I'm curious, hypothetically speaking of course, if those of you who are opposed to any publically run health insurance plan took advantage of Medicare Part D- which represented a huge increase in unfunded programming for Medicare?

Is there personal responsibility to refuse to participate in government "giveaways" or do we only put the onus on the originator of the spending?

There are now plans to close the donut hole as well. Don't these two alterations to Medicare represent an attack on fiscal responsibility? And if so, shouldn't we be telling seniors to go back to spending their own money on their medications?

Yes this was another crazy idea. One that made many Republicans want to get rid of Bush the many times Liberal.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

I'm curious, hypothetically speaking of course, if those of you who are opposed to any publicly run health insurance plan took advantage of Medicare Part D- which represented a huge increase in unfunded programming for Medicare?

Is there personal responsibility to refuse to participate in government "giveaways" or do we only put the onus on the originator of the spending?

There are now plans to close the donut hole as well. Don't these two alterations to Medicare represent an attack on fiscal responsibility? And if so, shouldn't we be telling seniors to go back to spending their own money on their medications?

There are copious reasons why many Americans oppose a public run health insurance plan. Advocates with deception, smoke and mirrors talk about keeping your current coverage as an example of choice. In fact, most of us understand that those "choices" will disappear as employers opt out of the coverage they currently provide to employees and retirees. This will manifest when the government, unencumbered by profit motivation and the ability to just raise taxes and spread the wealth and health, gives them a cheaper option. Some will opt out, some will just pay fines as we morph into a government run single payer system. I think you know that is the ultimate goal of the current White House. They have not been even vaguely obtuse in using the words "path to a single payer system" to convince the hard left to accept any form of the public option. Indeed, it is a path. If nothing else, the radical left is tenaciously patient. The end result will dilute the quality of care for all.

Some posters have argued quality of life issues as trumping extension of life. While on a personal basis, I prefer quality of life, my main concern with government run health care is that politicians and bureaucrats will be significantly involved, one way or the other, in these decisions. I strongly believe that the decision making process should be the exclusive purview of the individual not the state. Therein lies the crux of my opposition and presumably, the objection of many others.

I believe every American should have the right to secure whatever level of insurance coverage they want and the government has no business regulating that condition. I believe its wrong to mandate "spreading the health" to include people who would rather buy a new Cadillac, flat screen TV, trip to Las Vegas, or a bigger house instead of investing in insurance. Further, it may surprise you that I believe the government should have a limited role in providing health care for those in unfortunate circumstance through no fault of their own. I am aware that deciding who would be the beneficiary of such support is a complicated, controversial issue but, not unsolvable.

In answer to one of your specific questions, personally, I had no expectation or desire for the government to pay for my medications. I would not protest if that program disappeared tomorrow but, I understand that is just my choice and I do not presume to speak for others who enjoy the benefit.

than Congress offering a bone to get backing from seniors....nothing more.
If Medicare part D disappeared tomorrow it would be no great loss.

I personally find that buying smart, working with your doctor on less expensive alternatives (when and where available) and utilizing off shore suppliers to be much more cost effective.

A cancer medication for post breast cancer hormone therapy used by women in Germany, made by the same company that makes the same medication for American women, the only difference is the name and the price, delivered by US Post Office to ones ..........door is 1/5th the price.

Affordable health care? Like everything else from the government.....is based on their definition. The long arm of the government is ever present in the pharmaceutical aspect of health care. The government allows them patent protections and other practices designed specifically to accomplish one end.....keep the price sky high. They also are protected by prohibiting other manufactures from competing with generics.

So why does our government who is so very concerned () about our well being, allow the pharmaceutical companies to continue in this mode. Why should American women be subjected to paying over $800 for a 90 day supply of the same medication her German counterpart pays $139 for a 90 day supply.

And under Medicare part D the government happily pays to the pharmaceutical company the difference of that high dollar amount over the co pay....now why is that? And when one hits the donut hole, the citizen is the one who pays full bore.

Please don't come back with the inferior aspect of off shore pharmaceuticals. The meds are sourced from the same manufacturer, same content, different name. And the German standards are as high and most often significantly higher than those of US manufacturers.

The government DOES NOT HAVE THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE in mind with these programs. Political personal gain and special interest support are the priority.

Why does anybody think the federal government's charade called health care reform will be any different.

btk

Thanks for the well-reasoned answers.

BTL, you mention, "A cancer medication for post breast cancer hormone therapy used by women in Germany, made by the same company that makes the same medication for American women, the only difference is the name and the price, delivered by US Post Office to ones ..........door is 1/5th the price." Isn't this one reason to get some reglation back into an unregulated system? Same thing where one or two health care corporations control 90% of all the insurance in one state- that seems like monopoly or oligopoly rather than genuine free enterprise competition. I realize many on teh board favor Hyaek/Friedman economics- I grew up with Keynesian- which predicted exactly wht has occurred the last thirty years. An unregulated marketplace ends up not encouraging free enterprise and entrepreneurship in established markets and services, but rather encourages the use of capital to buy up or merge with competition.

Thus came the trust-busting of the early 20th century. I wonder if we haven't reached the same levels here in some commodities- pharmaceuticals and oil, where the market is either mutually exclusive or manipulated in price-fixing. It's the case of the government being an umpire- simply calling balls & strikes without power to impact the sysrem, or rather a rules committee to establish the best methods possible for a good performance.

Of course there is the problem of patents for medications, yet outside the U.S.
they don't seem to be such a powerful force.

Originally Posted by cabo35

Some posters have argued quality of life issues as trumping extension of life. While on a personal basis, I prefer quality of life, my main concern with government run health care is that politicians and bureaucrats will be significantly involved, one way or the other, in these decisions. I strongly believe that the decision making process should be the exclusive purview of the individual not the state. Therein lies the crux of my opposition and presumably, the objection of many others.

I believe every American should have the right to secure whatever level of insurance coverage they want and the government has no business regulating that condition.

You say you don't want a government beareaucrat making your health decisions. I understand that. And while what I'm about to ask might sound provocative, I ask it in all sincerity.

Why is it ok for an insurance company beareaucrat, who's only interest is profit, to make that decision? To play Devil's Advocate for a minute, at least the government drone still wants your vote. Once you're a drain on an insurance company bottom line, their prime responsibility, which is to their stockholders, is to get you OUT of the system.

When I worked at Beth Israel Hospital some agency did a study that I wish I could find these days. It basically said that something over half of all benefits paid out by insurance companies went to 2% of the subscribers. Think about those numbers for a moment. It means that 98% of the people are making a profit for the company. It means that getting rid of those 2% is good for the bottom line. It *also* means, more insidiously, that the vast majority of subscribers won't get hit with being cut off when they need the insurance the most - which will keep the company form having to face torches and pitchforks. It means they can cut off those neediest and still look good doing it because so many other people think that they're well covered.

Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama believes the delusion that has become the greatest myth in the health-care debate. He said that President Obama's plans are "the first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known".

The U.S. is 31st in life expectancy - tied with Kuwait and Chile.

We're 37th in infant mortality (but that's partially due to so many premature births being recorded as infant deaths). However, an American kid is 2.5 times more likely to die by age 5 than Singapore or Sweden.

An American woman is 11 times more likely to die in childbirth than in Ireland.

Canadians live longer than we do after kidney transplants and dialysis.

Another study of 19 countries and how well they ranked in "preventable deaths" had us ranked dead last (pardon the pun).

If you're a minority here, it's even worse. If you're black and in New Orleans, you have a lower life expectancy than the average Honduran or Vietnamese.

But it's not all bad. Oddly enough, there's one place where Americans *do* rank well above all other countries. For someone who has already reach age 65, if they're an American, they can expect to live longer than the average person in any industrialized country. Why? Medicare. Suddenly they're in a single-payer system that can't kick them out. Suddenly they can go to the doctor for preventative treatment instead of using the ER when it's too late.

Make no mistake, even the places like the WHO don't rank the UK or Canada (single-payer systems) as #1. No, that honor seems to go to France which has public AND private insurance. It CAN work.

Just as some people pay more for security (security guards, patrols, etc) to supplement the local police department, or more money on supplements to other civic services, some would do the same even if 'the public option' became so ubiquitous.

of our representatives in Washington, including the POTUS.
There is nothing in their agendas to keep America great. Only political gain and or the gain of those who lobby and pay them cash.

It is individual first, party second. We the people or the ongoing viability of the USA being world class in all aspects of American life do not exist. Hence no progress at best and more deterioration to come.

Continue into 2010 and 2012....all incumbents.....OUT!!!!!!!!

btk

Of course there is nothing in their agendas to 'keep America great' when it comes to health care.

WE ARE *NOT* GREAT.

We border on THIRD WORLD statistics!

There is no 'great' to KEEP!

There are things in this country that really require us to look elsewhere and see what other have done THAT WORKS. Unfortunately, for some, and as LOATHE as I am to admit it, socialized medicine in Western Europe IS working better than what we have here. That was NOT the case in the 1980s. What's the difference between then and now? How about the insurance companies putting their shareholders first and everything else at the bottom of the barrel?

We *had* a good system. Government interference (like the allocation system to determine the supply and makeup of doctors that teaching hospitals graduate), runaway Wall Street greed on the part of insurers, runaway legal costs, people increasingly having the "doctor is God and can cure anything" attitude, pharmaceutical companies advertising to PEOPLE instead of in medical journals with their ad costs going up astronomically - all of those (and probably a lot more) have resulted in our broken system.

Originally Posted by djplong

Of course there is nothing in their agendas to 'keep America great' when it comes to health care.

WE ARE *NOT* GREAT.

We border on THIRD WORLD statistics!

There is no 'great' to KEEP!

There are things in this country that really require us to look elsewhere and see what other have done THAT WORKS. Unfortunately, for some, and as LOATHE as I am to admit it, socialized medicine in Western Europe IS working better than what we have here. That was NOT the case in the 1980s. What's the difference between then and now? How about the insurance companies putting their shareholders first and everything else at the bottom of the barrel?

We *had* a good system. Government interference (like the allocation system to determine the supply and makeup of doctors that teaching hospitals graduate), runaway Wall Street greed on the part of insurers, runaway legal costs, people increasingly having the "doctor is God and can cure anything" attitude, pharmaceutical companies advertising to PEOPLE instead of in medical journals with their ad costs going up astronomically - all of those (and probably a lot more) have resulted in our broken system.

Very well said. All sad, but true!

Sixteen years ago, a friend of mine in the DEA (who had also served four presidents in the the Secret Service) said to me:
"By 2012 we will be a third world country". I laughed and sluffed it off.

Unfortunately he is no longer with us. I would love to have his input now.

serving the needs of politicians and their donors.......and we the people allow it to continue!!!!!!!!!!!!!

btk