First: make all Americans and all companies eligible for participation in The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. There are a great number of plans, ranging widely in cost depending upon the benefits the individual or family is willing to pay for. In Florida alone, there are over nine companies offering over thirty plans. In a single stroke, this would solve the lack of availability of health care plans, the lack of competitiveness, exclusion for pre-existing conditions and the ability to drop individuals because of health problems.

Some low-income individuals/families would need government assistance in purchasing insurance, but the cost of this would be lower than the cost of treating low-income people in emergency rooms.

Second: Reform the medical malpractice legal system. To illustrate why this is costing us so much, I will use the statement by John Morgan of Morgan and Morgan law firm (you have seen him on TV) that they spend $20 million per year in advertising. If they seek only a 10 to 1 return on advertising, this means they are collecting in excess of $200 million dollars per year, primarily in the arena of Medical Malpractice. Their clients collect an additional $200 million, minimum, making the total of $400 million. This is for one law firm in a relatively small media market- #19 at the last time I checked. We are not talking NY city, LA, Chicago, etc. This is little Orlando. If we assume the Morgan law firm has cornered 20% of the market. Try to imagine the annual costs, if the #19 media market has $2 Billion in malpractice settlements. Try to imagine what the cost is in major markets!

We need to make the legal system in malpractice cases, a loser pays one. The real loser should not the plaintiff, but the lawyer who advertises, shows up in hospital rooms, mails letters encouraging people to sue, etc. This person should be held responsible for the costs.

If we do just these two things, then we no longer need to worry and argue about a government takeover of healthcare, or a change in the Dr. – Patient relationship.

You are right again.

The problem is that the Democrats do not want to improve health insurance. They want to destroy private companies on their way to bigger government. If you can come up with solutions that will do that THEN your plan may have a chance with Democrats.

Originally Posted by cashman

You are right again.

The problem is that the Democrats do not want to improve health insurance. They want to destroy private companies on their way to bigger government. If you can come up with solutions that will do that THEN your plan may have a chance with Democrats.

Sorry, but you're dead wrong! They want to create competition. Competition raises service and lowers prices. I remember when AT&T thought they were the only game in town. Prices kept skyrocketing. My internet phone now costs me just $30 a month. That's a good thing as I have so many right-wing friends to call and "brainwash!" Hahaha! (That's a joke! First I'd have to locate their brains! OK, another joke! )

Boy did i just prove my point.

The current law on the distribution of the Swine Flu vaccine is: The last who qualify are those 65 and older.!! If a Dr. has a patient 65 or older who has a problem and should have the vaccine the only way he can give it is by breaking the law !!
THIS IS THE CURRENT LAW..Now maybe one of those healthcare supporters can tell me how this is not a form of "thinning out the herd of 65+" which is what the government is not supporting but demanding. There goes grandma..

Originally Posted by REH7380

The current law on the distribution of the Swine Flu vaccine is: The last who qualify are those 65 and older.!! If a Dr. has a patient 65 or older who has a problem and should have the vaccine the only way he can give it is by breaking the law !!
THIS IS THE CURRENT LAW..Now maybe one of those healthcare supporters can tell me how this is not a form of "thinning out the herd of 65+" which is what the government is not supporting but demanding. There goes grandma..

My understanding of what is planned is slightly different. People our age show a much greater immunity to swine flu than those under 30. Seniors with serious chronic conditions (heart disease, cancer, etc) will take priority with other high risk groups. Medical caregivers will, as usual, go to the head of the line.

Originally Posted by REH7380

The current law on the distribution of the Swine Flu vaccine is: The last who qualify are those 65 and older.!! If a Dr. has a patient 65 or older who has a problem and should have the vaccine the only way he can give it is by breaking the law !!
THIS IS THE CURRENT LAW..Now maybe one of those healthcare supporters can tell me how this is not a form of "thinning out the herd of 65+" which is what the government is not supporting but demanding. There goes grandma..

If you read the information on the H1N1 virus or Swine Flu, the very least susceptible are people over the age of 65. So, being the last to get get it just makes sense. Also, many, many doctors advised not to run out for this vaccine as it has not been fully tested and the side effects are unknown. Some doctors statements I've read said they wouldn't even be letting their children take it.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Sorry, but you're dead wrong! They want to create competition. Competition raises service and lowers prices. I remember when AT&T thought they were the only game in town. Prices kept skyrocketing. My internet phone now costs me just $30 a month. That's a good thing as I have so many right-wing friends to call and "brainwash!" Hahaha! (That's a joke! First I'd have to locate their brains! OK, another joke! )

Chelsea, I invite you to go to The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program website. http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/eligibility/index.asp There you will see that there are numerous plans with highly competitive rates. There is competition and you are right, this does reduce cost to the consumer. The other advantage to this proposal is that we could start to do it at the beginning of 2010, rather than waiting until 2013 as either the House or Senate bills require since we would not have to build new Federal bureaus to administer the entire thing - another saving.

sometime (soon?). Remember the objective is to get SOMETHING passed this year no matter what is in the bill (an Obama paraphrase).
We also know the bill will be against the will of we the people of the USA.
We know there will be NO SAVINGS gained from the abuse in the current medicare and health care practices.
We know many more than expect it will see some sort of affect of increased taxation.
We know that Medicare benefits, remember, going defunct in less than 10 years before the health care reform razzle dazzle, will be reduced.
We know the crush of the additionally insured on the existing system will make for longer waits and futher out appointments as well as prioritzing.
We know there will be unpopular decisions as to the fates of those who are terminally ill (proof in other countries where so called government health care does not work).

We know there will be the puffing out of the chests in Washington to brag about the great they have done for we the people (excuse me ).

We know future generations will be burdened with deficits that today so far know limitless bounds.

We all know that if Obama ran for POTUS again today he would lose the election by more than he won last year.

We know the magic of words only is quickly fading here at home as well as in the rest of the world.
The schmooze and smiles are no longer effective.....at least to the people of the USA and the rest of the world who are looking for that which our politicians are incapable of delivering.....acceptable results.

We know we the people MUST send a strong signal in the 2010 elections by not voting for incumbents.

We know the 2012 election will have a very effective familiar ring......CHANGE IN THIS COUNTRY IS DESPERATELY NEEDED!!!

btk

I hear you but it is still a fact that those over 65 are more expendable than others. That is the definition of a sick society. How you treat your senior citizens is a good measure as to what kind of a nation you have. We have both had the Swine Flu so I am not really concerned from a personal standpoint but everyone should be outraged that one section of the US society is "expendable"..I guess what is next are those that are just not perfect, etc. Does it sound familiar??

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Sorry, but you're dead wrong! They want to create competition. Competition raises service and lowers prices.

This is a great mouthing of Obama's talking points, but answer this one: why is it that the federal government is needed to create competition? How is it that auto insurance companies seem to be able to compete just fine without a government option? Same with homeowners policies. Likewise for life insurance?

A key component to the Republican plan (yes, they do have a plan despite the constant strawman arguments put forth by our president to the contrary) is for increased competition by allowing cross-state competition, yet the Dems reject it. Why is that?

I'm with you BBQMan. Have you contacted your Congresscritter/Senator? I write them about once a week and let them know that I am watching how they vote.
Mrs. tghoul

Originally Posted by REH7380

The current law on the distribution of the Swine Flu vaccine is: The last who qualify are those 65 and older.!! If a Dr. has a patient 65 or older who has a problem and should have the vaccine the only way he can give it is by breaking the law !!
THIS IS THE CURRENT LAW..Now maybe one of those healthcare supporters can tell me how this is not a form of "thinning out the herd of 65+" which is what the government is not supporting but demanding. There goes grandma..

Did you hear that one on Fox Noise.....

Have you checked on what population classes are most at risk for the H1N1 flu? Check that out first before you claim the government is thinning the herd.....

It is a shame that you are failing to understand the point..I will try again. It is not a question as to who is at most risk. What is important is that the government is dictating who will get medicine and who will not. That is circumventing the medical profession who should be making the call. I can attest that the Swine Flu for those over 65 is not generally a tragic event. Both my wife and I contracted it when we returned from a trip to the UK and recovered quite well. What is the concern is that the government is now deciding to "thin the herd" of those over 65 by arbitrarily denying a group proper medical coverage. That is a tragic event. It is a dangerous step towards what a facist or socialist state is known for. If a person is either one of these [Facist/Socialist] then it may fit their way. It is not my desire to turn the US into a facist state. I should also add that my information came from a very well respected Dr. who does not appear on Fox NEWS. Are you old enough to remember the way the facist's Gov't handled those who were mentally challenged, or did not fit what they wanted. If you are then you should be able to remember how all of that started with an simple policy that all overlooked. I repeat: How a nation treats its senior citizens or less fortunate is the true measure of the nation.

Originally Posted by REH7380

It is a shame that you are failing to understand the point..I will try again. It is not a question as to who is at most risk. What is important is that the government is dictating who will get medicine and who will not. That is circumventing the medical profession who should be making the call. I can attest that the Swine Flu for those over 65 is not generally a tragic event. Both my wife and I contracted it when we returned from a trip to the UK and recovered quite well. What is the concern is that the government is now deciding to "thin the herd" of those over 65 by arbitrarily denying a group proper medical coverage. That is a tragic event. It is a dangerous step towards what a facist or socialist state is known for. If a person is either one of these [Facist/Socialist] then it may fit their way. It is not my desire to turn the US into a facist state. I should also add that my information came from a very well respected Dr. who does not appear on Fox NEWS. Are you old enough to remember the way the facist's Gov't handled those who were mentally challenged, or did not fit what they wanted. If you are then you should be able to remember how all of that started with an simple policy that all overlooked. I repeat: How a nation treats its senior citizens or less fortunate is the true measure of the nation.

I don't believe that restricting a rare, at this point, vaccine to the population class that needs it the most will turn this country into a fascist state.

The terms fascist and socialist are in these times abused terms. Even though I found the former president to be repugnant and some of his polices illegal never once did I believe that in 8 years a new president would be lawfully elected. The same cannot be said for the opposition now.... and for what reason? I will always believe in the United States of America.