Here's an interesting video reflecting what is happening across the country.

Notice that it's not only this father that is impacted but his employer and all the other employees at his company as well.

Working man - son's desease


The website www.guaranteedhealthcare.org has many other video's depicting what is going on around the country that everyone should check out. Just because it's not you today...doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow.

Mr. Wondering

What's a life worth?

No doubt there ARE many heart wrenching stories that result from serious health conditions.

As one of the videos stated..."Medicare for all."

I can only say that people don't understand how medicare works who advocate the Medicare system as the "cure all" for healthcare coverage for everyone.

But going back to your video of the child with hemophilia, there ARE other insurance products available that cover $1 million, $ 2 million, $5 million, UNLIMITED totals.

It isn't usually that the products aren't available, it's that people CHOOSE their plan. And group insurance IS priced according to the experience of the group. Individual insurance is NOT. Group insurance CAN, and WILL go up if there is large utilization of costly services, whereas individual insurance cannot be increased if based on usage.

In addition, it is the Employer who chooses what Plans will be offered to employees. It is NOT the Insurance Company. And YES, the costs can get to be a very expensive part of an Employer's "benefit package," generally adding 30-50% of the salaries paid out.

I'm trying to get a handle on WHAT it is you are arguing for. That we should feel "sorry" for the people who DO have health problems? I do, unless it is self-inflicted.

That we should feel sorry that healthcare is EXPENSIVE? I do, but that is NOT the Insurance Company's fault.

That we should feel sorry that serious health issues CAN "bankrupt" someone? I do, and it can. That is why we have insurance.

That we should change the WHOLE system because SOME people have health issues? I don't. I think there are some things that could be changed, but not the whole system.

I listed several things earlier, but so far you have not responded with anything other than this 'appeal to emotions.' IF you think that healthcare should be provided by the government and that payment coverages should be UNLIMITED, that is your right. But how about addressing the real costs and management of the healthcare system where reimbusement is FIXED.

What Medicare does, for example, is to DENY payment for services for a variety of reasons. If there is NO reimbursement for services (and it happens NOW a LOT of the time because the "single payor" Medicare decides what it pay it's meager reimbursement for and what it won't pay anything for), HOW do you expect the PROVIDERS of healthcare to stay in business, or not need a "bail out" from the Federal goverment?


What's a life worth?

It's hard to answer, but those who are clamoring for a "single payor system," also seem to have no compunction about Aborting babies. What IS a life worth?

Why not just let the sick die, as they kill babies, because they are inconvenient and "too costly" and "interfere" with our lives?

Why spend a Million dollars on treating someone with a health problem when it's much less costly to simply let them die?

"Emotional appeals" are easy. Actually dealing with the whole issue of healthcare is NOT.

This is exactly the decision that the private "for profit" health insurance industry gets to make all the time. I'd much rather trust a government board made up of physicians (as they have in Canada) that a have to answer to the public making such determinations for me and my family than such Corporations accountable and duty bound to only their shareholders.

As far as your examples...suggestion.

Up to $100,000 private health insurance policies and then relying on some form of charitable organization to cover things over and above is just ludicrious.

I am certain it sounds nice to an insurance salesmen. You'll be able to sell policies to nearly everyone, at first. They would be affordable for many...but the same problems arise. First...you've got to get the private insurance to cover $100,000 of care (which we both know they have quite a bit of experience finding ways of weeding out the ones most likely to get sick and/or denying treatment) and then, this illusory charity would not have unlimited funds and would have to make important decisions regarding allocation of care/treatment without accountability to anyone.

Would I as a Christian get more care?

Would I as a Crhistian get less?

Would I as a wealthy American get preferential treatment?

Do donors get more access?

No...private insurance is a failure. First, it couldn't cover our seniors...thus, medicaid. Then...the terminally ill...medicare (hope I don't have those backwards). The private Health Insurance Industry keeps wanting to carve out the risk and throw it on the government while keeping the "profitable" "healthy" business to itself claiming we have got to keep the government out....oh, no, socialism.

Single Payer will NOT be a dream. But consider this...if I, someone who can afford private health insurance pretty much without real concern for the cost thereby guaranteeing me premium care over the uninsured and in deference to the fact I will have to compete for care under the single payer plan with EVERYONE, then your case is pretty much already lost. You can speak to me as though I don't understand and attempt to use the same smoke and mirrors your industry has trotted out there for years to maintain this fraud but I'm not buying it.

I see hospitals in my area...in economically depressed Detroit making HUGE profits....expanding buildings and purchasing expensive capital equipment but yet, all some people need is a community health care facility where they can reasonable obtain anti-biotics for an ear infection or simple immunizations without having to go to an emergency room to get it. We spend way to much money on assisting 80 year old's with bad tickers because they are profitable customers for hospitals and not enough on children. Basic care is NOT that expensive. Health Care doesn't have to consume over 15% of our GDP and access to health care shouldn't be a "for-profit" private executive decision.

Mr. Wondering

According to this report, children really don't want government supplied healthcare:

The Onion: Most Children Not in Favor of Child Healthcare

Okay, then the first thing you can do, and you don't have to wait for anything or anyone, is move yourself and your family to Canada. Easy solution.

You don't like our system, just like Obama doesn't like capitalism and wants to enact socialism/Marxism. That's fine, then move somewhere else and don't try to impose your socialistic/Marxist "from each according to his ability to each according to their need" on the rest of this country and destroy the "engine" that has made America, and it's healthcare system, the "envy of the world."

And you "trust" physicians?" Give me a break. All of the malpractice suits alone should make it clear that people DO NOT trust physicians when things "go against them" in any way. It's "heal me or I will sue you."




Mr. W., it's ridiculous to respond to this GROSS DISTORTION of what I said. Why don't you use a little honesty and go back an READ what I DID say before attempting to "meld" two completely different things into "one" thing in order to "make your point."

AFTER you have reread what I wrote I'll be happy to discuss those things with you if you'd like.



Mr.W., "Christian" organizations for healthcare coverage already exist that operate on the basis of "you contribute to the total pool and when someone in the pool has a need, everyone is asked to contribute to covering the cost of their care." Those plans also WARN people that there programs IS NOT intended to replace a regular Major Medical plan. Why? Because they work fairly well for "low cost" expenditures, but NOT very well for "high cost" expenditures BECAUSE the cost is NOT determined by the insurer, it is determined by the PROVIDER of the healthcare service, whether it be the Hospital, the Doctor, the Pharmaceutical Company, etc.

Furthermore, the "donating" to someone else's needs is voluntary, not mandatory. What you want is Mandatory confiscation of "contributions" (taxes) whether you can afford it or not, whether you want to contribute to someone's "healthcare need" or not (like they currently confiscate MY money to pay to Planned Parenthood abortion centers).

By the way, Mr. W., have you ever heard of St. Jude's Hospital or the Shriners Hospitals?
How about the Jerry Lewis telethon? No need for any of those places when the government will provide all the funding. All they have to do is WANT it and the government will PAY for it.




Is it a "failure?" I know a LOT of people who think their health insurance plan is a "godsend" and "well worth" the premium they pay.

I used to deal with Hemophilia patients and the Factor (there are several types of Factors depending on the type of Hemophilia they have) IS very expensive. It is also something that affects a relatively small percentage of the population. But your "answer" is to saddle the entire population with socialized medicine as your "way" to help them.

Why not. All you are doing, and all you are refusing to discuss, is the equivalent of "killing the Golden Goose" in order for SOME people to have the available "Golden Eggs."




I understand you "aren't buying it." That is precisely the point. You are acting on emotions and not actually engaging your brain in looking at ways to IMPROVE the system. You would rather SCRAP the entire system and replace it based SOLELY on money, NOT quality of care or availability of care. No consideration of the "unintended side effects" of socialized medicine.

That's the same reason you voted for Obama and his "dream" of socialized medicine.

That's the same reason you support "abortion on demand" and kill off the babies rather than have a real discussion about providing for the needs of those babies. "You may not 'personally' believe in abortion, but it's okay for someone else because only THEIR baby gets to die." Talk about "Christian?" Talk about "passing the buck" to someone else?
Where is good old Dr. Kevorkian, the wonderful Michigander, when you need him?





You are remarkably naïve on this issue of healthcare, Mr. W.

Let's just assume for a minute you are right and we stop the building and expansion of hospitals. We don't "update" any facilities or add new treatment technologies and capabilities. INSTEAD we build community health care facilities where they can reasonable obtain anti-biotics for an ear infection or simple immunizations without having to go to an emergency room to get it.

WHAT happens to the people who need more than some antibiotics and immunizations? Where do they go to get treated for more serious issues? What happens when they DON'T improve their existing facilities to "state of the art" and someone doesn't get the outcome they wanted? Do they go find a lawyer and SUE? Do they just "die" because the money that could have been spent on upgrading the hospital was spent on community "low level" healthcare facilities?

I suppose you are next going to want some "regionalized super-hospitals" where people will have to go to get the more complex level of treatment they want and/or need?

Where will they be located? How will the patient and family get there? Where will they stay? The list goes on and on.



No sir, we spend so much money on "80 year old's with bad tickers" because we VALUE LIFE. The CHOICE to seek or not seek medical care is the PATIENT's, NOT the Doctor's or the Hospital's. We spend so much money on "80 year old's with bad tickers" because THEY don't want to die. Have you ever heard of DNR? That's a signed LEGAL document that releases the Doctors and Hospitals and Nursing Homes and everyone from LAWSUITS because the PATIENT and/or their family members, POA, etc. have CHOSEN that they don't want more "help." "Do NOT Resuscitate" is what that means, and is the same sort of thing that is CHOSEN when someone enters HOSPICE.

But it's interesting to hear your "reasoning."

"Kill the babies" to avoid the "cost" of "unwanted children."

"Kill the elderly" because they are "too costly" to the system.

I'm beginning to get a much a better understanding of your socialist ideas….Let the STATE decide for you….

Why "wait" on the elderly? Ever hear of Terri Schiavo?



You're right. It doesn't "have to" be so expensive. Just kill off the one's who are not yet born or who are "too old." But PAY all it takes for child with Hemophilia, at least until THEY get "too old." WHAT IS TOO OLD, Mr.W? You seem to be equating it to "costly healthcare procedures and help" because of some condition (i.e. a 'bad ticker').

WHO, under your "vision" of socialized medicine and control of the system by some unknown but "trusted" doctors, gets to DECIDE who lives and who dies?

It is NOT the insurance company who determines the COST of the system. The "Baby Boomers" will soon be moving "en masse" into your "age" defined benchmark for NOT GETTING TREATED BECAUSE IT'S TOO EXPENSE.

If you really THINK that 15% of the GDP is "too much," then you have no idea of the FACT that the cost of Medicare and Medicaid is ALREADY socialized medicine and IS spiraling out of control, and that they (Medicare and Medicaid) ALREADY "manage cost" by denial of services and PROVIDERS already limit acceptance of those reimbursement sources because they don't pay enough to cover the COST of staying in business to provide the service.

OUTSTANDING humor to actually address a real problem with "access" to medical care under socialized medicine.

It appears that your entire argument is based on the fact that Insurance companies are "For Profit". That Hospitals are "for profit". That if we went to a "Single payer" system then everything would be all right, that everyone would be covered and get the same care.

Aren't MOST companies for profit. Mr W.....is the company you work for a "For Profit" company?? Isn't your monthly pay and benefits offered a direct result of how much money your company makes in PROFITS and how much the owners or stock holders are willing to pay you and everyone else at your company?

You want to talk about the BIG BAD Insurance Industry and the problems that THEY create and how all they care about is profit. The claims that they don't pay because they are greedy. For every sad story you reference about an insurance company not paying claims on someone, there are 10's of thousands where they DID pay.

Not paying or refusing paying, is a direct result of the policy that each person has and it's limitations, if any. You have the same thing on your car insurance and home owners insurance but I don't see you ranting and raving about those entities. If your house floods and you don't have flood insurance on your policy, who's fault is it? Yours? The Insurance Companies? If you CHOSE not to carry the flood rider on your policy thinking "it will never happen" then it's YOUR problem....NOT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. The same goes for Health Care Insurance. You and everyone else has to decide how much risk you want to cover. If your employer offered policy doesn't cover, lets say Heart Transplants and you're worried that one day you may need one, then get an individual policy that WILL cover it.

Do you really think that a "Single Payer" system will be any cheaper for you or anyone else? The only difference will be that now you'll pay the federal government in taxes for this, pay more because we'll STILL have to pay for all those that don't pay taxes (per Obama's tax plan) and have NO CHOICE about your coverage or care that you receive(because we all need to be treated equal)

DO you have ANY IDEA what the ACTUAL cost, including wages for RN's and DR's, equipment, etc is?

Do YOU have any IDEA how much the BIG BAD INSURANCE companies pay out for claims for each dollar paid for premium?

Do YOU have any IDEA the number of Businesses that will go under, employees that will lose their jobs? How much tax revenue the government will lose when they put thousands and thousands of companies out of business?? Who DO YOU think is going to MAKE up this tax deficit. WE ALL WILL.

Do you have any idea how much money millions of people are going to lose out of their 401K plans when the federal government closes all thos BIG BAD insurance companies and the stock is then worth zero.

I bet that you also complain about how much the oil companies 'profit' each year too, without regards to how they obtained that profit, i.e. supply and demand, or how much of their gross profit they pay into taxes.

Homeowners and auto insurance are nothing like health insurance.

Health Insurance Premiums support the profitability of both the insurance AND medical community. The cost of caring for the uninsured is being passed down to me by my PRIVATE health insurance company. Whereas my homeowners insurance will not pay for uninured homes that burn to the ground.

Further...it's pretty much equal risk (foundation and construction materials aside which can otherwise be factored into the price) that my house or my neighbors house will burn down. We understand we are paying in a small fee/premium to cover the day, God forbid, that we suffer a dramatic economic loss due to fire, rain or whatever. It's fairly easy to shop for and straight forward.

Health Insurance, on the other hand, is not straight forward. As people age...the risk goes up. Certain people are genetically more susceptible to illness (and that information is likely all over the first form they fill out at any medical practitioners office and shared with the insurance providers). Some people know when they are getting sick and, if allowed, would change their coverage with regards to such. Home Insurance comapnies can pick out the houses that are likely to catch on fire whereas Health Insurance can to some extent and at a huge cost to policyholders/future patients....JUST AS YOU NEED HEALTH INSURANCE they are doing everything possible to weed you out.

And Government regulation of premiums doesn't help when it exceeds the rate of inflation by so much nor when the regulators are in bed with the industry they are supposed to be regulating.


As far as the stockholders in Health Insurance Companies...pull your money out now. It's likely the risk is already factored in to some extent and will be more as this debate is catching wind. I haven't looked but I bet the industry has taken a beating (more than the generally indexes) since the election...as it should. It is a fraud on the American people.


Also..."profits" are fine when dealing with commodities. IMO, basic health care is not a commodity. It is a human right. However, I don't have a problem with "for profit" hospitals and doctors as they actually DO something for their "profits". Health Insurance Companies don't...all they "sell" is a check writing service, my share of the cost of medical services for the uninsured and a illusory sense of limited short-term protection against catastorphic illness. This is not capitalism it is extortionism.

Mr. Wondering

Where in the constitution does it guarantee the right health care?

Health care is a service, bought and sold just like janitorial services or prostitution.

Leaving aside your opinion that healthcare is a human "right," that someone else is responsible for, I want to address what you said above in the italicized portion.

Before go there, however, I thought I'd just mention that Health Insurance Companies do "DO" something, just as Doctors and Hospitals do. Doctors and Hospitals DO NOT guarantee that they can "fix what ails you." They guarantee to "do their best, but with no guarantees of the outcome." The same is true of Insurance Companies, they guarantee to the best they can to SHIFT the burden of paying for what you want FROM you to THEM, all within YOUR choice of what "amount" of coverage you want to buy.

Now, if we use your reasoning and accept it as "right," that Health Insurance Companies don't...all they "sell" is a check writing service, my share of the cost of medical services for the uninsured and a illusory sense of limited short-term protection against catastorphic illness. This is not capitalism it is extortionism. (by the way, what do you call taxation that is imposed on people against their will? Oh ya, I forgot that Joe Biden said that it's our "patriotic duty" to pay taxes, meaning pay whatever the government decides you SHOULD pay so they can do whatever they want to do with YOUR money.)

HOW is that any different from what you propose as substituting the word "Government Payor Source" for "Health Insurance Companies?" ALL the government would be "Doing" is just sending out a check to cover all people, under your "plan." That's it, just a "check writing service." AND they also have the ability to TAX you a premium of THEIR choosing for you and for everyone else, and you can't CHOOSE not to pay.

BUT they can CAN go "one step further" and they CAN, just as they do with Medicare and Medicaid, LIMIT the amount they will pay to some arbitrary number that they come up that is NOT sufficient to maintain the system. Sounds kind of like what they did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, doesn't it?

WHERE is the money going to come from? WHAT services will be denied either because they won't approve them or because PROVIDERS will NOT offer the service since it would cost more than they would be reimbursed. And by the way, you DO know that most hospitals are already "not for profit" entitites, don't you?

Would you care to hear some of the "idiocy" of Medicare and CMS rules that affect Agents, Companies, AND the people? Probably not, would be my guess, but it IS an indication of what "government control of healthcare" already IS and what it portends for a future of nationalized healthcare.

What about when all the hurricanes hit a few years back and the insurance industry was taking such a big hit on claims from those areas?? Didn't they go up on EVERYONE's rates to cover the large amount that they had to pay out?? you're darn right they did.

Auto Insurance carriers can also refuse you coverage because of risk and when you do find a company that will insure you, you're going to pay dearly for it. Know anyone that had to be on assigned risk with an Auto insurance??

But I'm sure, to YOU, that different.





Well take a look. They've taken no more of a hit than most other companies since your boy Obama got elected.


Profits are fine with you as long as you're not having to pay what you deem excessive.

You didn't answer my question about how much the BIG BAD Health Insurance Carriers pay out in claims for every dollar paid in premiums. YOU HAVE NO IDEA DO YOU???

You also didn't respond to the fact that when your "single payer" puts thousands of companies out of business, who's going to make up the deficit for the taxes that those companies pay each year.

You didn't respond to HOW MUCH do you think you're going to pay in taxes to cover ALL THOSE that do not EVEN PAY TAXES for this "Single Payer" system you're so he11 bend on getting.

You think it's going to be cheaper don't you? You think that once we get the BIG BAD Insurance companies shut down and their greedy little paws out of health care and the federal government takes over as the "Single Payer" all of our insurance worries will be gone. You won't have to pay THOSE HIGH PREMIUMS any more. You're so wrong.....You and everyone else is going to be paying MORE for health coverage.


You ALSO did not respond to the fact that for EVERY SAD STORY you post where an insurance carrier did not pay claims, their are 10's of thousands of stories where they did. Whats up with that? You're only posting those that support your version of this and not the truth of how things really are.

It's not different other than the fact a Government Payer system cuts out the middleman that is making gross profits and taking a huge adminstrative and profits chunk off the top of the delivery of healthcare without really doing anything except trying it's darndest to only cover healthy people as long as they stay healthy. If I get sick I no longer trust my health insurance carrier to "carry my burden"....they will do everything in their power to give my burden back to me or throw it upon the government.

Many people that work for years with health insurance are oblivious to the fact that when they get sick and can no longer work that they will have a tough time obtaining individual health insurance. Many states don't have insurers of last resort and even the ones that do, are expensive because these are risky pools. Sick people often can't work and can't afford costly higher premiums. They've unfairly paid for years and years into a system that was picking up the cost for the actual sick while they were relatively healthy...but once THEY get older and more unhealthy the system does everything it can to shut them out.

Also...I'll get to vote for the politicians that set the policies and have a hand in making the difficult decisions faced by anybody making allocation of medical care resources. They will be accountable to everyone...versus only accountable to their shareholders and duty bound to maximize profits.




As far as constitutionality. The commerce clause. It's likely the federal government will institute a plan the states must implement if they want federal healthcare funding. The states will then have the choice to be in or out....and they will regulate the single payer system in their respective states as Canada does so by province.

Pariah...I'll ask you what give the Health Insurance Industry the right to commit fraud on the American people??? Shouldn't it be illegal to pass along the costs of the uninsured to their clients and call it my "premium"? Shouldn't they be my Agents and actually fight to see that I pay for my health insurance risk and not for everybodies risk? Shouldn't they as my agents fight for reduced costs and refuse to pay hospitals say $25 for a band-aide? Nobody believes medical care is a straight commodity or else, you'd be willing to allow hospitals to offer their services straight to the highest bidder or imagine having to pay over 1/2 of all your money before they admit you into the emergency room. I should think that everyone believes government plays some role in protecting the public from a purely capitalistic delivery of medical services because when your life is at stake you'd pay anything and everything to fix it. The bargaining advantage is just too great. Wouldn't you agree?

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - I enjoy this debate...thank you for indulging me.

You didn't answer my question about how much the BIG BAD Health Insurance Carriers pay out in claims for every dollar paid in premiums. YOU HAVE NO IDEA DO YOU???

Since you apparently don't know, here's the answer:

For every $1.00 a health care company collects in premiums, it pays back out .80 cent in claims. The other .20 cent of each dollar goes for the companies expenses then what is left is profit


Health Care companies DO NOT dictate what premiums will be, the health care industry does. The costs of the Dr's, Nurses, Drugs, equipment, facility costs, malpractice insurance, tort law suits, etc.does. What amounts are actually billed to the health care company by the provider of care does!!

What do you see changing in what is charged by the provider with your "single payer" system and how it will do anything but RAISE what you pay for coverage. The only CHANGE that will happen is WHO you PAY YOUR PREMIUM TO and the amount that you pay will BE MORE.

The "Pass the buck" of the uninsured begins with the MEDICAL PROVIDER, since MOST ARE ALSO FOR PROFIT, not the health insurance company. That's part of the reason why you're being charged $25 for a band-aid BY THE PROVIDER OF SERVICE

The GOVERNMENT MANDATES that hospitals treat the uninsured. So I guess that since you think it's ILLEGAL to pass that on to you in your premiums, you need to take it up with the government.

You see...I don't consider it illegal for the Government, that represents me, to pass along these fees via a Single Payer system. It's only inappropriate, patently illegal and aggregious for the private health insurance companies that are supposedly MY AGENTS representing me and all other policy holders against the interests and overcharges of the medical establishment to do so. If it's a government mandate the government should pay for it through taxes I'll pay gladly. I just don't like being "taxed" by a private health care company taking 20% to 30% off the top...which percentage includes such passed on amounts. It's taxation without representation. They are ALL in collusion committing this fraud upon their "clients". Imagine if your homeowners insurance company started paying off losses for all the uninsured homeowners and passing along that cost [plus a 20% to 30% profit] to you through increased premiums. If one company did it...they soon be out of business since the customers could exercise choice and find a company that didn't do it and thus had cheaper premiums. Health Insurance just hides behind the fact that that is what hospitals HAVE to charge to stay in business, make profits and cover the mandatory care they must give the uninsured [which is growing exponentially every year). That's hogwash. If they truly were giving their clients "value" and "do'ing" something...they'd refuse to pay $25 for a band-aide as that is NOT the real cost. They are supposed to represent their clients vigoriously in a legitimate fight to lower our costs. If the hospital needs to cover their losses on the uninsured, let it fall on the government or someone beside their clients.


You see...our system...any medical system is predicated on the young and working taking care and paying, to some extent, for the medical care and costs of the aged and sick. When 90% of the country was insured, mostly through employer plans, this function worked and premiums were reasonable. Nobody cared about the 20% to 30% skim the insurance industry was taking as it didn't amount to much [nor did most see it since their employers paid it]. However, now that "skim" totals more than $350 billion and the only thing resembling a "product" that the industy is selling has been discredited to nothing more than a cheap illusory promise that "we MAY take on the burden of your medical care costs if you are lucky". The system is crumbling and that $350 billion skim can and should be put to better use by a governemt body in combination with a non-profit adminster reducing the cost/adminstrative skim to less than 5%.

Mr. Wondering

I don't have any great love of insurance companies, but in a real sense, they aren't selling you anything. You're the seller. You are selling them your risk. And risk is a "commodity". A pretty actively traded commodity.

Mr. Wondering - It is NOT "taxation without representation." You are NOT required to buy any insurance that you don't want.

But you WILL be required to buy the "government" healthcare plan.

And your idea of "firing" the guys (by voting them out of office) simply will not work, not does it make much sense if you think about it. Once the beauracracy is established, it becomes a "monster" with "life of its own" and it doesn't matter who is "in power" or what Party has "control of the government."

IF you don't think so, then you don't know much about how Medicare works, which IS a government run health insurance system.

It would be helpful if you'd stop the "hysteria" a little while and actually try to work through the issues.

And it would also be helpful for you to identify this 30% "skim" you keep mentioning. All you talked about previously on that subject was the "administrative cost," but that's not "skim." IF you want to see "skim," I'd be happy to list some of the PORK "SKIM" that our legislators are very fond of.

Besides, the Feds have a LOT of "administrative costs," and do you really think it's going to go down?

Do you KNOW how Medicare insurance works? Do you know what is charged and what the deductibles and copays are? Do you know that people need private insurance IN ADDITION TO Medicare or they are liable for 20% of the bill, with NO STOP LOSS cap?

Do you know how the Part D Prescription Drug plan works? Medicare "sets the rules," but doesn't pay for anything. They make Insurance Companies provide the insurance plan. BUT the government DOES make you pay for Part B of Medicare, as well as Part D, to the tune of about $150 per month per person just to qualify for a plan. Then tack on more for a Medicare Supplement.

And did I mention the Medicare mandated "Donut Hole" in the Part D prescription drug plan?

Mr. W. if you really want to look for solutions, then you have start dealing with reality and face the real issues.

You and I are NOT "owed" medical care. It is an industry, a service, that is available to us, but it is NOT a "right."

Wait a minute.....if something is 'ILLEGAL' then it's "ILLEGAL" no matter WHO does it, INCLUDING the government (Are you a lawyer? You sure sound like one). Here's an idea, since the government MANDATES that providers cannot turn away patients without insurance, then the GOVERNMENT should be billed for those changes and be MANDATED to pay said charges. That way you would not be responsible nor have to pay an increased premium, due to inflated charges to cover said uninsured. But that will NEVER happen. If the government REALLY WANTED to cover every person without health insurance, THEY would get rid of all guideless for quailifing for MEDICAID and tax all of us more for that coverage.

YOU want to BLAME the Health Care Industry because YOU think that your premiums are TOO HIGH. How abou blaming those at fault starting with the uninsured, then the Federal and state Governments and moving on down the line to the makers of all the multi-million dollar machines and equipment that facilities HAVE TO HAVE to provide the level of service thats offered, to the HIGHLY paid RN's and DR's, to the cost of maintaining said facility, to the high cost of RX drugs, operating cost etc etc etc. You are under the misconception that any of that is going to change.

Do you REALLY think that you're going to pay LESS a month for your "Premiums" if the federal government takes over?? Do you really think that the government isn't going to TAX you more for their administrative costs than you're currently paying in your premiums??

Your WHOLE Argument is that this industry is for profit, that you have to pay extra each month because of that profit, and if the government took over you will pay less.

HERE'S A THOUGHT....why don't we let the government TAKE OVER EVERYTHING and EVERYONE that is for profit.

Grocery Stores, retail stores etc are for profit......and poor people can't go there either without paying (they can steal though)......so lets get the government to take them over so that everyone's grocery bill will be lower.

And don't say that you don't pay more because of poor people because that's not true. WHO do you think the stores pass on the cost of theft to......you, me and everyone.

Short on time right now, Mr. W., but in reading this I thought I should ask you a question or three.

If it's "not different," and the goverment is taking over the role of "middleman" by eliminating it and substituting its "rule" in its place, all of the administrative costs and "profits" will be borne by the taxpayers (as it is now to the policyholders) because the government WILL raise taxes however much they want to in order to cover the costs and keep a reserve of "profits" available (as they currently require the insurance companies to do), how will this be an "improvement" to the system and not the ultimate undoing of the provider system?.


But there will be NO oversight, as they will be BOTH the "top" and the "middleman" and THEY set the rules, decide what IS "offered" and how much they will pay a provider. If a current provider does NOT want to participate in Medicare, because the "assigment," the rate at which Medicare has decided IT will pay for any given treatement, is TOO LOW to sustain their providing the service at all, they can Opt Out of Medicare. They won't have that choice if the government takes over the "whole reimbursement pie." How will it make healthcare "more available" to people when the providers choose to NOT provide the service anymore because it's "cost prohibitive" to them?


You, the person who needs healthcare, will NOT be able to choose. You can only choose what they make available to you, and paying for it or not paying for it will no longer BE a choice because you will PAY regardless.

It's sort of like paying taxes for public schools but you can't have a voucher to send your child the private school of your choice if you think it would be a better "treatment" for him/her.

That is precisely what is happening in Great Britain. TWO medical systems, based on "ability to pay." Is THAT what you "envision" with your support for a "single payor system?"

Do you really think that only the last 8 year facilitated the problems we are facing now?

The left likes to think that a president can do anything that he wants to do and is solely responsible for all good and bad during his administration. UNLESS, of Course, the president is a Democrate. Then it's the Republicain congress or the previous repubician president fault.....

The blame for our problems needs to be applied to those at fault. WHICH IS BOTH SIDES.....not just one!