a tax system that tells me I was stupid to drive truck while I was in college, worked in a paint factory and for the attorney general while I was in law school, saved my money for retirement, while coming from a lower middle class family that could not help pay anything to help the first person in the family to graduate from college. I earned everything I have and I am against bailing out corporations, unions, banks, clunker owners, and the health care of every person who is physically present in the United States of America.
You decide what lesson you want to teach the next generation.

[Guest]

Until the government can run the Post Office and at least break even, until the government can find ways to reduce fraud in medicare and other programs, until the governemnt can learn to run a business, lets not allow them to have more programs to harm this county!! The difference between a business and our government is this, is a business runs in the red all the time, it closes it doors, if our government runs in the red, it just comes to the people for more money and more money and more money and more money, where does it end!!! So why talk about healthcare at all, until we fix these issues

Right On!!:beer3:

[Guest]

The answer to the health care issue is that we as a nation must decide if we will provide government subsidized care to everyone who is physically present in the country. If so, then we must pay for it through increased taxes. How much health care does the government subsidized care include?
If you believe that the government should cover everyone (including illegal or unauthorized immigrants) and cover everything, you must urge tax increases on everyone to pay for it. It will just not be possible to do this without tax increases on everyone.
That is really a decision to use the force of government through taxes to make all citizens to spend money on health care that they would chose to spend on something else, ( a better house, a better education for themselves or their children, saving for retirement, or just recreation). If you are against tax increases on everyone, then you are in favor of rationing the way current health care is received by some based on wealth, to provide it to all based on lack of ability to earn or refusal to earn their own way.
Those against the public option, are saying citizens should be allowed to decide if they want to spend their money on health care or something else..
But they cannot claim also there is a magical way to cover all health care for everyone without tax increases. They are in favor of health care rationing based on wealth.
Now.. to be honest we ration homes based on wealth, education based on wealth, and recreation, clothes, food, and almost everything else..
People in favor of more welfare spending want less rationing based on wealth.
I believe that this country must use incentives to thrive. We must reward hard work and risk taking. It is what makes us great.
I believe that there must be basic health care for everyone but not perfect health care for everyone. The parameters of that will need extensive debate.
When I buy health insurance I can buy low deductible, high co pays, or gold plated coverage. I don't think people who get health care coverage from the government should get the gold plated when those who pay for their own must make the difficult choices to buy what they can afford. If you say they both should get the same, I say you are in favor of removing the incentives of hard work and risk that make this country great. If there is no reward for hard work, why should I work hard for good grades in high school, prepare for college entrance examines, work hard in college for good grades, prepare for the law school entrance exam, work hard in law school, and work hard in my job? Why would I spend all that money going to college if there was no reward in the future if I was successful, when my high school classmates who did not take the risk of failing law school, flunking the bar exam, running out of money, and not getting a good enough job to pay for school debts of 6 figures? Why would our children go through all the same things to become a doctor? Why would I do all that if I get the same health care no matter what?
I would not.
There is nothing wrong with earning a living. I am proud of what I have done and I am against a health care program as well as a tax system that tells me I was stupid to drive truck while I was in college, worked in a paint factory and for the attorney general while I was in law school, saved my money for retirement, while coming from a lower middle class family that could not help pay anything to help the first person in the family to graduate from college. I earned everything I have and I am against bailing out corporations, unions, banks, clunker owners, and the health care of every person who is physically present in the United States of America.
You decide what lesson you want to teach the next generation.

I like your thinking! Very Friedman like.