Originally Posted by saratogaman

We already have a low-cost, single-payer system health insurance system. It is about health insurance, individuals have freedom of choice in selecting providers, administrative costs average 4% vs. 14% for private insurance carriers -- it's called Medicare!
Let's simply expand coverage to people under 65, DUH!
There are no waiting lines in Canada (I have spoken with Canadian consumers and not listened to the crapola from the lobbyists and their radio acolytes). Canadians love the system, the freedom of choice and the low insurance rates.
What are we waiting for?

Don't forget the VA, and TriCare for Life for military and vets.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

The opponents of any form of government healthcare insurance will wail that the government will become our health care provider, they will pick our doctors and prescribe our treatment. That allegation will circulate, even on this forum, even though no one--NO ONE--has proposed that to be the case. The worst scenario I've heard is that the government will provide an insurance option, but that everyone will have the right to remain with their existing insurer if they so choose. But the plans being discussed will provide for healthcare coverage for the 50 million or so who don't currently hve coverage.

Kahuna, why is it that you describe those who oppose the government's active role in national health care as "wailers" while you cloak your own support with a superior, aloof, pedantic Obamaesque attitude?

Like Obama, you state your case eloquently and intelligently but without the ever present teleprompter. However, do you really understand what is going on? Have you read Tom Daschle's book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis"? The book is a boilerplate for the Obama Health Plan albeit an unoriginal ripoff of Britain's health care system. The significance of the book is that Daschle was selected to be Obama's Health Czar or Health and Human Services Secretary and sell the plan to Congress and the American people. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your perspective, he was derailed by a little $140,000 tax oversight for "consulting", (aka lobbying?), he was paid for. That and the chauffeured car he had at his disposal owned by whoever. I digress.

His proposal, largely lifted from the Brits, who by the way are largely not fond of it, calls for merging of employers' plans, Medicaid and Medicare with an expanded FEHBP (Federal Employee Health Benefits Program), no problem so far. However the system would be under the control of a Federal Health Board and you know what Federal implies as to control. Therein is the root of my opposition and "wailing". Do you think politics could enter the equation? Do you think politics could enter the life and death decision making? Let me explain further.

The essence of the plan is scary. It is built around and rooted in cost-effectiveness comparisons. Sounds like it could save money what with all that cost effectiveness overtone but I suspect it would be largely at the price of limiting patient access to certain medical treatments as determined by the Federal Board controlled by who?

In reality, medical treatment would be rationed according to "cost effectiveness as determined by the government. The British counterpart is called NICE for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. I talked to Brits just last week, who say most of their countrymen hate NICE. NICE apparently gets to decide who is going to get treatment and who is not, who is going to live, who is going to die. I understand the reality and economies of scale that could be realized and even heard a doctor support the concept. I am just not ready to abdicate to the government the right to decide who lives and dies in my family or any American family. Rank me with the "wailers" you mock if you wish, but I am not confident Obama and the government can distinguish and decide with political detachment such important considerations. If my recall of history hasn't left with my short term memory, didn't that little Austrian house painter in 1939 try to decide who was worthy of saving with medical treatment and who was not?

Further, the temptation to bait and switch in favor of power, is just to great for Washington to pass up. Who in the capitol is courageous enough to say what the Obama administration's true intention is......I believe it is to control health care in America at all costs. Banking, the automobile industry, health care, pharmaceutical vis-a-vis healthcare.........totalitarianism. Maybe that's just me "wailing".

Have a good evening in the Villages.

I'm all for it. Hopefully we that now can afford good health won't find ourselves being needy and w/o it. That's all I'm going to say.

P.S. I thought this was a poll and not another political platform. I'm sorry to say that so many posts are turning very political on TOTV.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Healthcare for Americans has been primarily the product of insurance plans negotiated by employers and offered by private insurance companies. For those of us that have coverage, it's become dramatically more expensive over the last decade or so. At the same time, payments to providers--with the exception of the pharmaceutical companies--have declined to the point where doctors and hospitals are being very selective on which insurance companies they will accept for assignment. Many big city doctors and hospitals won't accept Medicare anymore. And in Illinois, a large group of hospitals and doctors have opted not to accept the largest insurer in the state, Blue Cross-Blue Shield.

At the same time this is happening to those of us that are insured, there are 50 million Americans--almost 20% of our population--that have no health insurance at all. If they get sick or are injured, their only option is a hospital emergency room which, when they can't pay the bill, adds to the cost that must be shared by the rest of us.

THE PRIVATE SYSTEM OF HEALTHCARE INSURANCE THAT WE HAVE NOW ISN'T WORKING!

Clearly, something needs to be done to correct the problems I've cited. I'm sure there are all kinds of possibilities that will be discussed by Congress. The opponents of any form of government healthcare insurance will wail that the government will become our health care provider, they will pick our doctors and prescribe our treatment. That allegation will circulate, even on this forum, even though no one--NO ONE--has proposed that to be the case. The worst scenario I've heard is that the government will provide an insurance option, but that everyone will have the right to remain with their existing insurer if they so choose. But the plans being discussed will provide for healthcare coverage for the 50 million or so who don't currently hve coverage.

If in the process of legislating a plan, some of the abuses that have resulted from the lobbying of special interests--the effect of the pharma lobby on the Medicare prescription bill is a good example--so much the better.

I only hope that as a country we can afford to pay for a plan that private companies have failed horribly to provide.

From 1988-2003, I had health insurance from my employer, and it WORKED REAL WELL. I haven't had health insurance for 6 years. I am in good shape and work-out regularly. I know I can get sick and lose it all but I would rather not have any then to have a watered-down version of what I had before.
Hopefully, I'll find better employment that has good insurance.

Healthcare?

Let's see, Medicare and Social Security are both bankrupt as well as the entire Government in general. Hum...

Originally Posted by gnu

...What else would you like the government to own/run? Cradle to grave care such as in Sweden?

Actually, there are some interesting facts about all of Scandanavia. A survey done last year, primarily among Swedes, Danes and Norwegians, showed that they were consistently happy with their way of life and their governments. A surprising section of the survey was a series of questions regarding where else in the world they would like to live and why. And where in the world they absolutely would not want to live.

On that last set of questions, the Scandanavians were almost unanimous in their opinion that they definitely would not want to live in the U.S. They felt that they enjoyed a better standard of living, better healthcare, better education, a more stable economy and were generally happier with their lives than any Americans that they knew. They had a uniformly high regard for the performance of their elected government. A high percentage of the survey respondents had visited the U.S. and had formed their opinions first-hand.

It was an eye-opener for those of us who think we have it pretty good here in the old homeland. Yes, the Swedes pay higher taxes than we do. But they believe they're getting their moneys worth, seemingly borne out by many of the country comparison statistics. It seems to beg the question of how satisfied we are with our elected officials and the governance they provide?

And we should refrain from commentary because it is political?
And if this poll was placed in TV non general discussion, would it be OK to comment?
No struggle no progress. Stand and be counted. If ya don't like the heat stay outta da kitchen. The more the merrier.
Down with the SILENT majority

btk

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Actually, there are some interesting facts about all of Scandanavia. A survey done last year, primarily among Swedes, Danes and Norwegians, showed that they were consistently happy with their way of life and their governments. A surprising section of the survey was a series of questions regarding where else in the world they would like to live and why. And where in the world they absolutely would not want to live.

On that last set of questions, the Scandanavians were almost unanimous in their opinion that they definitely would not want to live in the U.S. They felt that they enjoyed a better standard of living, better healthcare, better education, a more stable economy and were generally happier with their lives than any Americans that they knew. They had a uniformly high regard for the performance of their elected government. A high percentage of the survey respondents had visited the U.S. and had formed their opinions first-hand.

It was an eye-opener for those of us who think we have it pretty good here in the old homeland. Yes, the Swedes pay higher taxes than we do. But they believe they're getting their moneys worth, seemingly borne out by many of the country comparison statistics. It seems to beg the question of how satisfied we are with our elected officials and the governance they provide?

Gee man...you make it sound so good....what are you waiting for?????????

Here's an article from the most recent issue of the AARP Bulletin.

Basically, Congress and the special interests are still so early in the "discussion" stages of any kind of legislation, that there really is very little for us to argue about here.

Then, when all gets said and done, the question of whether we can afford whatever plan is put on the table will remain. All I can say is that it would be a shame--an indictment of our system, really--if the most developed country in the world can't come up with an affordable way to provide healthcare to almost 20% of it's population.

Here's the article explaining how early in the process we really are...

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/...lthreform.html

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Here's an article from the most recent issue of the AARP Bulletin.

Basically, Congress and the special interests are still so early in the "discussion" stages of any kind of legislation, that there really is very little for us to argue about here.

Then, when all gets said and done, the question of whether we can afford whatever plan is put on the table will remain. All I can say is that it would be a shame--an indictment of our system, really--if the most developed country in the world can't come up with an affordable way to provide healthcare to almost 20% of it's population.

Here's the article explaining how early in the process we really are...

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/...lthreform.html

Yea, we have developed a huge national debt
Yea, we have developed high unemployment
Yea, we have developed the fall of capitalism
Yea, we have developed panic in the business sector
Yea, were developing into the world's laughing stock...
I'll be back...I have some more developments......

That very best stateroom on the Titanic line is from this article from Business Week. It's a comment made by some think tank guy about those who cling to the status quo in this health care fight. It also can apply to those who have coverage and figure to heck with anybody who does not.

I am fiscally conservative. A moderate mostly about other things political. I have health care coverage. But I know something has to give. Somehow. Some way. And I think some kind of solution would be good for business. People could retire early and open jobs. And rising premium costs would not swallow small business whole. Oh and btw, I get the thing about the taxes. But there are CEO's who think the trade-off could be a good one. They want out of the business of health care.

The article is about CEO's who are secretly wishing for health care reform. They want out of having to provide health care coverage. The horrendous costs are making it more and more impossible for them to compete.

CEO's, the gods of capitalism. Some of them are pretty darn smart people. CEO's thinking that health care costs are killing their competitive edge. (Ya think?) A few are actually saying it out loud. But I'll just bet there is a silent majority.

So before some of you go all knee-jerk on me, maybe take a look at this article. You cannot get much more capitalistic than a CEO.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...1023543934.htm

Boomer

Originally Posted by KayakerNC

Don't forget the VA, and TriCare for Life for military and vets.

KayacerNC, I suggest you not praise the VA system until you have been in it. My personal experience is with the VA Hospital Gainesville and VA support for needed drugs. I was transfered to VA Gainesville, when I was diagnosed with double pneumonia here in the Villages. I was patient 5 in a 6 bed ward. While my temp spiked between 104 and 105, there was virtually no nursing care. As I got better, I realized that there were others in the ward that were in worse shape than I. The staff was upset that I was doing that which was needed and that which they were unwilling to do. As to drugs, I have taken Plavix for several years now to control a series of TIA's. It worked and both I and my civilian Neurologist felt it should be continued. The VA 'guidelines' require that Plavix be eliminated after two months wo further problems. My neurologist described this as malpractice and provided me with continuing prescriptions until such a time as I was able to go on Medicare. My brother, a highly decorated vet of WWII (Silver star and three purple hearts) and intense combat in Korea had similar problems when he became ill with brain cancer. His son, who had the actions to act took him to the Mayo Clinic in MN. They were able to extend both his life and the quality of it. His widow is now getting the same runaround.

In another thread, Steve Z pointed out that when health care is rationed, the elderly could expect to be awarded treatment on their potential future value to society. He's right. A single payer system will set us on the road to euthanasia by neglect.

We already have Natl. Health Care in practice.......it is call the Veterans Administration Hospitals......and haven't they just done a wonderful bang-up job for our veterans who come home armless, legless, missing many parts, just to be pushed into corners waiting for help. A disgrace to the uniform, the country, and our government. So how the heck would you expect them to run a natl. health care program? Easy......just like Canada. Stack the patients up, and watchem expire before any care is given.

Originally Posted by billethkid

.AND IS A DISTRACTION TO MR. OBAMA AND HIS CONGRESS TO FIX THE ECONOMY as promised to get elected.

The economy first before all the other fluff programs. BTK

The majority of bankruptcies in this country are caused by health care bills. So fixing our health care payment system may be a big piece of improving our economy. You're calling the health care system FLUFF?

And as someone mentioned, our companies are currently being strangled by health insurance budgets. Let's face it, the health care payment system needs to be changed or cost curbs (efficiencies) need to be enacted. I don't know which model would work best but the current one is broken.

And Keedy: I don't see what is wrong with loving the country you are in (USA in our case) yet still wanting to see improvements made as we progress. Yes we can learn things from other countries and formulate a plan that will work for us.

A couple of references: (2005) http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...tcy_study.html

(2009) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/hea...=moreheadlines

I'm for an affordable system that both private and some national program can compete against each other. I have health insurance as does my husband - premiums $9000 a year with a $1250 deductible. These are company subsidized programs from our retirement from insurance companies. The $9000 per year is what the 2 of us pay together. Our medications cost $1600. every quarter so we were glad to get it until we are old enough for medicare. I don't know what we would do if our granddaughters lost their coverage.