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

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.

This Can't Go On Much Longer
 

And 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.

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:

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...

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 ????

I have children that run small businesses (20-30 employees each)
 

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

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.

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.

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?

We Don't Want Immigration Reform
 

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?

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???

Counter Intuitive
 

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/j...stribution.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/reproductivehealt...s/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.

Health Care Still the Best
 

http://www.newmajority.com/americas-...m-still-works/



http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...32723342557746

Accuracy Please?
 

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.

Some Thoughts
 

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.

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-tou...-to-obamacare/

The FActors and truths presented are impressive as stand alone statements.
 

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

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.

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?

Politics
 

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.

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.

Amen!
 

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?

: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!

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?

As Long As You Asked
 

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.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.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.

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.

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!!!!!!!

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

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

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.

A Free society
 

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: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.

: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.

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?