GOP Viewpoint: We Got The Thumping We Deserve

They are going to get the "change" they were demanding here at work.

The layoffs started first thing this morning and we are getting in more automation.

Thank God I oversee the automation and the only one qualified to keep it calibrated properly.

Can't blame that on the incoming administration. It's the outgoing one that caused our economic crisis.

I know first hand. Two weeks ago, my company cut me to a 4 day work week so essentially I took a 20% loss in pay. I'm sure the stockholders will be happy though.

Want2Stay

Keep telling yourself that lie.

I can't wait to see what has really "changed" in 4 years. Politicians always promise the world and deliver a pile of dust. I truly hope our new president does change america for the better and i can eat my words, but I learned not to hope and have blind faith. When I see his actions and his change, I hope I look back and say I am sorry, I was wrong about this guy.

I will as long as you keep pretending it's not TRUE.

Want2Stay

W2S, I align myself more closely with Dems than Repubs except for the abortion issue (which is a trump card for me). But to pretend that the root of this problem does not stretch back to the Clinton years is absurd. The current administration is not blameless...but they do not carry this load alone.

We don't have stockholders, just a father and two sons that own the company that the father built with his own two hands and no help form anyone.

The American dream. I respect him greatly.

He pays you what you are worth according to your effort and productivity, value added will get you recognized and bonuses.

I have a specail talent for complex mechanical things and have saved us tens of thousands on repairs this year alone.

My review is coming up and he wants us to fly together so the walls can't start the rumormill.

I am progressing through my own hard work, not some government handout program.

I don't place all the blame on the current administration. When I speak of the economy, It's not just the fiscal aspect but also the employment side.

About 10 years ago, I left my union blue collar job to pursue opportunities in IT. I had always been a computer geek and here was the government saying we were going to lead the way in technology. So I got the necessary training and began my IT career. On any given Sunday, I could look in the classified ads and find hundreds of jobs in my field. Now when I check, I'm lucky if there is 5-10 jobs.

I place blame with the Bush administration for sitting back and watching the country send millions of IT jobs overseas. Jobs that paid well and kept many Americans in the middle class. My field has been decimated by this practice.

I chat with my counterpart in India quit a bit and what I have learned has been appalling to me. He makes about 18% of what I do. Plus, they have socialized health care so the corp I work for doesn't have to pay for benefits. I watch this company bring people over on work visas, train them for a year and send them home only to cut more jobs here. It's a terribly demoralizing practice and it is going on in a massive scale.

The ironic part is that in doing so, they have put American business in an extremely vulnerable position. It's just a matter of time before terrorists realize that they don't have to come to America to reek havoc with our country. All they have to do is go to India. We might as well have painted a giant bullseye on Bangalore. All to the detriment of the American people.

Want2Stay

If IT is that bad, just imagine how bad the doctors will be under socialized health care.

$10 an hour to be a doctor is going to be really scarey when your life is on the line.

Owing $16,000 after insurance wasn't so bad to keep my leg, when under the socialized system would have gone either one of tow ways, let me bleed out or amputate because it's cheaper. No expensive, extravagant surgeries to save my leg.

Ever try to go to the emergency room bleeding profusely and have to wade through all the medicaid freeloaders with the sniffles because it's free for them there?

Want2Stay,

Why blame Bush for decisions your employer makes? It's insane to say it's the president's fault, regardless what party the president represents.

Next we'll hear from BS's how it was Bush's fault their WS had an affair.

Both are about equally logical.

If you don't like the current labor laws, petition congress. The president doesn't write the laws, he merely enforces them.

So until there is a law against what your employer is doing, it's insane to blame the president for what is going on.

Now, you do have a valid claim against Pelosi and Reid who are running both chambers of the legislature. They've been in charge there for two years, yet still no laws to prohibit what you find offensive.

Basically, the president can do nothing about it until they act and push a law through the process.

Blaming the president for this sort of things is the ultimate in blame shifting.

Blame your employer for making such decisions. That's where the blame belongs. Not with the president.

I would say the same should you blame Obama for this.

BTW, if Obama doesn't correct this, will you write us in 4 years and tell us that Obama is as much to blame as Bush?

It started during the Reagan administration.

It was caused by de-regulation, and in some cases a lack of regulation in the first place.

I agree.

Just because it was a Clinton Program that the under-regulated banking industry chose to exploit doesn't mean it's Clintons fault.

It's like blaming the blaming United Airlines for the World Trade Centers, or better yet...Boeing for building the planes.

There IS some shared blame...but pointing at Clinton's program, which WASN'T a problem until a few years after Bush came in office is a mistake. The CRA was a GOOD program, until it was exploited.

Mr. Wondering

Because the practice actually started taking place in late 2003 when the government was controlled by Bush and the Republicans.

Not to mention that Bush felt this was GOOD for the country.

Bush report: Sending jobs overseas helps U.S.


It's too late for that. Obama has stated that he will end the tax subsidies that make this beneficial for corporations, but I don't think that will bring these jobs back. There gone and there is not a whole lot that can be done about it. The stockholders have already gotten used to the increased profits by this practice and they would be outraged to see them diminished.

The more likely scenerio for me is as I stated, that part of the world becoming so unstable that the corporations are forced to bring those jobs back to America. In which case I will be able to write my own ticket as companies scramble to fill positions they need to function.

Want2Stay

Wants -

I can understand your frustration. I am in the telecomm business and now assist in moving work off shore. We started doing this before Bush was in office. Corp taxes here are the second highest in the industrialized world. This may be a part of it. I am not sure if this is piece of the cause or not. Certainly wages and cost of living in India are much lower.

We are now in a globalized economy. Both parties have been actively seeking this since the closing of WWII. It goes back to a safer world if we are trading and working together.

India has placed far more dollars to promote technology education. We on the otherhand worry about feel good, poli-correct education initiatives.

China and India will be economic giants and we will need to compete or lower our living standard to survive. There is no other way around it - Obama, Bush, Clinton or Carter could not stop this train if they wanted to it.

Another thought - With the number of illegals and sending work to cheaper labour overseas, is it because our economy is and has always really been built on"slavery". We just exchanged one form to another. We like cheap TV, cheap lawnmowers (not me), dishwashers and cooks - endless ETC but we dont like the idea of illegals here and sending jobs overseas. Very complex problem.

Yep, like I said before Rwinger, We wanted a global economy and now we have it. Now the first thing that global economy is going to do is level the playing field. Meaning equalize the standard of living.

Want2Stay

"Equalize the standard of living"?

You mean everybody has to live in a mud hut?

Just because there is a surplus of labor in your field doesn't mean you picked the right field to be in.

It was your choice to go into the IT field when the econimic winds were favoring medical, however computers are easy and medical takes effort.

I don't blame Bush for me having to drop out of RN school, that was all my fault, from the moment I decided to get out of bed that morning to the moment of my career ending injury.

I had to find something else to do at 40, took months of vigilant effort and moving 250 miles from home, but the system worked.

I recall Reagan calling it voting with your feet.

IT jobs and mgmt of IT is still a good employment generator here in DFW.

We have to go to India because of scarcity of qualifications. There are only so many engineers in the US and we are not producing enough.

A good IT person is hard to find, but the employment mills churn out unqualified button pushers at an alarming rate.

My twin brother has made a game out of firing them now.

He calls them ITiots.

Another way to say it would be "spread the wealth".

Mr. W. - Regardless of who anyone wants to pin the "origins" of the problem on (usually ideologically driven), the FACT remains that both McCain and Bush tried YEARS ago to stop the impending mess by legislation FOR controls and oversight.

It was roundly stopped by the Democrats, of which Barney Frank was probably the biggest opponent to oversight.

While it's just speculation right now, it would appear that the the "long range goal" may have been the take over of much of the Banking industry through manufactured "outrage" and the "idea" that government could do a better job of "owning" business and running it. Next up....the Healthcare system.

There seems to be no question that the goal of the Democrat Party IS the Socialism of much of the country.

Time will tell, but the first "100 days" should be very interesting to watch after Obama's inauguration.

But there IS one segment that I might agree with the government "taking over" and setting the "reasonable fee" schedule for.....Attorneys. Doubt it would ever happen, but it would be an interesting step in Tort Reform.

If not, they could always be used to create artificial reefs off the coast of Florida. It would be a tremendous help to the fishing industry.

FH, if you are interested in learning about a non profit that I am the executive director of, email me. The purpose of the organization is to improve the way family medicine is delivered in this country.

It wouldn't change the national results on bit...but this interesting.

108% of registered voters in Montgomery County, PA voted. This is normally a republican stronghold. Obama won it by 30% points. But a review by the Philadelphia Inquirer shows that there were more votes cast than eligible voters.

Shocking...nope.

Democratic controlled (for the last 60 years) Philadelphia announced MASSIVE cuts today in order to avoid a 1 BILLION dollar deficit. Amazing how the democratic black mayor (the same one that allowed armed black panthers to act as security at polling places) waited until after the election to announce the across the board cuts.

I'd go further back than Reagan...I'm old enough to remember when President Johnson predicted this whole mess.

Johnson was a Roosevelt New Deal advocate--in fact he ran for Congress on New Deal platform in 1937.

The Great Society program became Johnson's agenda for Congress in January 1965: aid to education, attack on disease, Medicare, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, a wide-scale fight against poverty, control and prevention of crime and delinquency, removal of obstacles to the right to vote. Congress, at times augmenting or amending, rapidly enacted Johnson's recommendations. Millions of elderly people found succor through the 1965 Medicare amendment to the Social Security Act.


American's were cool with New Deal socialism until Civil Rights Legislations. Then all those southern democrats changed parties--they became republicans. It was all right when white people where the recipients of all this "great society" legislation--but these New Republicans would rather shoot themselves in the foot than let all these black people have a piece of the pie.

It took almost fifty years, but the New Republicans did it--they managed to shoot themselves in the foot!!

Some duke or earl being quoted (circa 1935??)-

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"


Comments on Great Society

Aid to education - that helped who? We have a lonnng way to go.

Attack on disease - hmmm do you think govt control of medicine will increase research and development?

Medicare - this has been good for everyone - white and black.

Urban renewal - where ? or better question - where has it been successful without local money and participation? and why should Americans from one area care if Americans in another city do not care enough about their city.

beautification - see above -

conservation - not bad - didn't Nixon pass the Clean Water Act and create the EPA?

development of depressed regions- West Virgina and eastern KY or we talking about Detroit and Philly? Going from an industrialized economy to an information tech economy has been a painful process. Industrial revolution in UK and US were painful as well.

a wide-scale fight against poverty - I can agree that today's pOverty is no where near it was in 1960's.

control and prevention of crime and delinquency - where has that been improved - I seem to remember the 1960's a bit more safer - as a kid. I will admit those were simpler times and might be construed as a generalization.

removal of obstacles to the right to vote - always a good thing.

Perhaps though with the new president - the people will take ownership of the change they want instead of sitting back and complaining. Change has to come from the individual level and cannot be imposed from higher echelons.

This not to be disrespectful. Love to hear opinions of others.

This group has some of the sharpest minds of any board - have to wonder if encountering adultery just makes the senses more acute.

Spoken like a true Ted Kennedy supporter....hey, is he still alive?

I didn't find a review by Inquirer, do you have a source for this statement?

Here are the results that I saw. Nothing shocking here.

AGG

I've been out on the road working on the campaign I am just only back.

Ted Kennedy and I grew up on the same planet. How about You? You from Krypton or something? How old are you anyway???

The middle-class society we grew up in didn’t evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. Income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains.

It was a society without extremes of wealth or poverty, a society of broadly shared prosperity, partly because strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality. It was also a society in which political bipartisanship meant something: in spite of all the turmoil of Vietnam and the civil rights movement, in spite of the sinister machinations of Nixon and his henchmen, it was an era in which Democrats and Republicans agreed on basic values and could cooperate across party lines.

Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.

Most people assume that this rise in inequality was the result of impersonal forces, like technological change and globalization. But the great reduction of inequality that created middle-class America between 1935 and 1945 was driven by political change; It’s important to know that no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality.

You would have expected this rising inequality to produce a populist backlash alot sooner, right? Instead the era of rising inequality has also been the era of “movement conservatism,” the term both supporters and opponents use for the highly cohesive set of interlocking institutions that brought Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich to power, and reached its culmination, taking control of all three branches of the federal government, under George W. Bush.

Because of movement conservative political dominance, taxes on the rich have fallen, and the holes in the safety net have gotten bigger, even as inequality has soared. And the rise of movement conservatism is also at the heart of the bitter partisanship that characterizes politics today.

So now the backlash has finally arrived and it's a doozie! We have a President who is Black. This is the ultimate Backlash--isn't it? I believe it probably would never have happened had the conservative movement not driven the American dream into the toilet.

It is customary to not plagarize material.. Who are you, Joe Biden???

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/

I wanted to hear you disagree with the person who just won the Pulitzer prize in economics.

Is that your best attempt for counterargument?

you passed it off as your own...even editing a bit here and there.

Nice try.

Systemic change requires both individual and institutional remedies. It's clear that the overarching problem is the plight of the middle class. Often it's cited that people these days are lazy but I don't see it. What I see are families working longer and harder (more than at any time since WWII) just to make ends meet.

Years ago, a single wage earner was able to provide a comfortable middle class lifestyle (with vacations). Isn't it telling that when worker productivity continues to rise wages remain stagnant? The declining purchasing power of the middle class is eroding the affordability of the American dream. The (defining) elements of middle class life that have exploded upwards in affordability are college tuition, medical care, housing and transportation. The products that have stayed the same in price or declined are foreign manufactured goods.

The middle-class is facing a systemic cost structure that has exploded far beyond affordability. If you look at the housing bubble--prices have been so inflated, way beyond any relationship to real wages. The credit derivative markets with their parasitic ties to the mortgage brokerage industry contributed to this bubble. The problem now is titanic--not only b/c people can't make their house payments but b/c they bought at artificially inflated prices and will never be able recoup their investment (at least for many years). When you combine that with skyrocketing medical, educational, transportation and food costs the problem facing the middle class is readily apparent.

The outgoing administration never seemed too empathetic to the plight of ordinary hard working Americans. They got us into an expensive unnecessary war and never focused on the fact that average people feel exhausted from running on a dystopian economic treadmill. There's plenty of blame to go around and neither party has clean hands but clearly, change is needed. Sure, the devil is in the details but at least Obama offers inspirational hope to the middle-class. We will have to see if his rhetoric has substance, but part of a leader's job is to inspire optimism. The past executive appeared too much like a patrician and never seemed to get that hard working people are losing hope.

Deceit is just that, deceit. More of the "Obama" mantra (gleaned from Alinsky) that "the end justifies the means."

If someone will stoop to plagarism, obviously with the intent to make it seem as thos the plagarizer is "so much more intelligent," then at a minimum one can surmise that there is a combination of BIAS and "lack of esteem of one's own abilities" at play....and then just couched with the "juvenile-like" response of "I just wanted to see what you would say..."

Right.

Anyway, here's an interesting article, if not in rebuttal, in exploring some of the differences between Democrats and Republicans:


"MICHAEL SHERMER

Publisher of Skeptic magazine, monthly columnist for Scientific American; Author, Why Darwin Matters; and How We Believe

The Conscience of the Conservative

Two cheers for Jonathan Haidt's essay. At long last a liberal academic social scientist has recognized (and had the courage to put into print) the inherent bias built into the study of political behavior—that because Democrats are so indisputably right and Republicans so unquestionably wrong, conservatism must be a mental disease, a flaw in the brain, a personality disorder that leads to cognitive malfunctioning. Thus, Haidt is mostly right when he asks us to move beyond such "diagnoses" and remember "the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats 'just don't get it,' this is the 'it' to which they refer."

I allocate two (instead of three) cheers for Haidt's commentary because I think he does not go far enough. The liberal bias in academia is so entrenched that it becomes the political water through which the liberal fish swim—they don't even notice it. Even the question "What makes people vote Republican?" hints at something amiss in the mind of the conservative, along the lines of "Why do people believe weird things?" As Haidt notes, the standard liberal line is that people vote Republican because they are "cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death." A typical example of this characterization can be found in a famous 2003 paper published in the prestigious journal Psychological Bulletin by the New York University social psychologist John Jost and his colleagues, entitled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," in which they argue that conservatives suffer from "uncertainty avoidance," "need for order, structure, closure," and "dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity," all of which leads to "resistance to change" and "endorsement of inequality."

It is not the data of these scientists that I am challenging so much as it is the characterizations on which the data were collected. We could just as easily characterize Democrats and liberals as suffering from a host of equally malevolent mental states: a lack of moral compass that leads to an inability to make clear ethical choices, an inordinate lack of certainty about social issues, a pathological fear of clarity that leads to indecisiveness, a naïve belief that all people are equally talented, and a blind adherence in the teeth of contradictory evidence that culture and environment determine one's lot in society and therefore it is up to the government to remedy all social injustices. As all conservatives know, liberals are a bunch of sandle-wearing, tree-hugging, whale-saving, hybrid-driving, trash-recycling, peaceniks, flip-floppers and bed-wetters.

This is a crass, unfair, and inaccurate characterization, of course, and that's my point. Once you set up the adjectives in the form of operationally defined personality traits and cognitive styles, it's easy to collect the data to support them. The flaw is in the characterization process itself. Two recent examples can be found in the 2008 book The Political Mind by Berkeley cognitive scientist George Lakoff and the 2007 book The Political Brain by Emory University psychologist Drew Westen. The tropes are familiar: liberals are generous to a fault ("bleeding hearts"), rational, intelligent, optimistic, and appeal to voters' reason through cogent arguments; conservatives are stingy ("heartless"), dour, and dim-witted authoritarians who appeal to voters' emotions through threat and fear-mongering. But conservatives win most elections because of their Machiavellian manipulation of voters' emotional brains.

None of this is true. Although Republicans defeated Democrats 25 to 20 in the 45 Presidential elections from 1828 to 2004, in the Senate Democrats outscored Republicans 3395 to 3323 in contesting 6832 seats from 1855 to 2006, and in the House Democrats trounced Republicans 15,363 to 12,994 in the 27,906 seats contested from 1855-2006.

Further, according to the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Surveys, 1972-2004, 44 percent of people who reported being "conservative" or "very conservative" said they were "very happy" versus only 25 percent of people who reported being "liberal" or "very liberal." A 2007 Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Republicans versus only 38 percent of Democrats said that their mental heath is "excellent." One reason may be that conservatives are so much more generous than liberals, giving 30 percent more money (even when controlled for income), donating more blood, and logging more volunteer hours. And it isn't because conservatives have more expendable income. The working poor give a substantially higher percentage of their incomes to charity than any other income group, and three times more than those on public assistance of comparable income—poverty is not a barrier to charity, but welfare is. One explanation for these findings is that conservatives believe charity should be private (through religion) whereas liberals believe charity should be public (through government).

Why are academic social scientists so wrong about conservatives? It is, I believe, because almost all of them are liberals! A 2005 study by the George Mason University economist Daniel Klein, using voter registrations, found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans among the faculty by a staggering ratio of 10 to 1 at the University of California, Berkeley and by 7.6 to 1 at Stanford University. In the humanities and social sciences the ratio was 16 to 1 at both campuses (30 to 1 among assistant and associate professors). In some departments, such as anthropology and journalism, there wasn't a single Republican to be found. The ratio for all departments in all colleges and universities throughout the U.S., says Klein, is 8 to 1 Democrats over Republicans. Smith College political scientist Stanley Rothman and his colleagues found a similar bias in a 2005 national study: only 15 percent professors describe themselves as conservative, compared to 72 percent who said they were liberal (80 percent in humanities and social sciences).

Why do people vote Republican? Because they believe their lives—and the lives of all Americans—will be better for it. And as often as not they are right."

Yep.

I guess that Howard Stern has shown (and I can't stand Howard Stern) that Obama supporters are likely to "endorse" and "support" ANYTHING Obama might actually do simply because "he is the annointed one."

"Single issue" voters? How about "no issue" voters?


It's going to be a very interesting ride these next 4 years.

He isn't the annointed one.

He's the one the American people overwhelmingly selected.

Your boy Dubya is borderline retarded AND corrupt. Obama can do no worse, short of inciting a global thermonuclear war.

Boy, with the "improvements" in quality of life that we have seen in the past 8 years, I'm not surprised that the people finally got smart. Just surprised that it took that long.

AGG

Yer boy Obama is beyond corrupt stealing ninety million from Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae and you guys give him a free pass.

I do believe the zombie apocalypse is upon us.

Obama only won by unprecedented cheating and that's been proven.

I guess that Howard Stern has shown (and I can't stand Howard Stern) that Obama supporters are likely to "endorse" and "support" ANYTHING Obama might actually do simply because "he is the annointed one."

"Single issue" voters? How about "no issue" voters?


It's going to be a very interesting ride these next 4 years.
******************************************


Well, I Can't stand Howard Stern either.
Not everybody who voted for Obama is a a "no issue" voter....Alot of Independents AND registered republicans voted for Obama this year simply because the GOP ticket didn't represent anything they could feel positive about.

Sure,some people supported Obama for simple reasons....or simply voted AGAINST the GOP.
Back 2000-2004, I lived in a county w/ a large neo-nazi, white supremisct population. You should have seen some of the propaganda they used to sent out. They were BIG Bush supporters...and I'm sure he was glad to have thier votes.

This thread has nothing to do w/ the article posted in the title. Nobody even addressed what how the GOP messed up this election........just more fingerpoitnign and blaming the other side.
This thread is more evidence of what the article I posted was all about....the Republican party is divided and fighting amongst itself and wasn't worthy of winning this year.

I suppose it will be an interesting 4 years for you, and if the republican party continues down this path 4 might turn into 8 or 12.

Well shoot, nia, that's a fairly easy one. The GOP forgot what Conservatism is all about and pretty much allowed itself to be "corrupted" by Washington "as usual," essentially following after Democrat precident.

Only now, people are going to likely get a chance to see what real "Tax and Spend" is like with Democrat control. Either that, or Obama is not going to try to "come through" with the almost ONE TRILLION dollars in additional spending he promised to "get the votes."

Well shoot, nia, that's a fairly easy one. The GOP forgot what Conservatism is all about and pretty much allowed itself to be "corrupted" by Washington "as usual," essentially following after Democrat precident.

Only now, people are going to likely get a chance to see what real "Tax and Spend" is like with Democrat control. Either that, or Obama is not going to try to "come through" with the almost ONE TRILLION dollars in additional spending he promised to "get the votes."
*****************************************

Just more sarcasm and finger pointing and blaming!....1 of the major reason the GOP lost so many votes this year....Just keep hoping and praying that the democrats and Obama screw up the economy that much more,and people will feel desperate enough to vote for a bunch of snarky, divisive, egomaniacs again in 4 years?

Do you think there will be a Republican party in 4 years? I'm republican (last voted that way for Bush Sr), but I'd like 2 see the Religious Wrong split off and form their own party, so we can see if the republicans can reinvigorate themselves for another try in 4 or 8 years.

I might have liked 2 see McCain with a different running mate, but now we'll never know how he might have done. He's 2old for another try in 4 years. He should have been the nominee in 2000.

It's going 2 be interesting 2 see what Obama manages 2 accomplish.

-ol' 2long

article? where?

highlight this link...
GOP Viewpoint: We Got The Thumping We Deserve



sorry it wasn't more clear...maybe i should have copied and posted it.

There is no link, Nia.

Is this it??

AGG

sorry about that.
I am not having any luck copying and pasting the article either.

Can you post that link? I couldn't find it in the Inquirer.

Some of those votes could be students who just registered.
My son is a college freshman in Philadelphia....he registered to vote the day he moved into his dorm and his address and vote were recorded for Pennsylvania..... when he went to vote, he was not listed as a resident and he had to fill out a provisional ballot..... I *think* his school is in Delaware county, but I imagine it would be similar in Montgomery.

I was born in Montgomery county and although, traditionally Republican, I know it has been trending blue in the last several years... if the information below is correct, Montgomery county voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.
here is the link....www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=14467


Montgomery County, PA

2006 elections: In the gubernatorial race, Pennsylvania re-elected incumbent Democrat Ed Rendell over Republican Lynn Swann, with 60% of the vote. For Senate, the state elected Democrat Bob Casey over Rick Santorum, with 59% of the ballot.


Presidential politics: Montgomery County voted Democratic in the last two presidential elections. According to unofficial vote totals for 2004, Bush received 172,206 votes and Kerry received 217,342 votes.

In the November 2000 race, Montgomery County supported Al Gore. Countywide, 145,623 people voted for Bush and 177,990 voted for Gore. Nader received 6,816 votes.

In the November 2000 election, Montgomery County supported Al Gore. Countywide, 145,623 people voted for Bush and 177,990 voted for Gore. Nader received 6,816 votes.


Voters: Measured by the count of citizens age 18 and older at the time of the 2000 census, Montgomery County has the following numbers of potential voters:
Total: 548,568
Male: 258,741 (47.2%)
Female: 289,827 (52.8%)

***************************************

I think the last republican I voted for was Dole. I lived in Kansas City at the time. I was never a Clinton fan, but, Hillary has earned my respect. I think McCain would have been a good choice in 2000....but,I couldn't vote for him this year. I think the Republicans will be back in 2012.....but, I am still uncertain as to how they will choose to present themselves and that will matter to me.
It will be interesting to see what Obama manages to accomplish w/ all the obstacles he has facing him.....I am certainly wishing him (and the rest of us) all the best.

And Montgomery County (where I used to live) went Democratic this time as well:

Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Democratic .......... 3,196,820 votes 54.6%
John McCain/Sarah Palin, Republican .......... 2,593,336 votes 44.3%
Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzales, Independent .......... 42,138 votes 0.7%
Bob Barr/Wayne A. Root, Libertarian .......... 19,436 votes 0.3%

Interesting non-biased descriptions of your true feelings Nia.

As if those descriptions don't apply at least as well if not better to a large number of Democrats too.

ahhh...the politics of personal destruction is alive and well within the ranks of the Democrat Party. Don't discuss issues, just toss out the disrespectful judgments and forget about the principles that have made this country so great where a Barack Obama COULD run and get elected.

Sound over substance. Fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time.

With his "fence mender, reach across the aisle" Chief of Staff to be already picked, we have the first indication of just how "healing" an Obama Presidency is likely to be. Can't wait to see the rest of his picks.

And why we are discussing this sort of "bipartisanship" that everyone seems to think is such a good thing, what ever happened to Nancy Pelosi and the WORDS she used when she took power in the House? What ever happened to the approval rating of Congress, which she and Harry Reid use to do little more than promote far left Democrat issues and do virutally nothing for the country?

"snarky, divisive, egomaniacs again in 4 years?"

We don't have to wait 4 years to see it in action, it's already there in full view in the House and the Senate.

And it's been "perfected" by the Democrats. But since you may think that they are "your sort of snarky, divisive, egomaniacs," I doubt you'd see that. And for the Republicans, maybe they will learn that John McCain's "idea" of reaching across the aisle to the LEFT maybe is NOT such a good idea.

Now, if you really want to see "snarky, divisive, egomaniacs" in action, just keep your gaze focused on California, where the PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN and have AMENDED their State Constitution to restrict MARRIAGE to a union between a Man and a Woman, period.

The ACACLU (The Anti-Conservative Anti-Constitution Liberal Union) will no doubt rush right in to attack the will of the people because they are "just too dumb" to know what they want or what they SHOULD believe. "Snarky, divisive, egomaniacs" again in 4 years? Naaa, we won't have to wait anywhere near that long to see the Liberal Left brandishing their manias again.

Forgive me. I should have realized that you were NOT being sincere in your question and were simply doing the "Liberal Norm" of baiting so you could "happily pounce" on whatever response there might be. "Discuss Issues?" Never. Typical.

But I can see you are intent on NOT attempting on unifying the country, just in giving lip service to a "nice sound bite" and then going right back to total partisanship driven by emotions and wants and desires. Forget what IS good for the country, just as we are very likely to see continued in Congress and fortified by Obama as he seeks to change the Nation and move us further and further AWAY from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Next up.....the "Fairness Doctrine" in Media and the "Freedom of Choice" Act. Both designed to kill "inconviences" and ensure that they can DO whatever they want to do with no "opposition."

Interesting non-biased descriptions of your true feelings Nia.

As if those descriptions don't apply at least as well if not better to a large number of Democrats too.

ahhh...the politics of personal destruction is alive and well within the ranks of the Democrat Party. Don't discuss issues, just toss out the disrespectful judgments and forget about the principles that have made this country so great where a Barack Obama COULD run and get elected.

Sound over substance. Fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time.
*******************************************

You just never stop, do you?
OFCOURSE, the description applies to democrats too....THAT was never the point....but, THEY won the election this time.....the article explained some good reasons why (no, it wasn't all about issues that are important to YOU) and you just keep continuing to accuse anybody who isn't on 100% on YOUR side (whatever that is) as being liberal and insincere and not worthy of discussion.... Refuse to discuss anything else.
You change every thread into a fight against the OTHER side.
it is exhausting.

\
I guess it is a matter of perspective. I feel that way about you at times Nia. I have learned that the ignore feature works wonders for my stress level. If FH bothers you, why not ignore him?

Forgive me. I should have realized that you were NOT being sincere in your question and were simply doing the "Liberal Norm" of baiting so you could "happily pounce" on whatever response there might be. "Discuss Issues?" Never. Typical.
*********************************

Oh, please.....do you really need to do that over and over again?
How am I baiting and who am I happily Pouncing on?
THAT was not my intention w/ posting this article.
And the issue I wanted to discuss had nothing to do w/ defending democrats issues as being better than republican issues.....I surely don't agree w/ most ot them.....but, I do see the democrats as a much more unified party right now and I would like to see the GOP pull togethe rand represent something that *I* can relate to again.......NOT a party that makes me want to vote against it on so many levels.
And, YES, I agree that people are influenced by the media as well as anything they read online....All the more reason for republicans to take into consideration that many american voters are NOT as swayed by the same issues that YOU are.

This is far from being the last word on the issue. First, there are strong arguments that a constitution cannot be amended by a simple majority vote, so this may not stand on those grounds alone. Second, most indications are that this is nothing more than a temporary setback in time, and that before long this issue will fall by the wayside just like the interracial marriage restriction fell by the wayside some 40 years ago.

AGG

I guess it is a matter of perspective. I feel that way about you at times Nia. I have learned that the ignore feature works wonders for my stress level. If FH bothers you, why not ignore him?
_________________________

Good point. Thank you for the pointing that out. I should probably do that, I guess the reason I don't is because I fee that FH actually offers interesting information and perspective sometimes.
There have been times when he has engaged w/ me that I don't feel myself wanting to go on the defense...or offense, for that matter.

Medc,
I had no intention of this thread being against republicans or fighting for the democrats. I have very mixed political leanings and find it difficult to associate myself w/ either party if I go striclty on the issues. I sometimes see that in you......yet, you are much better at compartmentalization than I am.

By the way, I didn't post the info about Montgemery County to condrasict you...I was actually very surprised by what I read. I still have some friends and relatives who live there.

His information is wrong. There was a typo in the Inquirer that the bloggers jumped all over to spin it into a "108% vote", but there is no evidence of this. The actual voting results are shown in the link I gave you on the last page.

AGG

I see you've been looking in the mirror. Don't care much for the "reflection," do you?


So WHICH side has "been about" attacking Palin and Republicans?

Perhaps you mean those magnanimous individuals who's side "won" the election?

Or maybe it's just as simple as not wanting anyone to question anything about the liberal "side" or anything they "have a right to say?"

Nia, I ENDED my discussion, or so I thought, of this subject with the biblical directive to recognize that for good or bad, Obama has been allowed by God to rule, "by will of the majority of the people" and for God's ultimate purposes.

But that wasn't "good enough" for you.

Now you want to resort to whining to "make your point."

Give me a break.

You want to use the "Ignore" button, have at it. But I have NEVER said that anyone had to "agree with me 100% on every issue." NOR do I have to agree with you or anyone else 100% on every issue.

There ARE three major things that "govern" my opinions and the positions that I take:

1. My relationship with God as a Christian,

2. My belief in Conservativism and Capitalism.

3. My belief that as "fallen, sinful beings," ALL humans have a tendency to use selfishness and self-interest as their "reasons" for what they do.

Some will agree and some will disagree with any or all of those points, but I WILL "argue" for each of them if the circumstances present a need for comment rather than silence.



Don't be disingenous. You DID NOT "make it clear" that it "applies to democrats too. You made it a "one-sided" accusation against Republicans, period. And THAT IS "the point."

I saw that info. Thanks. But,
I was referring to the statistics that said Montgomery County voted for Gore and Kerry.....I lived in Pennsylvania 2000-20004, and that surprised me.
I am not surprised that Obama won Montgemery County THIS year, but I figured there were severel reasons that contributed to that.

Don't worry nia,

FH is a part of the immoral, yet, powerful health insurance industry mafia.

If he can justify his industries 30% cut off the top of the entire cost of medical care in this country by calling for "tort reform" when everyone knows that medical malpractice industry represents less than 1% of the cost of medical care in this country....then he's not really quite the able thinker.

Blame the lawyers is really code speak to the health insurance cartel. They could care less if someone was really injured or not. They ONLY care about finding ways to reduce THEIR costs and THEIR risk so they can continue to maximize their profits for their shareholders at the expense of policy holders. They will seek out and find any outrageous or questionable lawsuit, however rare, and shine a HUGE light on it to make it appear the norm rather than the LARGE exception. Most medical malpractice claims ARE legitimate efforts to seek a reasonable remedy for legitimate injuries. MOST are settled behind closed doors and sealed in secrecy. The problem I have with Tort Reform is having the medical insurance lobby define what is a "reasonable remedy". That just doesn't seem fair to me and I guarantee it wouldn't seem fair anyone reading this IF IT WAS YOU THAT WAS INJURED and SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERCOMPENSATED FOR SUCH INJURY BASED UPON SOME CAPRICIOUSLY PLACED CAP. (your life is only worth about $300,000 in Michigan) That being said...IMO, reasonable and flexible caps aren't horrible as they encourage settlement. Settlements are good for all involved...protracted litigation is not. I just don't want the largest and most well funded lobbies in the world (medical & Insurance Lobby) essentially setting grossly unreasonalbe caps.

Unlike FH, who as a immoral profiteer on the current health system and is, thus, biased when it comes to the issue of single payer health care, I am not a medical malpractice attorney. However, I can justify NINTY-NINE PERCENT (99%) of what the mdical malpractic bar does on behalf of individuals legitimately harmed by the medical industry. They represent INJURED persons and give them their day in court to seek remedies for their injuries. INDIVIDUALS harmed, often unemployed and facing the overwhelming task of taking on a MASSIVE and CASH RICH hospital, medical practice and/or doctor. Except in certain areas and states of the country, there is just no money to be made undertaking frivilous claims. It's just to expensive to start them.


On the flip side. The health insurance industry cost to health care is 30 times higher than the legal industry's. How can you justify 10-20-30, let alone 99% of the SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER cost your industry imposes upon our medical system??? What do health insurance companies actually do that provides anyone health care on a day to day basis? What do you do that justifies THAT large a BURDEN on the entire cost of everyone's medical care?

IMO...NOTHING. It's just protection money. I HAVE to pay if I want access to health care and don't want to become homeless obtaining it should I get sick and need it. You would DENY me health care...in the future...if I don't pay today. Not to mention that in the future...you will do everything in your power to deny me health care should I need it. I am only really valuable to YOU if I stay healthy. If I get sick, I become your liability and your "bad experience". If it weren't for the actual medical professionals behind you...I'm certain your industry would love to find ways to promote death over the expensive proposition of protracted disability. Oh yeah...they do, but they call it delaying and denying of approval for treatments in hopes the powerless "liability" dies before jumping through all the hoops to get the procedures.



Another thing to consider, MOST of any personal injury award is given to provide FUTURE medical care (which is why it's cheaper for the hospital to kill you rather than disable you). If we had a single payer system...awards would be lowered, automatically since future medical would be covered by the single payer system. Thus, it's highly likely that most medical malpractice lawyers probably don't want a single payer system either. You guys might oughta rethink your failing strategy of blaming the lawyers and using the deflection tactic of demanding tort reform....instead maybe try building bridges with your potential allies instead of knocking them down. Recall, people thought the Titanic was unsinkable too.

Mr. Wondering

Quote:OFCOURSE, the description applies to democrats too....THAT was never the point....but, THEY won the election this time

Don't be disingenous. You DID NOT "make it clear" that it "applies to democrats too. You made it a "one-sided" accusation against Republicans, period. And THAT IS "the point."
*****************************

I guess that's your POV, FH.
I was NOT being disingenuous, I just don't think you understood where I wa scoming from. That's ok....I don't want to fight w/ you anymore.

"Self-interest" Indeed.

Apparently MontCo has gone Democratic over the past two decades:


LINK

Blame the lawyers is really code speak to the health insurance cartel. They could care less if someone was really injured or not. They ONLY care about finding ways to reduce THEIR costs and THEIR risk so they can continue to maximize their profits for their shareholders at the expense of policy holders.
******************************

AHHHHH....you just hit a very raw nerve, Mr. W.
I just had to fly my son home from college for emergency surgery becuse my insurance wouldn't cover it in Phila.
And, I had them explain the entire policy to me BEFORE he went to school there becuse he has a chronic illness that could possibly land in him the ER. They said any emergency would be covered. BUT, he broke his leg in an accident and they refused the surgery.....The hospital in Phila. called to tell me this and said they were very surprised and that I should call them because he NEEDED to have the surgery within the next 48 hours to save the use of his leg. The insurance company told me I could appeal it but that they had every righ to deny it.

Originally Posted By: nia17You change every thread into a fight against the OTHER side.
it is exhausting.

I see you've been looking in the mirror. Don't care much for the "reflection," do you?


So WHICH side has "been about" attacking Palin and Republicans?

Perhaps you mean those magnanimous individuals who's side "won" the election?

Or maybe it's just as simple as not wanting anyone to question anything about the liberal "side" or anything they "have a right to say?"

Nia, I ENDED my discussion, or so I thought, of this subject with the biblical directive to recognize that for good or bad, Obama has been allowed by God to rule, "by will of the majority of the people" and for God's ultimate purposes.

But that wasn't "good enough" for you.

Now you want to resort to whining to "make your point."

Give me a break.

You want to use the "Ignore" button, have at it. But I have NEVER said that anyone had to "agree with me 100% on every issue." NOR do I have to agree with you or anyone else 100% on every issue.
*************************************

FH....
First of all, I have not put you on ignore becuse I do value your opinions and feel you have the right to them.
I would only consider putting you on ignore if I felt your posts where causing me stress but I still wanted to post here. I am not there yet.

Let me try this again....
I get the feeling we are both responding to what we THINK we know about the other and not specifics.
When I read your post above, I don't know what to make of it..... My reflection??
*I* have hardly posted on the political threads of the last couple of months, I am not a democrat and I have not "attacked" Palin on any of these threads, so your accusation of me does not apply there.
I am not happy w/ the republican party right now, and have posted that....but, not to say the OTHER side is always right.
I did not realize you had ENDED a discussion on the subject (perhaps I didn't see that post) so, it had nothing to do w/ your resposne not being good enough for me.
You posted to me and I responded to THAT post......
As far as whining to 'make my point' goes.......

Fine....you can considering it whining....but, the POINT I am trying to make right now is that It's clear you never understood my point in the first place ......I am not trying to get you to change your opinion and that I do not want to fight with you.

Oh please, Mr. W. Look in the mirror why don't you?


You made it quite clear in past discussions you were in support of Abortion on Demand, and with it the slaughter of millions of innocent babies....all on the altar of selfishness and self-interest.

So please spare me your lame attempts at trying to "paint me" as some self-interested "minion" of the insurance industry.

Can some changes be had? Yes. Are some changes needed? Yes.

But you think that a government run healthcare system is the "answer." You think that Doctors paying over $100,000 per year for Malpractice Insurance just to protect themselves from greedy attorneys "isn't" part of the problem of the high cost of health care.

What would YOU have to charge just to cover the cost of malpractice insurance before you make one dime to pay staff or yourself?

Why do you think that I MUST (as in mandatory) pay for and carry Errors and Omissions Insurance? For the same reason.

Just as SOME Doctors ARE guilty of malpractice, SOME Insurance Agents have pushed products SOLELY to make a buck. I EARN my living in the insurance world by placing my clients needs ahead of my own need to "make a buck."

So please don't even attempt to lecture me on what I do or don't do in the process of providing very much needed protection for individuals.

Why don't you think about "going after" Congress, which HAS stolen the money from Social Security, can't fund Medicare without constantly raising the deductibles and copays AND raising the premium the government charges EVERY YEAR, and which wouldn't lift a finger to pass the legislation introduced by McCain to avoid disaster at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Oh no. You prefer to demonize an industry that SHIFTS the risk of PAYING for services from the individual to the Insurance Company.

By the way, WHY do you have mandated auto insurance for your car even though you are responsible driver and DON'T have accidents or drive drunk and hurt other people?

Why DO you have Homeowners Insurance on your home, even though you take care of your home to keep it from being destroyed?

Why DO you have Health Insurance, even though you are "health as an ox" and don't use it much at all?

Let me guess, you have an HMO possibly?

That is quite possible.

yep....and it was the only option we had in this location. My H's company has much better coverage and more options where it's headquatered. I have had HMO's (I prefer a PPO) that worked out fine for us...THIS one is awful!

Try answering this...if you were really say, my agent, why wouldn't you be fighting for me to pay a premium which really reflected the TRUE cost and risk of the TRUE cost of MY PERSONAL MEDICAL SERVICES instead of promoting and selling policies which entail premiums that, in part, cover the cost of uninsured and underinsured????

Hint: A corporations single purpose is to maximize it's shareholders value and return on investment.

Answer: Health insurance and the "agency" sale of such is immoral. Via the medical cartel, it passes along the cost of medical care for the uninsured and indigent to it's "clients" that it supposedly represents and even charges a percentage on it (profiteering on indigent medical care). If the Heath Insurance industry failed to be complicit in this arrangement, the hospitals would surely HAVE TO refuse to treat EVERYONE. The ensuing outrage would cause government to have to step in and pay for it. Any governement involvement is perceived as BAD for business and shareholders because Government would then likely, eventually and finally KILL the golden goose...the health insurance racket.

In conclusion, health insurance has really become private socialized medicine. My health insurance premiums contain a tax which covers the cost of medical care for the uninsured. This is, in essence, taxation and worse yet, it's taxation without representation. It's immoral and UN-American. Sure a single payor system will have problems but, at least, I'll be voting for the people in charge AND nobody will be left in the cold if and when they actually NEED medical services.

Mr. Wondering

Hello Pot. The TOTAL cost of the legal profession on the medical system is less than 1% whereas the health insurance industry's cost is around 30% plus.

Exactly WHO is the greedy?

What do you propose happen to injured persons?

You also fail to realize, medical malpractice insurance in a single-payor health system would be DRAMITICALLY cheaper because you've now removed the cost of future medical care out of the personal injury award calculations.

Finally, I AM NOT A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNEY so their greediness or lack thereof has nothing to do with my opinions


Okay, you like to shout to get your "point" across.

But let's get your questions addressed, hmmmm.

Exactly WHO is the greedy?

You really don't know what Claims Loss ratios are do you?

You really don't know that each and every insurance plan is REGULATED by the State Insurance Commissioners, do you?

You really don't understand that rates are approved and controlled by the government, do you?

Earlier, on another thread, I posted the North Carolina rates for the State provided insurance plan for people who are "high risk," namely, those persons with serious medical conditions that can't qualify for "regular insurance" because the costs of treating their conditions is KNOWN to be very high.

What you need to take note of is that the plan AND the rates are established by the government, not by any insurance company. The State selected the company to administer the plan, but the government set up the plan and the rates for the plan.

But in case you missed it, I will reproduce it here for you.



But just to give you an example of how the Government will "address" this issue and make sure that the people who can't qualify for regular health insurance because of their "unhealthy condition," let me share with you the Premium RATE Structure for GUARANTEED COVERAGE. ONLY those people who ARE "unhealthy" can get this insurance. The "healthy folks" have to stay with their employer or individual plans.

I am only including the rates up to age 64, even though the plan does give rates for up to age 99, because MOST people WILL go on Medicare when they turn 65.


Non-Smoker
AGE Plan A -- $1,000 Plan B -- $2,500 Plan C – $5,000 HDHP
.......Male..Female...Male...Female...Male...Female
0-1--- $432-- $433--- $326--- $327--- $217-- $218--
2-12--$228-- $228--- $172--- $173--- $115--- $115--
13-17-$254-- $252--- $192--- $191--- $128--- $127
18-----$270-- $271--- $196--- $245--- $136--- $135
19-----$271-- $286--- $198--- $257--- $136--- $154
20-----$276-- $299--- $204--- $268--- $137--- $168
21-----$277-- $313--- $208--- $280--- $140--- $184
22-----$278-- $366--- $209--- $321--- $141--- $195
23-----$281-- $372--- $211--- $325--- $143--- $202
24-----$283-- $377--- $213--- $329--- $145--- $208
25-----$286-- $384--- $216--- $339--- $147--- $214
26-----$289-- $391--- $218--- $344--- $150--- $220
27-----$292-- $399--- $220--- $350--- $152--- $225
28-----$296-- $424--- $223--- $369--- $155--- $230
29-----$304-- $438--- $230--- $379--- $159--- $235
30-----$311-- $457--- $235--- $384--- $162--- $241
31-----$320-- $465--- $241--- $390--- $167--- $246
32-----$329-- $476--- $247--- $399--- $172--- $252
33-----$337-- $485--- $253--- $405--- $177--- $258
34-----$347-- $493--- $260--- $411--- $183--- $264
35-----$358-- $502--- $268--- $399--- $188--- $270
36-----$369-- $511---- $275--- $406--- $194--- $276
37-----$381-- $525--- $283--- $417--- $201--- $282
38-----$394-- $540--- $294--- $428--- $210--- $291
39-----$408-- $553--- $306--- $438--- $220--- $300
40-----$425-- $566--- $318--- $434--- $230--- $308
41-----$439-- $579--- $330--- $444--- $239--- $317
42-----$454-- $600--- $343--- $459--- $240--- $326
43-----$475-- $618--- $356--- $473--- $253--- $335
44-----$496-- $636--- $371--- $487--- $265--- $344
45-----$523-- $653--- $385--- $497--- $280--- $356
46-----$548-- $672--- $399--- $511--- $295--- $368
47-----$574-- $681--- $417--- $518--- $310--- $381
48-----$606-- $704--- $440--- $535--- $327--- $393
49-----$637-- $725--- $464--- $550--- $344--- $405
50-----$676-- $755--- $492--- $569--- $361--- $417
51-----$716-- $786---- $520--- $589--- $378--- $426
52-----$757-- $793--- $549--- $592--- $396--- $436
53-----$800-- $830--- $580--- $620--- $416--- $448
54-----$845-- $866--- $612--- $648--- $437--- $460
55-----$886-- $902--- $641--- $673--- $456--- $473
56-----$924-- $931--- $669--- $697--- $476--- $486
57-----$967-- $949--- $700--- $710--- $499--- $501
58-----$1,022 $992--- $740--- $743--- $528--- $517
59-----$1,078 $1,036- $781--- $777--- $559--- $534
60-----$1,139 $1,084- $826--- $811--- $589--- $550
61-----$1,198 $1,129- $869--- $837--- $621--- $568
62-----$1,258 $1,119- $912--- $846--- $654--- $586
63-----$1,297 $1,171- $940--- $878--- $691--- $615
64-----$1,340 $1,225- $970--- $918--- $731--- $645

Smoker
AGE Plan A -- $1,000 Plan B -- $2,500 Plan C – $5,000 HDHP
Male Female Male Female Male Female
0-1 $570 $572 $431 $432 $287 $288
2-12 $301 $302 $227 $228 $151 $152
13-17 $335 $333 $253 $252 $169 $168
18 $357 $358 $259 $323 $179 $178
19 $357 $378 $262 $339 $180 $203
20 $364 $395 $270 $354 $181 $221
21 $365 $413 $274 $369 $185 $243
22 $367 $484 $276 $424 $186 $258
23 $370 $490 $279 $429 $189 $266
24 $374 $497 $282 $435 $192 $274
25 $378 $507 $285 $447 $194 $282
26 $382 $516 $288 $454 $197 $290
27 $385 $526 $291 $462 $201 $297
28 $390 $560 $295 $487 $204 $304
29 $401 $579 $303 $500 $210 $311
30 $411 $603 $311 $507 $214 $318
31 $422 $614 $318 $515 $220 $325
32 $434 $628 $326 $526 $227 $332
33 $445 $640 $334 $535 $234 $340
34 $458 $651 $343 $543 $241 $348
35 $473 $662 $353 $527 $248 $356
36 $488 $674 $363 $536 $256 $364
37 $503 $693 $374 $550 $265 $372
38 $520 $713 $388 $565 $278 $384
39 $539 $730 $404 $578 $291 $395
40 $561 $747 $420 $573 $303 $407
41 $580 $764 $436 $586 $316 $419
42 $599 $792 $453 $607 $317 $431
43 $627 $816 $471 $625 $333 $443
44 $655 $839 $489 $642 $350 $454
45 $690 $862 $508 $656 $370 $470
46 $724 $888 $527 $675 $389 $486
47 $758 $899 $551 $684 $409 $503
48 $800 $929 $581 $706 $431 $519
49 $841 $957 $612 $727 $454 $535
50 $893 $997 $649 $751 $476 $551
51 $945 $1,037 $686 $778 $498 $563
52 $999 $1,047 $725 $781 $522 $575
53 $1,057 $1,095 $766 $818 $549 $591
54 $1,115 $1,144 $808 $856 $576 $607
55 $1,169 $1,191 $847 $888 $602 $624
56 $1,219 $1,229 $883 $920 $628 $641
57 $1,277 $1,252 $924 $937 $659 $661
58 $1,349 $1,309 $977 $981 $697 $683
59 $1,424 $1,367 $1,031 $1,026 $737 $705
60 $1,504 $1,430 $1,090 $1,070 $778 $727
61 $1,582 $1,491 $1,147 $1,116 $820 $750
62 $1,661 $1,477 $1,204 $1,105 $863 $773
63 $1,713 $1,546 $1,241 $1,158 $913 $812
64 $1,768 $1,617 $1,281 $1,212 $964 $851


Now these rates are PER PERSON PER MONTH. (Sorry, I didn't want to take the time to space out the Smoker rates so they would be easier to read on the UBB format.)

Obviously, just as I do every day, it would make "sense" to have healthy family members on their own "lower cost" individual health plan and to only have the "unhealthy" person on such a "guaranteed coverage" plan such as this.

Regardless of your opinion, however, I want you to SEE that this IS a Government run, Government sanctioned plan and that the RATES are not "cheap." Even the government recognizes that the plan will not work if it is NOT funded, and they WILL make you pay for it. And if not YOU, as Obama would like, then EVERYONE WILL PAY. Do you REALLY believe that you won't pay REALLY HIGH "premiums," errrr, Taxes, in order to support Nationalized Healthcare?


Now, Mr. Wondering, the rates are "lower" for non-smokers and "higher" for smokers because of the known risk of smoking on health, and the attendant high costs of treating those problems.

IF the government was really interested in "lowering the cost of healthcare," why don't you think that they would simply BAN smoking? Oh, I forgot, they get a LOT of TAX money from the tobacco tax to help pay for "other things" the government wants to do.

But regardless, the rates for the non-smokers are NOT "cheap" by any means for anyone.
THAT is the tacit admission of government that providing healthcare to everyone is NOT cheap, even if the government is providing it.

Why do you think that is?


Now, IF you do want a government run, government funded, government controlled healthcare system, we already have one that can be looked at as a "current model."

It's called MEDICAID. Anyone on Medicaid receives virtually any medical care they need and they don't have to pay for it, not for the coverage and not for the charges.

GUESS what is close to "bankrupting" a lot of States? The Medicaid entitlement system.

But then it is for people who do not have the income or assets to pay for it on their own.

You would simply like to see that same sort of system applied to everyone.

There IS no "free lunch."

What IS the true cost to provide health care? Why don't you ask the Doctors and Hospitals who KNOW their cost of service and who generate the BILLS that "someone" has to pay.

OR is it that you simply want Doctors and Hospitals to ONLY be paid what the government thinks their services are "worth?" If so, WHY would any of them WANT to be in business, the "business" of helping anyone suffering from a "health problem?"

I'm sure you are familiar with the term "pro bono." In the medical world it is called "charity care" where the services are provide at no cost to the patient. In the "not for profit" world of Hospitals, they MUST maintain certain levels of "free care." In order to provide pro bono legal work or free health care, and still be able to pay salaries and the like, WHO winds up paying for it? NO lawyer is going to stay in business very long if he does not CHARGE someone, somewhere, to stay in business. The same is true for Doctors and Hospitals.


What do you propose happen to injured persons?

Well, let's see. The government already MANDATES that no one can be denied medical care, regardless of ability to pay for it, for all emergencies. That's one of the reasons Emergency Rooms have become "Doctor's Offices" and "Urgent Care Centers."



You also fail to realize, medical malpractice insurance in a single-payor health system would be DRAMITICALLY cheaper because you've now removed the cost of future medical care out of the personal injury award calculations.

You think so? Why? On the basis of "you can't sue the government?"

Just wait for the first case that is denied, or service NOT extended, because it "costs too much" and there is "too little reimbursement" from the government, and you will have set up a similar scenario to a lot of HMO's.

Remember that pesky little thing called the "Constitution." Something about "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?"



Finally, I AM NOT A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNEY so their greediness or lack thereof has nothing to do with my opinions

Ya, we'll just give the "John Edwards'" of the lawyering world a "free pass."




Ahhhh….the bliss of ignorance of the topic. "Not my problem, mon, I don't practice and what other attorneys do is their business, they can "go for all the gusto" and get whatever they can get….and it's A LOT!




Oh come on, Mr. W., you don't really BELIEVE this do you?

WHY, in your opinion is "medical care" a "RIGHT?"

WHO says that any Doctor or Hospital "MUST" exist to take care of what "ails" you?

WHO says that the government is "responsible" for seeing to it that YOU (any individual) gets healthcare and HOW do they "set up the infrastructure" and "staff it" so that anyone can PROVIDE healthcare services?

Personal responsibility, Mr. W., it what is the "crux of the issue."

The COST associated with healthcare treatment is REAL, and it is HIGH, unless you just want to put a bandaid on that knife wound?

CAT scans, Radiation treatment, Surgery, etc., etc., ARE expensive to obtain, to regulate, to USE to try to help someone.

Of course we "could" just let the sick die. THAT would save a lot of healthcare dollars and we might not even need a "healthcare system." Just increase the number of morticians and we'd be "good to go."

What Insurance Companies DO is take a premium amount, high or low, and GIVE you MILLIONS of dollars of coverage, usually from "DAY ONE."

Now, if you prefer, you could offer the Doctor or the Hospital a chicken or two, maybe whole cow if the procedure is more "involved." Maybe they will take that, maybe they won't. Or maybe you could just "sign over" your house to cover the cost of their services.

Now, if you "think" that the government can "control healthcare" by limiting what THEY are willing to pay the providers to take care of you, then WHY doesn't the government provide Long Term Care Insurance for people?

Why do you think that the "allowable amount" for Medicare comes with a $1000 plus deductible every 60 days during the year and why does Medicare have both a deductible and 20% of the ENTIRE bill that is the responsibility of the Medicare recipient? Why do those deductibles GO UP every year? Why does the Part B premium that each Medicare Recipient MUST pay (deducted from their meager Social Security check) keep going up EVERY YEAR?

Why do you think that the "allowable amount" that Medicare actually PAYS the providers (as part of the Prospective Payment System and the attendant DRG's (Diagnosis Related Group) is 1 )too low to cover the provider's costs of providing the service and 2) mandated that they CANNOT bill the patient for any costs OVER that "allowable" amount?

Ahhhh…but "we'll all pay more taxes to cover the costs." Right. WHO will pay more taxes? The 1% of the population who "has too much money?" The Middle Class who is already taxed too much? The people who pay NO taxes (about 40% of the people)?

What do you think the "rich folks" are likely to do with their investments if they KNOW that they will be paying higher taxes next year? Do you think they just might take their money out of the Stock Market and park it somewhere else, say Tax Free Municipal Bonds?


Try answering this...if you were really say, my agent, why wouldn't you be fighting for me to pay a premium which really reflected the TRUE cost and risk of the TRUE cost of MY PERSONAL MEDICAL SERVICES instead of promoting and selling policies which entail premiums that, in part, cover the cost of uninsured and underinsured????

Hint: A corporations single purpose is to maximize it's shareholders value and return on investment.

Answer: Health insurance and the "agency" sale of such is immoral. Via the medical cartel, it passes along the cost of medical care for the uninsured and indigent to it's "clients" that it supposedly represents and even charges a percentage on it (profiteering on indigent medical care). If the Heath Insurance industry failed to be complicit in this arrangement, the hospitals would surely HAVE TO refuse to treat EVERYONE. The ensuing outrage would cause government to have to step in and pay for it. Any governement involvement is perceived as BAD for business and shareholders because Government would then likely, eventually and finally KILL the golden goose...the health insurance racket.

In conclusion, health insurance has really become private socialized medicine. My health insurance premiums contain a tax which covers the cost of medical care for the uninsured. This is, in essence, taxation and worse yet, it's taxation without representation. It's immoral and UN-American. Sure a single payor system will have problems but, at least, I'll be voting for the people in charge AND nobody will be left in the cold if and when they actually NEED medical services.

Mr. Wondering [/quote]

Oh ya, the insurance companies are "immoral."

In conclusion, health insurance has really become private socialized medicine. My health insurance premiums contain a tax which covers the cost of medical care for the uninsured. This is, in essence, taxation and worse yet, it's taxation without representation. It's immoral and UN-American. Sure a single payor system will have problems but, at least, I'll be voting for the people in charge AND nobody will be left in the cold if and when they actually NEED medical services.

Have you looked at the British system? Ever wonder WHY a "private healthcare system" has grown up there, for those who can afford it? Ever wonder why people from Canada come to the USA for healthcare when they don't want to wait 6 to 12 months to get served in the Canadian system?

No, it's not "taxation without representation." NO ONE "forces" you have health insurance. It, unlike auto insurance, is NOT mandated. You can choose to have it or not have it.

Do you REALLY believe that the government can run a healthcare system? They have been doing that already in the VA system. My wife used to work in VA. Do you have any idea of what the "Nurse to Patient ratios" are in that system versus in a Hospital?

Do you think the VA system is a "well run" system?

Mr. W., you really do need to rethink this "issue."

**EDIT**

What is really sad...is the rates you quote above as a supposed scary example of how high the rates are for the riskiest group are, in fact, equal to what my family IS already paying for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan High Deductible HSA insurance with a $3,000 deductible.

We get one office visit per year. Office visits thereafter are completly out of pocket and not even taken down to the "negotiated rates" that BCBS would otherwise pay (and what they pay for that first free visit).

Up to $3,000 all prescriptions are out of pocket.

We can't get a cheaper PPO because of a minor "pre-existing condition" which would automatically "rate us" out of such plan. We certainly aren't "high risk" but we are paying as though we are.

In a nutshell...YES...I trust the government MORE than I trust the medical insurance industry with actually providing me and my family with medical care, if and when we need it.

Enough about me. Taking the this argument to the individual level takes the focus away from the broader issue.

Medical Insurance, as it exists today, is un-Christian. Health Insurance increases the cost of medical care, while taking down the payment per patient for medical providers. In essence, it skims directly from the top. Like a loan shark, when you put usury into the health care industry by taking a usury percentage, in money, from the use of the money, you corrupt it. Usury is an abomination. See Ezekiel 18:13. A Medical care industry that pays usury, er, interest, to it's nonperforming "investors" off the backs of the suffering is abominable.

It may take good Christian such as yourself...within the industry itself to come forth realizing and exposing this abomination before real change occurs. Others have...I am calling on you my brother to cast aside your "self-interest" and to start looking at this issue as Jesus would.

Health Care IS a right and a system with EVERYBODY in (not just the risky) will be cheaper and provide better health care, on average, for everyone.

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - You had a mistatement in your post. You said 40% of the population doesn't pay taxes. I am not going to research it to get the exact number but that is not true. Perhaps 40% don't file income taxe returns...but MANY of them still pay Withholdings, Social Security, Medicare Taxes which are taken directly from their paychecks. Further, everyone pays Sales, Gasoline, Liquor, Cigarette, and/or Property Taxes and the like. You'd be hard pressed to find ONE American that completely 100% avoids paying ANY taxes whatsoever.

FH, I will only suggest that you not try and reason with any person that can ****EDIT****. It is a waste of time.

Please keep the posts respectful and avoid the gratuitous attacks!

http://www.slate.com/id/2204051?gt1=38001

Sure seems like CHANGE.

:crosseyedcrazy:

I don't suppose you have an insurance agent you work with if that is the plan that you have. For what it's worth, your plan sounds as though it sucks.

However, since I don't know all the particulars of your plan choices, whether or not they are through an employer or are an individual plan, I'll just keep these comments brief, since I've already stated it and you may have missed it in the last post.

The STATE approves all plans available for sale in given State. The differences between States can be marked, but it is the State that "sets the rules" for any insurance company that wants to market a product in a given State.

Now, if you have an HSA insurance plan, you have a LOW deductible ($3000) for a family plan. In addition, you made no mention of the HSA savings account, which a primary reason for having an HSA qualified health plan. The Health Savings Account is designed to work WITH the health plan. The money that you put into the HSA is Tax deductible and the money used from it is Tax Free for anything health related. But the major advantage of the HSA savings account is that it rolls over year to year and it remains YOUR money and not the insurance company's.

In addition there are other ways to address the deductible if you wanted to. I do that sort thing routinely for my HSA clients.




I'm sorry, but you cannot compare Michigan rates with North Carolina or New York rates. Rates are State specific. Believe me, rates in North Carolina are among the lowest in the country, and that is why the rates in the table are high, for residents of North Carolina.

Now, if you want to get a plan from Blue Cross of North Carolina, a "regular" type not an HSA plan, you can. I have had clients quoted $1,600 per month per person for such a plan for people with health problems.

Now, if you wanted to tell me what sort of "minor" pre-existing condition you are talking about, I might be able to give you some suggestions. But since that is very personal information, if you'd want to do that I would suggest you do so via email.

One of the things I run into all the time, and that you might be thinking when you call your condition "minor," is that to a given individual the "condition" may not cause a lot of problems, however, that is NOT how insurance works for "risk." It compares ALL of the people with the same condition, the usage and claims history for that given condition, and assigns a "risk" classification based upon the "average" of the experience. I'll give one that I run into all the time. It's called "Fibromyalgia." For some people it is more of a "nuisance," but for others it is debilitating. For some, the costs to treat the disease and the symptoms is VERY high.

Here's another example of high cost. Kidney Dialysis. On average it costs about $1000 per day for dialysis treatment (3 times per week, all year.) IF it was covered (and it can be under some very special circumstances, as I have worked with Kidney Dialysis Centers for several years) the Premium Cost would be VERY high. But unless an insurance agent is involved with someone when they have ESRD (End Stage Renal Disease, i.e. Kidney Failure), most people don't have a clue about what they might be able to do "insurance-wise."




You are entitled to your opinion. But that does not make the opinion automatically correct. PLEASE go look at England and Canada and see just how Socialized Medicine actually works.




I got it. You don't like the Stock Market. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with some "faith-based" insurance programs such as "Lutheran Care." You might want to check it out.

One more time, Health Insurance has nothing to do with the COST of healthcare. All Health Insurance does is PAY for the care that is charged by the Providers so that you don't have to should the full burden yourself. You really don't seem to understand that an "average" Hospital stay cost around $20,000 - $30,000. And "critical illnesses" can cost tens of times that amount. I talked with a young couple who had a premature birth, and by the time they were done with the care and could take the baby home, they went through over $1,000,000. NOW, just WHO is going to pay that cost?

You don't like investors paying for "stock" in a company and you'd prefer that people pay all the costs for care. If you pay $1,000 per month ($12,000 per year), as one example, and you or someone in your family needs surgery (i.e. an appendectomy, or something "average") and the cost is $30,000, how long do you need to pay your premiums in order for the insurance company (or the government for that matter) to JUST recover the cost of that ONE stay in the Hospital, and that's assuming that there are no more "stays"?

Now, how about the couple with the premature baby? They could pay premiums for the rest of their lives and NEVER pay to the point of "break even."

I ran a company that provided healthcare services. We treated Cancer patients, AIDS patients, Bone Infection patients, etc. Do you have any idea what my COSTS for the service were? Pharmacists and Nurses don't come "cheap." Neither do the Pharmaceuticals or the mandatory Workers Compensation Insurance that I had to carry on everyone. I had both private insurance and Medicare clients. When I billed Medicare for services performed TODAY, I would NOT get paid by Medicare for over 1 year (in the business it's called DSO, Days Sales Outstanding). But in the meantime, we had to continue providing the service and we had to continue making payroll. I had about 35 employees…and believe me, NONE of them cared much for the idea of working for me TODAY, but not getting paid for that work for over a year. They wouldn't even like waiting "just a few months" to get paid for their work.

One of the reasons I got into insurance after leaving that business was because people NEED to be protected financially from the "bad things that can happen" health-wise and the high cost of PAYING for such services.




I do. The Good Samaritan did not provide the care, he took the person to someone who COULD care for him, and he PAID for that care. If the government wants to stop confiscating my money, perhaps I, too, could pay for someone else's care, or at least contribute with others to pay for it, while also providing for the needs of my family.

There ARE changes that I would like to see, and some I have talked about for years, but no one is really interested in my "street level sense" of what could be done to improve the healthcare system.




Healthcare is NOT a right, despite your opinion. NO ONE is "obligated" to treat you or anyone else. To think that it is a "right" puts the providers of health care into the position of "indentured servitude," or worse, "slavery." Health care is a CAREER choice because people DO get sick and injured and CAN often be treated.

If the government were to "buy" your idea, and it's safe to assume that at least Obama does, and then take over the healthcare system, WHO is going to work for "low wages" or for "free" just because the government decided that "someone" had to provide the services? There is NO ONE who MUST become a Doctor or a Nurse. They CHOOSE to do that, as my wife did. I'm willing to bet that when you practiced law, you did NOT practice for free. You MAY have done some pro bono work, but it was not ALL of your work, right?




Fine, you do that. But while you are doing that, take a look at the "Baby Boom" generation and the projections of "over 65" citizens by, say, 2020 or 2030. Retired. Not working. Not paying into Social Security, but drawing Social Security. Not paying Medicare taxes, but receiving Part A free if they worked 40 Quarters in their lifetime. Any "withholdings" taken from any "post-retirement" work is usually returned in a "tax refund."

Now, if you are talking about under age 65 working people, a lot of them work for "tips," and ALL that is withheld from them is based on below minimum wage "pay."

If you want to "quibble" about "40%" be my guest. But the reality is that fewer and fewer people are paying into the system. Take a look sometime at the number of "workers" compared to the number of "retirees" back when Social Security was set up and compare that to today's figures. When I "joke" with my children that they need to go get a 2nd fulltime job in order to support me in my old age, that's only "half joking."


Further, everyone pays Sales, Gasoline, Liquor, Cigarette, and/or Property Taxes and the like.

Bad examples, Mr. W.

ONLY those who buy things pay Sales taxes, and each STATE is taxed differently.

ONLY those who drive or use gasoline pay a gas tax.

ONLY those who smoke pay a cigarette tax.

ONLY those who own a home pay Property Taxes (and sometimes on things like cars and dogs, etc.)

The REST of the people are getting a "free ride" on the taxes paid by others.

Here in my County, the voters just approved ANOTHER School Bond Referendum that means MORE taxes for ONLY the property owners. Now THERE's an example of where voting should be restricted to ONLY property owners.

But the point is that ONLY those who USE those things or own property PAY the taxes.

Similarly, if YOU are healthy, you "don't need health insurance." You could easily pay for an annual checkup with your Doctor with the savings in NOT paying premiums for health insurance AND for the "privilege" of having a Co-payment for that Doctor visit.

You are NOT required to buy health insurance.

But you WILL be required to pay taxes to PAY for insurance for "everyone" else.

****EDIT****

NMDreams, please email me.

revera01@aol.com

Thank you for the civil response and I apologize for any and all of my incivility. Perhaps there is nothing non-Christians enjoy more than to see us Christians attacking each other. Makes them feel all warm and fuzzy about denying Him. I will attempt to restrain my passion.


In a nutshell...I have bought employer plans through our business (my family was the entire "group") and now we are on an individual family plan. Our experience with health insurance has been frustrating, to say the least, even though we've had no catostrophic event. The years I obtained great coverage and paid higher premiums, we've had no claims, so we switch to a cheaper policy only to, then experience significant claims. Once we were "rated" we stuck to a pretty good PPO policy for the 3 of us for awhile but eventually the allowed rate increases priced it over $1,000 per month. [excuse me for not feeling secure about the industry contolled government establishing "fair" rates by regulation].

It is soooo very frustrating and even though I can afford it, it burns me up to see what other people are experiencing. In the last 3 years I have been invited to sooooo many "events" to help people pay for medical problems because they didn't have coverage, they max'ed out or they were underinsured and needed help for whatever reason. Tragic stories. It's getting ridiculous.

Not to mention what the skyrocketing costs are doing to the auto industry here in Detroit and other US industries. It's deeply impacting our ability to compete in the world.

To me...it appears the titantic IS already HIT and sinking fast. It's got to be done sooner rather than later. There is no other viable solution than EVERYBODY in, such that the risk is spread out and nobody is skimming the top to the tune of 30%.

Am I wrong about the 30%???

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - My research indicates that, despite the rhetoric and few highlighted specific individuals, MOST Canadians and MOST Brits and the French are generally content with their health care. At least, a greater percentage like theirs than the percentage of US citizens that like ours.

I am curious, how is healthcare fundamentally different from police or fire fighting services? Are policemen and firefighters slaves, by your logic above?


Again, that seems to work just fine for police and firefighters, why not healthcare?


Just like you do for police - you may not need their services, but you pay for the services to be there for those who need them.

AGG

Adding to AGG response...

IMO,

1. The Medical Profession is a calling.

2. The Medical Profession needs to discontinue unreasonably
limiting it's ranks

3. Medical Schools can become more efficient by training individuals to become experts in specifics things instead of everything (too many jacks of all trades and masters of nothing)

4. Efficiencies can be had by conglomerating certain procedures in certain facilities and utilizing more factory type delivery of units of health care.

5. Doctors ARE overpaid...(under SPHC they will have to unionize to get better pay from the government)

Mr. Wondering

I don't suppose you have an insurance agent you work with if that is the plan that you have. For what it's worth, your plan sounds as though it sucks.

However, since I don't know all the particulars of your plan choices, whether or not they are through an employer or are an individual plan, I'll just keep these comments brief, since I've already stated it and you may have missed it in the last post.

The STATE approves all plans available for sale in given State. The differences between States can be marked, but it is the State that "sets the rules" for any insurance company that wants to market a product in a given State.

Now, if you have an HSA insurance plan, you have a LOW deductible ($3000) for a family plan. In addition, you made no mention of the HSA savings account, which a primary reason for having an HSA qualified health plan. The Health Savings Account is designed to work WITH the health plan. The money that you put into the HSA is Tax deductible and the money used from it is Tax Free for anything health related. But the major advantage of the HSA savings account is that it rolls over year to year and it remains YOUR money and not the insurance company's.

In addition there are other ways to address the deductible if you wanted to. I do that sort thing routinely for my HSA clients.

*************************************************

FH,

I have had many different health insurance plans thru the years(offered by my/my H's employer,in different states).
Can you explain an HSA insurance plan for me?

First of all, is the HDA insurance plan a type of plan that some companies offer employees?
OR is it a plan that that *I* would prurchase IN addition to health insurance offered by my husbands company?

Is an HSA savings account somehtign that an individual sets up themselves....and, if so...how and where?

Reading this with great interest....


What is SPHC ? Showing my ignorance here.

My middle son is nearing completion of getting his BS in Biochem, minor in mathematics with a 3.98 GPA. He is currently getting prepared for medical and pharmacy school entrance exams.

So far been paying out of pocket with small scholarships and no loans - however we will not be able to keep assisting him for another 7 yrs. The costs could reach $250K. So I dont agree with being over paid in general. It takes a greater than average intelligence and discipline to become a physician and they should be able to reap a reward for the dedication.

Where I think the Canadian system is superior is allowing students to financially get the education.

Interestingly here in DFW - GP, Internist and OBGyn that we have are from Canada. I suppose that Canada would like to see the US go towards a more public system to stop the brain drain.

I hope that this nation will have a good discussion with experts including the AMA and keep the lobbyists at bay to come up with a solution. There is a solution out there.

Nothing to worry about Mr. W. We all tend to get "passionate" about issues that hit very close to home in our own lives. And health care is a rather personal issue for all of us.

The "problem" with Christians is that the only "authority" that can decide if we are "right or wrong" in our thoughts, ideas, and beliefs is God. Unlike Islam, for example, where the "religion" can literally decide you are worthy of death if you don't "believe what they believe," Christianity is about a personal relationship with God Himself, predicated on Jesus Christ actually BEING the second person of the One God.

The "problem" you are dealing with regarding health insurance is not much different than any other problem we face in life, we live in a fallen world and "bad things" (i.e., health conditions) DO happen to people regardless of whether or not they are believers. Our relationship with God is "supposed to" supercede anything in our lives, including circumstances, willful sin, and affects that impact us directly and indirectly as a result of the "broken" world we live in. That is why we are told to be IN the world, but not OF the world. As you know, that is also why I am very passionate about the abortion issue. Just because the "world" may think it's "okay," it is contrary to God's stated PURPOSE for life.





Okay, you need to understand something before I comment further. Without knowing what the health problem(s) might be and who in the family has the health problem, whether or not anyone is a smoker, height, weight, age, etc., is almost impossible to talk about specific "options" for health coverage. Your definition of a "catastrophic" event is also an unknown, as all the health conditions have defined codes that have been established whether they are CPT-9 or DRG, and those codes determine the "risk" associated with a given problem as well as the "usual and customary" or the "allowable" reimbursement to providers, depending upon whether we are talking about under 65 health insurance or government run Medicare health insurance.


Having said that, let's just talk about the underlying issue of "healthcare" being a "right" for a minute. The "reason" that most people feel that it is a "right" is because it IS "my body" and that when things "go wrong" it impacts all parts of our lives as an individual and as a family. The FACT that medical care has advanced enough that many things that "used to" kill us not longer necessarily do kill us is a reality.

If you think that a career in medicine is a "calling" for people, you might be right, but DON'T confuse that "calling" with a "religious calling" to help people regardless of the "earning potential" of the chosen field. Yes, in Medicine, as within the Church, there ARE people who DO see it as a "calling" and will NOT be all that concerned about "how much they can make." The same can be said about many professions, including Law, but it is NOT "the norm."

Most people are willing to "help others," but only if there is "enough in it for them," again "personally," to have the sort of earnings and "lifestyle" that they want to have.

Why do you think HMO's even exist? They exist because they were started BY Doctors and Hospitals to "make buckets of money" for them personally, not to altruistically provide healthcare to people. That is also why so many HMO's "went under" in the 1980's as the REALITY of the COST of providing services "caught up to them."

Anyway, back to the issue of healthcare being a "right." That is just another "government-speak" word for "entitled," or "entitlement," that "Sounds Good" to the people. I mean, who in their right mind WOULDN'T like to have all of their healthcare needs taken care of and NOT be responsible for paying for the service they seek and want?

Even with God, it COST HIM (as in HE paid the total price) in order for Him to offer us the choice between "handling things on our own" and in "accepting His payment" for sin without us having to PAY for anything ourselves. It IS our "right" because that is how He made us, with Free Will, to CHOOSE, but the "sinful state we are in" has given each of us a "terminal disease of the soul." In other words, there is NO "free lunch." There WILL come a day when death and disease ARE banished and will never affect us again, but that is part of the gift He has bought for us, and no amount of "payment" on our part can purchase it because the COST is so high no one could "afford to pay it" on their own, or even collectively.

Now let's talk a little about MOTIVATION. What is it that gives anyone the "motivation" to help someone else in need? For most people there is a "what's in it for me" component. The usual "component" is "compensation" for services or products provided to someone that meets, or at least attempts to meet, that person's perceived or real "need." But it is NOT a "right" where anyone else "must," or be "compelled to," meet anyone else's "need" in their life.

Just one "example" of the sort of thinking that "wants and needs" can get confused, and become "rights" regardless of someone's ability to pay for whatever it is that they think is a "right" would be the current the fiasco generated by the "feel good" idea that everyone has a "right" to house. The government "mandated" to banks and lenders that there was a "need" that was actually a "right," regardless of whether or not anyone could "afford" their perceived need. Obviously I think it was "politically motivated" in the attempt to show how "wonderful" our government was in "taking care of seeing to it we GOT what we WANTED," and the true COST was not an issue. NOW, we the taxpayers, are STUCK with billions of dollars going to "bail out" the "sub-prime mortgage industry" because the CONSEQUENCES of not doing so will have other dire results on the nation as a whole.

IF we want to think of healthcare along the same lines, we CAN bury our heads in the sand and "think" that the true cost of providing healthcare is "not my problem, we will just make others pay for it," we are asking for the same sort of "meltdown" that has happened to the sub-prime mortgage market. It SOUNDS good, but again, there is NO "free lunch." Even IF we assumed that ONLY those who felt "called" to enter Medicine would actually BE in Medicine, and if they DID enter Medicine knowing that it was essentially and "uncompensated" field or very "under-compensated field" (let's say like Missionary work as a comparison), there would not be "enough" of them to "go around" to take care of the healthcare needs of the entire nation. The same sort of "reasoning" applies to Lawyers, Bricklayers, Auto Workers, any "field" we might think about.

We, as a nation, don't "like" to wait for much of anything, and certainly NOT for getting our healthcare needs taken care of NOW, not sometime later. But the reality of Socialized Medicine is that "waiting" is inherent because someone else gets to decide what is "important" in the treatment of various "problems" that YOU PERSONALLY might have. YOUR perception of the "need for treatment" is NOT necessarily THEIR perception, and as a result healthcare becomes "rationed" according to THEIR evaluations of YOUR condition.

If you don't believe me, just look at the VA system and you'll see it is rampant. Waiting lists are LONG for a lot of VA services, especially for a BED in a VA Hospital. But it already IS a "Universal Healthcare System" available to ALL veterans, regardless of their ability to PAY for the service. Sound familiar? The PEOPLE, through taxation, PAY for the Veterans healthcare needs because they "qualified" through having served the Nation. ANYONE could "access" the VA system if they wanted to. ALL they would have to do is "pay for it" with a little time IN the military, in service to our country. But a LOT of people don't want to serve in the military, or can't because they are physically able to do so. But NOW they want the "same sort of 'free' healthcare extended to everyone as a "right," regardless of service or ability to pay for what they want.

What, then, IS the motivation, or the motivating "factor," in the high level of healthcare services that we DO enjoy in this country?

One word, and it's an "ugly" word to a lot of people.

Profit.

And profit comes AFTER cost. Profit has become a "dirty word" because the politicians play to our emotions, to what "sounds good," and they refuse to deal with REALITY.

They have done that with Social Security. They have done that with Medicare. They have done that with the VA system. They have done that with virtually everything that the government decides "they know better how to run a business" of any kind. They did that with the mortgage market. They have done that with gasoline and the ridiculous number of "blends" of gasoline to satisfy the "environmentalist wackos" and NOT take a stand on what actually DOES "work well."

And NOW people want to "Trust the Government" to decide what is "best" for them individually in their own choices for healthcare.

Why? Because they think that healthcare is too expensive, therefore they can SHIFT the cost to everyone and let the government decide who gets treated and when they can be treated.

But think back on the "profit motive." How many times have you ever had to interact with "government employees?" SOME try to do a good job, but the overwhelming majority of them are just "collecting a paycheck," and excellence in performance is NOT even on the table in their minds. Have you ever tried to get a "straight answer" from a government employee, let alone from a career politician?

The "answer" to the healthcare system, and the impact it has on what WE pay individually to be able to "afford" to be treated IS NOT in "doing away with the profit motive" that spurs people to excellence, to being "rewarded" for doing a good job. It IS NOT in "nationalizing healthcare" and putting government workers in charge of what and when you can access the healthcare system.

The answer lies in "thinking outside of the box," not in reinventing the whole system and "chucking" the "free enterprise" foundation of excellence in providing CHOICES for people. Why do you think that FOREIGN car sales have been so successful against domestic car manufacturers? It's NOT because cars are "cheap," they are not. But people WILL choose to buy a "cheap car" or an "expensive car" depending upon their wants and their ability to pay for their choice. Foreign cars COMPETED in the system and thought of "new things" to offer that people soon began to think of as "needs," or "rights" to have in their cars. But the COST of buying a car continued to escalate. Now, if you want a car for each member of the family, the monthly "premium" will likely equal what anyone pays for health insurance. Toss in the mandated auto insurance, and you have a "right to drive" that is about the same cost as having health insurance to "drive your body through life" regardless of the "caused" or "uncaused" damages to that body over the course of time.

Let me digress here for a minute. THE two most "costly" parts of health insurance are Doctor Visits and Prescription Drug coverage, not the part that covers hospitalization and surgery. Why? Because EXPERIENCE has shown WHERE people DO spend money "most often." The truly catastrophic things are "statistical outliers" in the whole delivery system of healthcare. VERY few people actually HAVE a catastrophic condition that will cost hundreds, or even millions, of dollars. MOST people have things in the $20-$30,000 range. Even heart bypass surgery, admittedly "serious," costs about $80,000 on average around the country.

BEFORE HMO's began lying to people that healthcare could be "free," before the lawyers started going nuts with malpractice lawsuits, all that most people had was "Hospital/Surgical" coverage and they paid for their Doctor visits and Prescription Drugs on their own.

NOW everyone expects everything connected to healthcare to be a "right." It simply is not so. Nor would a Socialized system, government run and controlled directly or by mandates, provide services need by YOU in a timely manner. It would be "apportioned" according to THEIR "need schedule" and there would be nothing you could do about it.

Unless, like some Canadians, you could just cross the border and GET treated here in the USA. Unless, like a large number of Brits, you had the personal financial ability to PAY for private healthcare outside of the Government run healthcare system and you DON'T have to "wait on them" and THEIR schedule.







The "problem" is not the healthcare system, it is the COST of care, especially when the health issues "get serious." MOST Americans CANNOT afford to pay for much of any healthcare, let alone the really expensive treatments, ON THEIR OWN. That is why Insurance exists, to "shift" the burden of paying for it TO the insurance company and off of the backs of the individuals.

One thing that I often tell my clients is that the ONLY time you have the freedom of choice to GET an insurance is "before the wreck occurs." AFTER the wreck, no one is going to pay for "fixing" the car or for paying for expensive healthcare. People need the insurance BEFORE the problems happen.

But with healthcare it's more than just an inconvenience. You can't simply "not fix" the car (you body) because you can't do without it and can't go get a replacement for it.

But getting treated is no more a "right" than it would be to get your car fixed.





We can talk about Michigan, Michigan taxation, the Auto Industry, if you want to, but basically you can't "tax" yourself out of a problem and you can't let the unions decide what any business MUST pay it's employees in wages and benefits as if it's a "right." It is not. What happens if, for example, the Doctors and Nurses decide to NOT WORK until they get what they think they want? That, too, HAS happened and it has contributed to the "up tick" in the costs of providing healthcare.




Yes, you are wrong. That is my opinion, and whether or not you ever "come around" to seeing it as I see it is not guaranteed. But REASON, rather than emotions, should be part of the "evaluative process," especially when it comes to the "delivery system" of healthcare.

There ARE other "viable solutions" to Socialized/Nationalized Healthcare. At least there are in my opinion.

"Nationalized" healthcare is scary because it lowers healthcare to the "lowest common denominator" and "dumbs-down" the expectations of people for getting THEIR problems taken care of as THEY want, and not as some politician or government employee wants.

It WOULD likely create a "two class" system of healthcare (as has been the experience in Great Britian). One for the "people" and one for those who can afford on their own to pay for what they want, and want NOW.




Most people ARE content with shifting the burden of responsibility to someone else. That is "human nature." But it's a "false sense of security."

What people in America "don't like" about our healthcare system is having to pay for it themselves, and the rising cost of coverage because of the rising COSTS. They LIKE the level of healthcare that is available and that they can access it whenever THEY want to.

What Socialized Medicine wants to do is essentially "toss the baby out with the bathwater." They have done that with abortion, and decided that the "needs" of the baby are determined by someone other than the baby. NOW they want to extend that sort of thinking to all "healthcare." And people are "buying into" the notion that "I might not like it but it's okay if someone else wants to do it." Unfortunately, with Socialized/Nationalized healthcare, we won't have the "luxury" of "personal choice" anymore. Healthcare will be dictated and mandated by the government according to what IT thinks is "right" for everyone. AND they will TAX people for it at rates IT determines, and no one will have any "say" in what that cost to them personally will be.

There ARE other ways to address the issue of "affordability," but NOT through government control of the entire system.





For some it is. But for most people in all areas of healthcare, it's a JOB that pays them money for the service they provide.



Ahhh….the "lower the expectations of excellence" argument?

Think about this a little.



Yep. We CAN let the government decide what is needed and determine who gets to practice in whatever area they feel gifted in and like to practice in.

By the way, Medical Schools DO train "Specialists," according to the desires of the people involved. But the fundamental argument we always hear is that there are not enough "general practioners."



If you say so. But most people find TRAVEL to those "specialized" areas to be prohibitive, either by distance, ability TO travel, or by the cost to travel. And it LIMITS accessibility to healthcare, if for no other reason than the ability to pay to "get there."



If you say so. But then so are Attorneys and a lot of other professionals.

Besides, if they unionize and "strike" for better pay, how long do you think it would be before the Healthcare system had the same sort of problem that the Air Traffic Controllers caused to the Airline Industry when they "struck for higher wages?"

And even if they were successful, WHO pays the increased wages? Taxes. You and me, to support THEIR higher wages. Who is going increase our wages so we can afford to pay them more?

We have a police force so we don't have to carry guns and duke it out "wild west style."

But they aren't there all time and we do have Concealed Carry and other ways to defend ourselves.

In addition, the Police are there "after the fact" and are not "preventative."

Same thing with firefighters.

Now if you want an example of "stupid," consider the people in California who think that they have a "Right" to build houses in areas KNOWN to be prone to wildfires. It is not a "right," it is a choice. And how many millions of dollars does the State spend every year "defending their right" to have home where they KNOW their homes could be burned down?



You aren't serious, are you?

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Where is a cop when you need one?"

They need MORE cops and firefighters all the time. But who is going to PAY for them?
That is the ever-present issue. It's NOT that they are not needed, it's the COST and who pays for it and how much will it cost in premium….errr…taxes.

And the government does NOT force anyone to become a cop or firefighter. My son is cop because that's what HE wants to do.



Already answered above.


Regardless, though, you are talking about turning over control of your healthcare to the government. Personally, I like having the control of who I see, where I go, and when I get the healthcare services I think I need.

Nia, I'd be happy to explain what HSA's are and how they work. But I have to beg for a little time as I just spent all morning responding to Mr. W and AGG and now I have "Honey Do" things that I must get done before my Grandson's one year old birthday party this afternoon.

No problem. I'm just trying to get (and undestand) as much info as possible BEFORE I choose a plan for next year (which I need to do this month).
Thanks.

I know why we have police. That was not my question. My question was why is it OK to have government pay for providing police and firefighter services (through money raised by tax dollars), instead of having everyone hire whatever police protection they can afford? The latter is how the healthcare system works.


So you suggest that we should turn over police forces to private security? You can afford protection, great; you can't, you're on your own? Like healthcare is now, right?


Precisely. Nor will it force anyone to be a doctor or nurse. People will go into those fields because they want to, just like with cops.


Well, and that is your prerogative, just like it is your prerogative to hire private security instead of relying on police. But I think the reason that most of the world relies on government healthcare is because they view it similarly to government functions of providing basic services like police and firefighting. You stil haven't answered why healhtcare is any different than police and firefighting, i.e. why you expect the government to provide you one but not the other, other than you want to have a "choice" - which you would always have, because just like there are private security services, there would always be private doctors. But at least you won't b paying them to subsidize those who cannot afford to pay, since the latter would be taken care of by the government.

AGG

Bad idea, very bad. That's what residencies are for. Most people complain because of overspecialization these days and the trend away from general practice. A specialist without general training simply isn't going to be a very good doctor.


Spoken like someone with absolutely no clue about what is involved in a medical education/residency/practice setup and operation, insurance, hours, etc. So far as limiting the number of doctors, which is done by limiting med school admissions, do you really want to go to an MD who got a 3.0 undergrad? I don't.

If you're looking for an overpaid profession, look at Wall Street. Look at CEOs who run companies into the ground and then get golden parachutes to go away. But don't look at doctors, particularly primary care physicans, the gatekeepers of managed care plans.

The fact is that certain residencies are far more sought after than others these days - dermatology and plastic surgery, for example. The reason is because these specialties are less insurance dependent.

Bowing out now.

AGG - I don't have time for your nonsense right now. Believe what you want. It is clear you don't understand much about it.

By the way, why don't you discuss your views with Louis Farrahkan?

How about the billy club wielding "protectors" in Philly?

Or maybe Curtis Sliwa?

How about the folks along the border with Mexico?

Not sure I understand which part is "nonsense". I was simply asking you a question.

In reality, there is little difference between healthcare and police. In some countries, people still do rely on private protection instead of police, based on whether they can afford it. Nothing wrong with that. I was just asking why you thought healthcare was all that different from police, i.e. why you expect the government to provide one but not the other. Nonsense or not, most of the world's countries do in fact expect the government to provide both. We are one of the few countries living in the "wild west" of healthcare.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy your grandchild's birthday, what a fun age!

AGG

Okay Nia, let's talk in general about HSA's.

Health Savings Accounts were approved by the Government a few years ago as a way to address the need for coverage protection from high cost and catastrophic health problems while affording individuals and families a way to cover the cost of "smaller" things like Doctor visits and Prescription Drugs.

Essentially, what the law provided for was a way to have a portion of someone's premium to be paid to themselves instead of to the insurance company. Along with that provision, they established a special type of Savings Account at banks who would participate in the plan, but not be a part of the Insurance Company.

The first requirement is that in order to qualify for even having a Health Savings Account, a person or family FIRST had to have a "High Deductible" health insurance plan that qualified according to the rules established.

The participation in the HSA is voluntary, but it really doesn't make much sense to have one and NOT contribute to it.

Unlike "Flexible Spending Accounts" or MSA's (Medical Savings Accounts) that were annual "use it or lose it" accounts (set aside pretax money into one of these accounts according to what you THINK and/or KNOW you will need to spend (i.e., for deductibles, co-payments, dental, etc.), HSA's are NOT "use it or lose it." IF you don't use all the money in those accounts (MSA's, FSA's) by the end of the year, you forfeit the remaining money and can start over from zero the next year.

You can, once you have a HDHP, set up an HSA with any participating bank you want to. Or you can use the one that is recommended by the health insurance company. Some are even now letting you pay both "premiums" to the insurance company and they then deposit the HSA "contribution" into your HSA.


HSA's have a few unique advantages over a regular passbook savings accounts.

1. The money you contribute into an HSA is tax deductible in the year you contribute it.

2. The money earns interest at a higher rate than a "normal" savings account.

3. Money withdrawn to pay for medical expenses is tax free.

4. Money in the account can be taken out for anything, but if it's not for healthcare related things, you potentially owe taxes on the money (since it was tax deductible to begin with)

5. When there is "enough money" in the HSA to cover the basic needs (usually around $2000) the "excess money" in the HSA can be "moved" to the investment side of the HSA (usually a Money Market type of account) where it can potentially earn even higher interest rates.

6. The money in HSA is ALWAYS yours. It does not belong to the insurance company or the bank anymore than any savings account does.

7. The HSA usually provides 2 basic ways to access your money. First is a checkbook drawn against the funds in the HSA. The second is a Debit Card that is also directly attached to the HSA. You can use either to pay for things like Rx, Co-pays, Deductibles, etc.

I personally believe that an HSA makes a lot of sense for the right people. So who are the "usual" right people.

1. Younger…so they have time to build the HSA and let it grow.

And example, a 42 year old family that contributes $5,000 per year into their HSA will probably have around $250,000 in that HSA by the time they reach age 65. The money is there's to keep and use for whatever they want.

2. Essentially healthy. No known BIG healthcare expenditures for currently existing health problems. Otherwise they will be USING the HSA funds instead of letting them grow as a "rainy day" sort of fund.

3. Disciplined…at least enough TO contribute something into their HSA even if they can't do the maximum. DON'T just take the lower premium for the HD plan and "pocket" the premium savings. Treat the TOTAL of the HD premium and the HSA contribution as the "monthly premium," even though part of it is going to your own account and not to the insurance company.

4. Back up the HD plan with a "mini-medical plan" that will either greatly knock down or eliminate the high deductible, to minimize both having to use the HSA funds unnecessarily or to have to "come up with" the deductible if the HSA doesn't have enough money in it. Usually it takes the average policyholder about 2-3 years of modest contributions to the HSA to build up enough money in the HSA to "cover" the HDHP (high deductible health plan) deductible. Most plans pay 100% AFTER the deductible is met, and that give the person a "stop loss" on big medical expenses.

I routinely set my clients up on a $5,000 HDHP/HSA plan and back it with a mini-medical that will pay them $5,000 if they stay in the hospital for 6 days. If a "big" problem hits, staying in the hospital 6 days is realistic. But if not the full six days, it pays a portion of the $5,000 each DAY they are in the hospital.

There are other mini-medical plans that I also use depending upon my client's needs.


Nia, the "big gripe" that prompted the establishment of HSA's was from healthy policyholders who complained that they were paying "all these premium dollars" and they don't use the healthcare system. They might go once a year for a checkup (usually more women than men), but on the whole they were paying way more premium than it would cost for the annual checkup if they paid it themselves. The "fear factor" is the "what if" something really bad DID happen? That IS why we have any insurance and health insurance is no different.

The "glaring need" in health insurance today is in the area of Maternity Coverage. If you are not planning on children, it's no big deal. But for the "younger set" it is something that is both needed and expensive if included in the plan. Basically what an insurance company is doing with Maternity Coverage is having you "pre-pay" for the cost. Right now, on average, it costs around $5,000 for a "normal pregnancy."

Most MC coverage is about $250 per month and doesn't hit "full coverage" until you have been on the plan for 2 years. Do the math. They are just prepaying for it. The same as if you put the money into an HSA.

But too many people think they "need" Maternity Coverage "in case" something goes wrong with the baby. But the baby is covered under the main plan, not the Maternity rider, from the moment of birth on virtually all policies.

THAT is why insurance companies won't accept an application for insurance from anyone who is pregnant or who has a family member they are legally responsible for, who is pregnant (including a girlfriend of a son who got her pregnant). They will wait until the baby is born and is healthy for usually 1month.


That's a "quick and dirty" of it.

But remember, NO plan is "perfect." So it's important to pick out a plan that fits YOUR family's needs. "One size" does NOT "fit all."


I hope that helps a little.

Go read my previous post to Mr. W.

It answers your questions.

Read this: (written by a doctor)

THE HEALTH INSURANCE MAFIA


*Notice also he mentions the concept that part of the problem is the artificial scarcity of medical practitioners when he suggests opening more medical schools.



My sidenote: I didn't go to Law School to become a practicing lawyer for the rest of my life nor did I do it to become some rich lawyer. I went to Law School to expand my ability to think. Even if we went to complete socialized medicine, there will never be a shortage of people that desire to undertake the noblest of professions.

I have a friend who is a radiologist - who lost his job to the digital world, but if he wants to have a hope of employment in medicine, he has to cough up that $50k annual liability insurance.

It's really sad when the expectation on medicine creates an environment for liability lawsuits where the doctor can lose his license by simply being accused 3 times - no judgments, just accusations.

I wouldn't BE a doctor. One of the best family docs in Utah - head of six counties rural medicine hated the system that distanced patients from the cost of care to the point where medical care was priced out of reach.

If we had to pay for care each time we went, would we use it so callously? Co-pays don't give us the true perspective of the true cost. Would we avoid taking care of ourselves by eating right, exercising, avoiding vices like cigarettes, etc.? Would we run to our doctor for the latest greatest drug we just saw advertised with all the subliminal "life is grand if you take this drug" messages. Or would we be a bit more skeptical and take more responsibility for our own wellbeing?

Medical care is just way too over-used. Then we blame the docs for when things go wrong. There are proportionally few real liability cases compared to how many get filed.

Lawyers can do a great deal of good. But mixed with a sympathetic sob story, some of them do a great deal of harm. Just ask my friend who coughs up 50k every year, regardless of whether he has a job or not...

Mr. W. - YOU may not have gone Law School to become a rich lawyer, but I'm willing to bet that you didn't practice "Pro Bono" for everyone either. What exactly IS the purpose and intent of "billable hours" for Lawyers?

I'm equally willing to bet that a large percentage of people who DO go into Law do so KNOWING that they can make a lot of money, and it is the Money angle that is the "key."

Now, turning to your idea that "there will never be a shortage of people that desire to undertake the noblest of professions," allow me to both agree AND disagree with you.

There ALREADY is a shortage of people. If you don't believe me, check out the looming Nursing crisis.

Second, the issue is NOT, imho, "people who desire," it is an issue of COMPETENT, well-trained, people. What you may be overlooking in this sentiment is that you are advocating the same sort of questionable notion that we see in schools today of eliminating "grades" so that we don't "damage" some child's "psyche."

To take it to the "extreme," why let Political Science majors enter Med School without any "requirements" other than the "desire" to enter the "noblest of professions?"

Anyway, you seem to be seriously considering this issue of Healthcare, which IS a legitimate and serious issue. So let me post a few articles for you to read and think about, rather than "just" those of supporters of some sort of "goverment run" healthcare system.

Maybe after reading some we could discuss some of the particular issues if you'd like.

Likewise, I would invite anyone who wants to participate in such a discussion to also FIRST read the articles (presented by Mr. W and that I will present) as a basis of "background information" on which to formulate a discussion.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2197.cfm

Government reinsurance would not only stifle existing efforts by insurers, employers, and individuals to seek out value, but also likely replace those efforts with more regulation.

Expanding Existing Government Programs
I will expand Medicaid and the federal State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) eligibility and ensure that they continue to serve their critical safety net function. Finally, I will encourage states to continue to innovate and experiment with different methods of coverage expansion, as long as they meet the minimum federal standards established for the national plan.[36]

Expanding Medicaid and SCHIP. These proposed expansions are nothing new. Given the dynamics of the status quo, including the steady decline of employer-based health insurance, public program expansions have been routine features of current policy.

Medicaid, the federal–state health program for the poor and indigent, is already a $350 billion program, and previous Medicaid expansions have unquestionably helped to "crowd out" private health insurance coverage for certain populations.[37] Nonetheless, during 2007–2008 alone, 36 states expanded Medicaid eligibility.[38] Contrary to the original intent of SCHIP to provide health coverage for poor children in working families ineligible for Medicaid, states have also steadily expanded SCHIP eligibility, reaching well into the middle class, with periodic bailouts from Congress.[39]

Compared to private coverage, these programs are conspicuously lacking in quality care, particularly in giving patients access to physicians for appropriate care at the appropriate time. Researchers at the Center for Health System Change found that 21 percent of physicians were not accepting any new Medicaid patients between 2004 and 2005.[40] Research also shows that Medicaid and SCHIP patients were more likely than the uninsured and private health plan enrollees to go to emergency rooms for non-emergency needs.[41]

Compounding the Entitlement Crisis. Meanwhile, America faces an entitlement crisis. Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is projected to rise rapidly, pushing up primary federal spending (excluding interest payments on the national debt) from 18.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2007 to 28.3 percent of GDP in 2050.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), financing entitlement spending will require massive tax increases, including doubling individual and marginal tax rates in every bracket and doubling corporate tax rates.[42]

Expanding Medicaid and SCHIP would only deepen the entitlement crisis. Both programs are fiscally challenged and promise more than they deliver, undermining access and quality for those on these programs today. For example, it was projected that Medicaid and SCHIP, combined federal and state spending, would cost $717 billion by 2017.[43]

For states, the Medicaid and SCHIP crisis is apparent. Medicaid is already the largest item in state budgets, accounting for 22 percent of total state fiscal expenditures in 2006.[44] Senator Obama's unspecified expansions of these public programs would accelerate this process and significantly affect the remaining health care economy.

A Step Toward a Federal Takeover? Perhaps of greater concern, these expansions could serve as first steps in a more ambitious federal takeover of American health care. Although these expansions appear incremental and thus less radical, they could be highly consequential. Simply expanding eligibility for children up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($84,800 for a family of four) would qualify more than 70 percent of American children for a government health care program.[45]

Inhibiting State Flexibility. The Obama proposal would severely restrict state variation and experimentation by requiring state innovations to meet the specific minimum standards of the proposed new government health plan.

This highly prescriptive approach would be a major step backward. One of the most promising developments during the past three years has been the willingness of state governors and legislators to experiment with different methods to expand their citizens' health care coverage. Not surprisingly, state legislatures have produced a flurry of state health reform legislation. However, confining state reform efforts to a narrow, single federal standard would effectively end any serious experimentation and discourage any outside-the-box innovation.

In this sense, the Obama health care plan would follow a path opposite from that of the successful welfare reform of the 1990s, which gave state officials broad goals and a high degree of flexibility in designing approaches to encourage work and reduce welfare dependence. There is serious bipartisan interest in replicating this success in health care policy.[46] State flexibility is not only desirable, but also necessary because the provision of health care varies widely across the states, reflecting differences in demographics, political culture, and insurance markets. Of course, this flexibility would be undesirable only if the real goal of the process is to centralize health care decision-making in Washington, D.C.

This is a brief exerpt from a very good discussion of Pros and Cons of the healthcare issue. I strongly suggest taking the time to read the entire article.



http://www.cwru.edu/med/epidbio/mphp439/National_Health_Care.htm


National Health Care in the United States: Exploring the Options and Possibilities
by Peter Lawson


INTRODUCTION

This chapter is an exploration of some of the suggestions and debates that have surrounded the issue of national health care in the United States over the past few decades. In particular, this chapter will be an attempt to clarify some of the most common positions (both pro and con) surrounding the potential for a national health care system in the United States. Every effort will be made to present data from an objective point of view in order to allow readers to evaluate the strength of the arguments made. In the interest of concision and brevity this chapter will divide this complex issue into two distinct domains of discussion: moral, ethical and philosophical positions, and economic challenges. While this chapter will attempt to synthesize and summarize a variety of positions and opinions in regard to the issue of a national health care system, it should not be considered an exhaustive exploration of all the potential arguments regarding this issue. With this in mind, a number of interesting and potentially illuminating references will be provided at the end of this chapter, which could guide a reader in further research.

According to US Census data for 2001, the number of Americans without any form of health insurance was 41.2 million or 14.2% of the population. This number rose by 1.4 million from the previous year. Alarmingly, nearly 11.2% of children (8.5 million) under the age of 18 were without health coverage in the United States. While these data in their aggregate form seem to point to something of a crisis in health insurance coverage for millions of Americans, a closer look at some seemingly paradoxical demographics of the uninsured adds another layer to the picture. For example, consider the following excerpt from a US Census Bureau report on health insurance in 2001.
Among the entire population 18 to 64 years old, workers (both full- and part-time) were more likely to have health insurance (83.0 percent) than nonworkers (75.3 percent), but among the poor, workers were less likely to be covered (51.3 percent) than nonworkers (63.2 percent).1

As poor workers become ineligible for governmental insurance programs (such as medicaid) due to income limitations, they are still likely to be working in jobs that do not provide insurance benefits. This same document reports that, among the poor, the overall rate of those without health insurance was 30.7 percent, more than double the rate for the population as a whole.2 The uninsured face numerous threats to their health and are at increased risk for mortality and morbidity (for a more detailed examination of the issues surrounding the uninsured, see Eagan and Olds this volume).

Few would argue that these rates of persons without health insurance are acceptable. However, a sometimes acrimonious debate has surrounded this issue and its potential solutions. One such heavily debated suggestion to deal with the nations uninsured and underinsured has been some form of a national health care system. But before beginning a discussion of some of the various proposals that have been made and the arguments that surround them, it may be useful to examine a number of key ethical, moral and philosophical positions which underlie these arguments.


ETHICAL, MORAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL GROUNDS OF THE DISCUSSION

Though the discussion surrounding a national health care system in the United States can quickly turn into one that is dominated by political and economic considerations of feasibility and implementation, the issue itself is grounded in a set of ethical, moral and philosophical considerations. Various experts and pundits have weighed in on the debate surrounding calls for a national health care system precisely because this issue forces one to consider some of the most intrinsically difficult questions within the political and economic philosophy of the United States: the role of the state in private life, the appropriate position of the government vis a vis the market, and rights of individuals within a capitalist marketplace. Though the scope of these complex issues is certainly beyond the capacity of this chapter, some of the broad strokes of these issues may be useful for the development of the discussion at hand.

A recent meeting of the International Labour Organization (ILO) in Geneva, Switzerland produced a resolution in which health care was deemed a basic human right.3 This resolution represents a recent incarnation of decades of international recognition of the key role of health within a conception of basic human rights. Article 25 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, drafted in 1948, states:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.4

One of the strongest statements of health as a basic human right was generated at the International Conference on Primary Health Care in Alma Ata, USSR in 1978. Article I of the Declaration states in part “The Conference strongly reaffirms that health, which is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, is a fundamental human right…”5 Here the definition of health stretches into what some might consider utopian territory; however, the essential statement that health itself is basic human right echoes that of the UN’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Numerous national and international organizations have declared health and access to health care to be basic human rights. For example in 1998, “Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director-General of the World Health Organization, called on the international community to enshrine health as a basic human right.”6 While the conception of health and access to health care as a basic human right may beg the question of the responsibility of the state to provide protections for such rights, suffice to say, that within these broad international agreements, it is assumed that the state functions, in part, to ensure and maintain the rights of its citizens.

Yet notions of health and health care as basic human rights are by no means monolithic or unchallenged within the discourse of health care provision. An alternative vision of health care as a commodity is also articulated and merits our attention. Various policy advocacy groups and think tanks have offered a view of health care as a service most efficiently and effectively provided through a free market. For example, Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) advocates for free market solutions to solving the dilemmas of health care in the United States. From a neoclassical, liberal economic position, governmental regulation or intervention in the market is something to be avoided. From the libertarian perspective advocated by organizations like PRI, governmental interventions “create dependency on the state, and allow the government to have excessive influence and control over people’s lives.”7 In a commentary published in The Washington Times, Michael Hurd succinctly argues

Health care is not a right -- no matter how often you hear otherwise. Health care is the consequence of heroic efforts on the part of individual doctors, who have every right to charge what the market permits. If we take away the right of medical professionals to set their own fees, we will undermine their independence and chase the best ones into early retirement.8


Here the rights to which Hurd refers are based on specific liberal conceptions of the free market and the rights of individuals to participate in that market. In Hurd’s argument, rights are intrinsically tied to the rationale of the economic exchange taking place, and not a notion of basic human rights (as described above).

Hurd’s economic argument leads us to a series of economic questions that are better addressed through the lens of a specific proposal for a national health: How much would such a specific national health initiative cost? In what sectors of the economy would potential burdens be born? What other economic impacts (both positive and negative) might arise from the implementation of a national health care system? In order to address these issues, we will now turn our attention to one suggested form of national health care (the so-called single payer system) while bearing in mind that a number of other national health plans have been suggested with widely different mechanisms and potential economic effects.


DEBATING THE ECONOMICS: THE CASE OF THE SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM

Cost is inarguably one of the central features in any discussion of the existing health care delivery system in the United States or any potential replacement or reform of the existing system. The United States spent $1.4 trillion on health care in 2001, or 14.1 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). According to one recently published study, this figure is expected to grow to $3.1 trillion by 2012, an amount which would constitute 17.7 percent of the GDP.9 Critics of the current health care delivery system note that many other industrialized nations spend considerably less on health as a percentage of GDP while maintaining health care services for all citizens; none spends more as a percentage of its GDP. In 2000 for example, Canada spent only 9.1 percent of its GDP on a national health care delivery system which provides health care for all Canadians.10 Let’s consider some of the discussion surrounding the economics of a national health care system for the United States, focusing on the proposal for a single-payer system.

While numerous ideas have been suggested to reform the US health care delivery system, one of the most cogently argued cases for a single-payer health care system in the United States was published in 1989 by David Himmelstein and Steffe Woolhandler in the New England Journal of Medicine.11 As presented by the authors, a single-payer system would provide health care coverage for all Americans by setting federally mandated fees for services and paying these through a single source (i.e. the federal government). Because many of the current health care dilemmas faced by patients and providers alike are focused around economic issues, it is not surprising that Himmelstein and Woolhandler make economic considerations central to their argument. Himmelstein and Woolhandler argue that “the public administration of insurance funds [through a single-payer system] would save tens of billions of dollars each year. The more than 1500 private health insurers in the United States now consume about 8 percent of revenues for overhead.”12 Under the single payer system proposed by Himmelstein and Woolhandler, federal regulation would control costs by eliminating redundant administrative bureaucracy and profit from the system. The authors argue that despite the need to levy taxes in order to support the system, the long-term benefits would balance initial costs, since the current high cost of health care is already borne by citizens, employers, and the government (through programs like Medicaid and Medicare).

Critics of a single-payer system argue that “the evidence demonstrates without doubt that socialized medicine is inefficient and more expensive than the free-market alternative.”13 Citing the tax burden of the National Health Service in the UK, Conrad Meier argues

England’s single-payer health care plan has turned into a tax burden far worse than what we’ve experienced to date in this country. The burgeoning costs—in the form of high income taxes, insurance taxes, premiums, lower wages, reduced productivity and job opportunities, plus extra fees and hidden taxation—have become a stranglehold on middle- and low-income consumers.14


While it should be noted that the UK system is not, in fact, a single-payer system (in the UK the government controls and regulates all aspects of health care, under a single-payer system the government would provide remuneration and set fees), the sort of argument Meier mobilizes forms the bulk of economic arguments against the implementation of a single payer system in the United States.

There is nothing approaching consensus concerning the economics of a single-payer systems. Proponents argue that additional cost incurred in the provision of health care for all citizens would recouped through increased efficiency and the elimination of for-profit insurance coverage. Opponents of a single-payer system argue that such a system would increase inefficiency and costs by placing the burden of a massive centralized bureaucracy in the hands of the federal government. Interestingly, economic arguments opposing a single-payer system often blend economics with ethics and morality. As Meier suggests

The propaganda produced in support of single-payer health care ignores the truth and is designed to motivate people through the use of scare tactics; distorted and often fabricated information; and undocumented facts and figures on how much such a plan would cost in premiums, income taxes, lost state revenue, job dislocation, individual freedom, and human suffering.15


Certainly this criticism could be levied against Meier’s own analysis which notably contains no citations or references to empirical data. These data are strikingly absent, as is independent, non-partisan research and analysis on the subject, and more efforts toward this end will likely be necessary before a reasonable conclusion can be reached about the future of a national health care system in the United States.


Endnotes
1. http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/hlthin00/hlt00asc.html
2. ibid
3. International Labour Organization. Resolution Concerning Health Care as a Basic Human Right. Joint Meeting on Social Dialogue in the Health Services: Institutions, Capacity and Effectiveness. October 2002. Geneva. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/techmeet/jmhs02/jmhs-res.pdf
4. United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. 1948. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
5. World Health Organization. Declaration of the Alma Ata Conference. http://www.who.int/hpr/archive/docs/almaata.html
6. www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-93.html
7. http://www.pacificresearch.org/issues/social.html
8. Hurd, M. Rhetoric Notwithstanding, Health Care Is Not A Right. The Washington Times. April 6, 1993. http://www.drhurd.com/medialink/health-care-not-a-right.html
9. http://www.seniors.gov/articles/0203/health-costs.htm
10. http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/ooql_402.asp
11. Himmelstein, D., and Steffe Woolhandler. A National Health Program for the United States: A Physicians’ Proposal. The New England Journal of Medicine. January 12, 1989.
12. ibid
13. http://www.heartland.org/archives/health/may02/myturn.htm
14. ibid
15. ibid

Additional Reference Sources
Heritage Foundation. www.heritage.org
The Heartland Institute www.heartland.org
The Pacific Research Institute www.pacificresearch.org
Physicians for a National Health Plan. www.pnhp.org
The Universal Health Care Action Network www.uhcan.org

I spent the last 2 days at a RNP/PA convention.

Here is one basic desires of the current American health care consumers:

"I want the best of everything and I want someone else to pay for it."

Choices must be made about which services are to be "covered". Who do you want making those choices?

Another SOBERING fact .... in 2011 the first babyboomers hit age 65 .... and that will mark just the beginning of the increased demands on the healthcare system.

The tyranny of "standard of care" is pushing costs upward.
The pushing of so-called "new and improved" brand name prescriptions by direct advertising to the public is pushing costs upward.

Because enforcing the law is a constitutionally mandated service the excutive branch of the government is REQUIRED to provide. The executive branch has the role of enforcing the laws passed by the legislative branch.

Therefore, you have a police force.

Healthcare is not a stated right. Laws are passed to ensure rights are protected, and the police enforce those laws.

Besides, most policing is done at a local level. So if a community wants to provide healthcare, just like it provides police and fire and other emergency services, I'm all for a community doing that.

I'm simply against any NATIONAL effort to do so.

If you think government should provide healthcare, then become mayor and have your town provide healthcare.

Or become govenor and/or part of your state legislature and work to bring this about in your state.

But to say this is a right that should be provided by the federal government is a misapplication of the role of federal government.

The government doesn't provide rights, it simply protects them. So if you think healtcare is a right, then the only thing the government can do is to make sure that your rights to obtain health care are not taken away based on your religion, political affiliations, gender, race, or anything of that sort.

But not having enough money is not a matter of discrimination. If you don't have enough money, your rights are not being infringed.

But the reality is that no hospital will turn away someone in dire need of care, even if they cannot pay. So those of us with insurance end up subsidizing them anyway.

AGG

AGG - it is not the 'reality,' it is the Law. The hospitals CANNOT refuse emergency care to anyone, regardless of ability to pay.

And WHO is "subsidizing them anyway" is NOT the issue. It is AN issue, but the reality is that there is no such thing as a "Free Lunch." SOMEONE IS paying for that "free care." For most of, it is the TAXPAYER who is paying for it through the welfare program of MEDCAID. But there are a lot people who don't even bother to have Medicaid even if they qualify for it. In addition, the reembursement from Medicaid is insufficient to cover the cost of care that is provided. So a certain amount is "passed on" throught the "Usual and Customary" charges for those services to people who have insurance, which DOES pay for it. The operative thing here is that it is paid by the INSURANCE COMPANY, not by you the policyholder. Very few policy out there DO NOT have a "cap" on YOUR Out-of-Pocket exposure to what you have to pay in the way of deductibles and/or co-payments.

If it were NOT that way, then think of as if YOU were REQUIRED to provide a meal to anyone who knocked on the door of you house, and you could not charge that person for the meal.

One or two, or even several, of these "Free Meals on Demand" and YOUR household budget might actually start to feel 'strained.'

Too many of these 'mandatory' meals to others, and no ability to get additional revenue (income) to keep paying for the food you have to buy (not to mention all the other things needed such as someone to prepare the meals, make sure that no harmful things (like salmonella) are present, someone to clean up after the meals, etc.), and YOUR own ability to pay for your own needs might just become "impossible to sustain." Now, if those meal recipients happened to have a "card" that others would pay YOU for at least SOME of your costs, that would "help," but it would only delay the "inevitable" as the additional "pay" would still be below your costs. IF that "card" would pay your costs you could keep feeding all those who showed up at your door, BUT only because someone else was paying for it. Unfair. Perhaps. But either you own the home and CAN provide a meal, or you don't own the home and you go knocking on someone else's door yourself.

That's REALITY, AGG.

If ALL you want to focus on is the issue of WHO pays for healthcare, then you are "missing the boat" on all the factors that play into "Superior Healthcare" that we enjoy in this country. It is not called a "Healthcare SYSTEM" by mistake. There are many factors that enter into the AVAILABILITY OF and DELIVERY OF healthcare services.

And that is what most people don't understand about this issue of a "single payor system," with the Government as the "single payor." The GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PAY FOR ANYTHING. What they "pay for" is "cost shifted" to the available TAXPAYERS.

As for running a healthcare system, they can. Just look at the VA system. Anyone can run a healthcare system, that isn't the "issue." The issue is the DELIVERY OF and the QUALITY of that healthcare.

WHY do you think that so many Doctors limit or refuse to treat (in their private practices) Medicaid patients? Why do you think that so many Doctors are considering doing the same with Medicare patients? It is the same reason as the "people knocking on your door for a meal" example stated earlier.

FH, I agree with your perspective on healthcare....but this is a bit off. The "checks" may in fact be written by the insurance industry...but these funds come from the insured.

I spent 9 years (post police) at Aetna USHC and know that insurance premiums are in fact higher due to the uninsured (same with pharmaceuticals...a few years at Pfizer too).

When you get a chance, take a look at lifelaboratory.org to see what we are doing to help fix the healthcare "problem." Government run healthcare is not the answer. If the federal government can't even effectively run VA centers...how in the world are they going to manage a universal healthcare system? They won't.

Also, despite the protests of some here...lawyers have a big part in the mess that is now our healthcare system. Is it any wonder that in every poll I have ever seen regarding careers that lawyers are always among the least respected...and doctors among the most respected. Anyone that doubts the hand that lawyers have in this need only watch commercials during the day where these rabid sharks are trying to get you to sue for this or for that.

The healthcare pie is big enough right now. It needs to be better managed and sliced. Handouts to those that CAN work yet choose to not work should stop. Sorry, but a healthy person that chooses to remain unemployed...without healthcare should not be my problem. The ranks of the lazy are sure to swell with the coming administration change...."hey look, not only a check each month...but now they are given us healthcare too...God bless the USA"

I have an interesting perspective in that I have worked with the low life's of society that have attempted to steal, beg, cheat for everything they get. I also worked in the healthcare field for a number of years. My volunteer position now for a fledgling 501c3 has certainly been eye opening. Both candidates really did not seriously address the issue of healthcare during the campaign....big surprise huh? Hopefully Obama will surprise me and do something more than hand out more dollars to his constituents.

MEDC - Yes, insurance companies are not charities. They DO pay claims as a result of premiums, and that is also why "adverse selection" is huge problem. There is a difference between "risk" and "known" when it comes to healthcare problems that might require treatment, and the attendant payment for that treatment.

However, when someone gives an insurance company a premium (small by the total amount of coverage attained), they are in effect "buying" a bank of several millions of dollars (given a 'standard' major medical type of plan). Regardless of the 'type' of plan though, it is all about "leveraging" the amount of money that someone has to pay for services they want or need.

In order for the COSTS billed by the Providers to be paid, there IS an amount that is "built into" all premiums as part of the COST structure, because the reality is that the Providers provide care to everyone, regardless of ability to pay.

In fact, if anyone ever looks at the paperwork they sign when they use healthcare services (i.e., go into the hospital) they will find verbage in the papers that they are signing that they agree that they are personally responsible for the bill REGARDLESS of any insurance they may or may not have.

That's because it IS a service provided to the individual, not to the insurance company.



I will do that. Always interested in ideas to make healthcare more affordable to everyone. I have long had one "basic" change that I would like to see, but to date I've not heard of anyone even attempting to see it would be possible.



Anyone who has been involved in the healthcare delivery system KNOWS this is true. It's primarily the lawyers who want to "deny" this fact. But just take a look at John Edwards to see how "altruistic" lawyers can be in profiting off the misery of others. Check out the "award" to the lawyers as part of the "settlement" or "judgment." Edwards didn't build that multimillion dollar home without FIRST getting rich litigating.



There are two basic issues here, MEDC.

The first is what you are talking about...personal responsibility. Unlike that "Peggy" (referred to by a lot of folks now as "Peggy the Moocher")who thinks Obama is now going to pay for her gas and mortgage, most people think that the individual, not the "State," is responsible for their own "wants and desires" to be "granted" to them.

The second are those who, through no fault of their own, HAVE serious medical problems that DO need treatment, or they die. Because the cost of healthcare IS very high for those with serious conditions, something needs to be done about "accounting" for those sorts of problems so that people are not "bankrupted" as a result and left destitute AND, then, on the welfare roles. (That's part of the changes I alluded to earlier that I would like to see in the "system.")




I'd like to think he would, but he's a Socialist at heart and I don't have any realistic hope there. The Democrats have been pushing for Socialized Medicine for a long time and I don't see any real potential for positive change there.

By the way, you've probably heard Obama's "mantra" of wanting to extend the same sort of healthcare plans available to members of Congress, right? What he doesn't tell people is that the healthcare is provided by Insurance Companies, not the government. And there's a huge variety of plans available under names that might not be too familiar to most people, like HMO's, PPO's, etc.

MEDC - I read through the entire site and it seems as though it is basically the same thing that has been in the healthcare industry for years.....OUTCOMES based healthcare.

Basically there are two primary components of Outcomes based systems:

1. Preventative care to minimize "small problems" from potentially developing into "big problems;

2. Attempting to address "procedures" when there is little known "positive outcomes" to treating a given condition.

Obviously, PATIENT cooperation is VITAL or it's "just another nice idea." Getting the PEOPLE to "buy into" preventative care, in all areas of life (like diet and exercise to name just a few major contributing factors) is KEY to the success or failure of the concept.

As an example of the current state of medical "after the fact" treatment, if I were diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer, given the current level of treatment protocols, treatments available, and statistics for survival for "treated" or "not treated," I would personally opt for "no treatment, get my affairs in order, and prepare to meet my Lord."

On the other hand, if it were Colon Cancer, I would treat it as aggressively as possible.

That's the sort of thing that "Outcomes" based systems look at, with the attendent savings on therapies with "questionable" positive outcomes that DO COST a lot of money to attempt to treat.

But there ARE also other "values" that have to be considered, not the least of which is the question of the "value of a human life." Considering my stance on abortion, you might guess where I tend to "come down" on that issue as well.

As a further example, my sister (51) had a ruptured brain aneurysm in July, the type for those who understand some biology, that normally kills someone before they even make it to the hospital (without getting too technical, it was "base of the skull" Circle of Willis, type). She survived the ER, the Medivac flight, the 7 hour surgery, the month in the ICU, the 7 repeated trips back to surgery, the Ventricle shunt, and is now "on the mend" with only some weakness and some short term memory loss.

But the BILLS are HUGE. So "value of life" issues are REAL, as are the "Outcomes" possibilities.

Outcome based...yes, LL is a proponent of that. But, the approach is not the same. Even HMO's were outcome based...heck, before Aetna bought USHC we were all about that.

LL is a research arm dedicated to not only improving outcomes...but also expanding the reach of healthcare as it pertains to primary. As you are most likely aware, family care has become the forgotten child in the US healthcare system. Foreign trained students now fill the majority of FP residency programs. There are more than a few reasons for this...but they do all come down to finances.

I have one brother that is a FP and one that is an oncologist. The FP has a group of 9 doctors and combined they do not make as much as the oncologist. They work harder...longer hours and yet their compensation has remained flat since 1994....all the while, costs have skyrocketed.

When I get the chance I will post some information to give you a better idea of what we do. We work in collaboration with the University of Chicago, Wharton, Jefferson just to name a few.

BTW...all donations are 100% tax deductible!

and btw, I am with you on the value of life stuff.

My brothers practice is 14,000 strong and they have NEVER written a referral for an abortion(elective procedure...not to save mother's life). It is against their beliefs and they will not do so.

Don't you think that if we had to write a check out for the insurance premium instead of that nice convenient payroll deduction we'd pay more attention?

Kind of like the lulled to sleep sensation we get over taxes - we don't feel what we never see, so we don't protest.

The Boston Tea Party was over a 10% tax folks! What are we up to now? 60%?

7.5% social security
7.5% social security employer co-pay (if you're self employed you FEEL this one - if not, you just don't see it as an income, but have no doubt, the employer wouldn't have to pay it if he didn't hire you)
2.5% Medicare tax
? don't know if there's an employer match on this one
28% Federal income tax (some pay more, some pay less - but I guarantee you, if you tax the rich, that will pass through to the goods and services you buy - so you will pay it!)
20% State income tax (again, some more, some less)
7% sales tax (poor Texas pays over 8% on almost ALL services, Connecticut, South Dakota, New Jersey, New York and New Mexico pay taxes on ALL services, Oregon pays no sales tax)
and if you own property, that could be another 1-10% income tax depending on how modest a home you live in compared to your income...

Just how much more can you afford to live without to fund health care for non-payers who do nothing to improve life for themselves and others around them?

Kayla, did you mean this? Or did you mean he coughs up $$ for a 50k policy every year?

50K is most likely accurate and LOW for some specialties.

I have a friend who works as a radiologist - got laid off from his full time work with 3 hospitals, but still pays a 50,000$ per year liability insurance premium. Malpractice coverage is for the millions - mandatory coverage for a radiologist costs a minimum of $50,000 per year. That's more than the median income in the country.

My friend is now stuck commuting 5 hours from home to a hospital that doesn't farm out radiology work. He spent the last two years working at various hospitals through a placement service, spending 3 weeks away from home at a time, then a weekend home.

Reality is that student loans for quality medical schools are in the quarter-million dollar tuition range. If an MD is "lucky" he lands a 10 year captive practice where the hospital pays off the student loan in return for 10 years, hours to be determined by the hospital - usually in the 60-to-70 hour range.

Part of my job involves interviewing people from all professions so I learn what each one makes on average, and the liabilities of living with that profession - to family, personal development, income bottom line, etc.

The medical profession is NOT the unconditional high pay we've been made to believe it is.

And remember - 3 accusations is all it takes for you to become uninsurable - EVEN IF ALL THREE ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE!

OMG, that's outrageous. I am learning so much about our healthcare "system" from reading these posts (both sides). I never much cared before now but it's becoming a concern as I get older.

It totally sucks! I interviewed a family practitioner in my community - he hadn't been paid for all the hours he'd put in during a particularly bad flu season. His payroll had frequently been miscalculated.

If our current medical system treats professionals like hourly hired hands, how can we possibly expect that the quality of our health care is going to be better under an even more degrading system?

Have you walked into a government owned clinic lately? Social security office? Other agency?

I have, KA, but that's not something the "single payor source" folks want to talk about usually.

The Feds are good at setting up programs and red tape requirements, but not so good at implementation and management.

Ever try to have someone removed from a government job for lack of compentence...or any other reason for that matter?

Goooooooood luck!



And your experience with the $50,000 is definitely on the LOW side. It gets progressively worse the more directly involved in potential problems with direct patient care. That's why so many OB Doctors have swithed to just Gyne and given up the delivering babies stuff. "Problems" with "your pregnancy" become THEIR liability. But the SP source folks want everyone to believe that lawsuits and liability willl just "go away" if the government holds the "purse strings."

Ever try to let free market forces dictate the sustainability of an insurance company when they are considered too big to fail ergo, AIG--which today received another reworked $152 billion handout from the government, despite their utter incompetence and mismanagement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/business/28melt.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin

And who is giving them the money? The government.

Which is worse, AIG for asking, or the government for giving them the money they ask for.

Let the market decide, which means no government bailouts.

This is exactly why I don't trust the government to run anything more complicated than a lemonade stand. They want to give it all away.

So give each member of congress a lemonade stand, funded out of his own salary, and let him (or her) give away as much of his own money as he wishes

But stop giving money away to corporations as well as citizens.

Mistakes have to hurt in order for folks to learn not to repeat them.

So the government prosecutes AIG in 2004 and in 2008 (just four years later) they're bailing them out. I don't get it.

Don't forget, congress allocates money, so if anyone wants to pin this on the president, remember, congress voted to approve any bailouts.

So thank Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for the bailouts, and your new, larger tax bills.

That’s a good question. What's clear though is that the "too big to fail" paradigm is going viral. Next up is the auto industry, b/c we all want an orderly outcome to this mess, Yet, with consumer spending declining and unemployment rising will the backstopping really help.

Here's a snippet from a NY Times article on AIG.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15aig.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin


What you'll notice is that the trouble AIG is in is NOT related to health insurance or life insurance or annuities, etc.

In fact, most of the problem is due to the mortgage problems, championed by the Democrats and bolstered by their refusal to implement regulatory oversight as offered by Bush and McCain.

Once more it's a case of letting people have the mortgages they couldn't afford GOING IN to the mortgage, because "it's only fair that everyone who wants a house should have a house."

The cascading effect of the mortgage crisis, manufactured by the Congress and their directives to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is horrendous....and the PEOPLE will have to bail them (Congress) out.

Personally, I think they should have fired at least the majority of Senators and Congressmen for negligence. I wonder if we could sue them for "malpractice?"

Okay, why don't we just put an end to this nonsense and just give all the working families in America, or at least the homeowners, a million dollars each instead of all these plans to "help" the mortgage crisis, stabilize things, and stimulate the economy?

It would cost about a third of a trillion dollars and all the taxpayers would be helping "bail out" everyone.

Pay off your own mortgages, invest, buy, stimulate...get DEBT free, especially from those usurous Credit Cards.

This is something I am concerned about. How come no democrats want to lay this crisis at the feet of the people who actually signed up for mortgages they knew, or suspected, they could not pay back?

How come it’s never one’s own fault? At least not in a democrat’s eye?

Because most of the blame, and rightly so, falls on their constituents.

You don't really think they are going to blame the people that put them into office do you? That would be political suicide

Kayla:

Wanted to address something you posted about taxes, my responses are in red:

12.4 + 2.9 + 10% = minimum 25% income tax - if there's no state or local income tax.

However, I disagree with your premise that just because it's not "income tax" doesn't mean it has no impact on our bottom line. It still costs me $1200 (low by comparison to other areas of the country) for my property tax on my tiny little house, and 7% sales tax this year on a new car, and repeated taxation on that car for every year I own it, personal property tax on my husband's massage therapy equipment and computer because the county decides they have a right to tax something he uses for his business every year, regardless of how much (or little) he makes in his practice...

My tally of bottom line is I live on less of my income than the governments do. And since I aspire to make more than $250k in my household income, Obama is going to take my aspirations and tax my profits to oblivion. Why do I bother?

Some people want to earn the American dream. Others want mediocre versions of the American dream handed to them. And they are the ones who contributed to the demise of our economy. Housing without income - the fundamental flaw brought to us by "gasp" Jimmy Carter with the Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to lend to unqualified borrowers. There are those who want to say no, this wasn't the case, but the first rumble that this subprime lending goes back to the 80s, less than 10 years after CRA, financial markets showed instability. The dots connect up in every decade about ten years apart for those that care to connect them up without partisan partiality. Jimmy Carter meant well. It's a lofty goal. But people who can't prove income can't pay loans!!!! Anyone who wants to blame this on Reagan or Clinton or Bush policies or lack of regulation fail to take into consideration the role of Congress for those several sessions, fails to take in the simple logic that income is required to pay loans! We've been putting off this "day of reckoning" since the 80s - bailing out savings and loan companies, a major trillion dollar mutual fund, and then the bail outs of this year.... And we're putting it off again if you really want a reality check on how scary this is... there are a lot of non-partisan books on the subject - everybody gets the blame! Right down to the consumer who uses his credit cards (big hint if you want a clue as to the next financial market that could fall and need a bail out)

In general, I agree with you. I hate these bailouts (because I already see AIG execs going off to spend $400K at a resort, and other banks using the "bailout money" to pay bonuses to execs and to reward shareholders). And I also question "who is next" - banks, auto makers, then who? You know someone is gonna show up hat in hand!

But I also worry about the downside of giants failing - GM, AIG, GE, etc. I saw estimates that if GM goes, so will 2.5 million jobs.

I don't know where to draw that line between "let them fail" and "gotta save the economy". I am not a big study of the Great Depression, but did the government not lead the charge in getting things back on track? Without the government (and the war), would the economy have worked itself out all by itself? That's what concerns me about letting things "progress" down the spiral free market style.

AGG

AGG - the "problem," from my perspective is sin that leads to the "normal" propensity of humans to GREED. This crosses all boundaries, especially political boundaries.

I really like AIG as a company, especially for things like Life Insurance, but they are "too big" as so many other businesses and banks are. So is the Federal Government. When you begin to get into "everything" it is VERY easy to become a "Jack of all things, Master of none."

That is our Government as it "branches" into areas are that are NOT it's CONSTITUTIONAL areas. They find "ways" to make it "sound as though" what they WANT to do IS somehow a part of the Constitution. But it's all "smoke and mirrors." At the forefront of this problem is the Supreme Court, not the other two branches of government. But even the Supreme Court has fallen prey to this idea of "social activisim" and "a living document" that needs to be "changed" with the "times."

NOW, obviously the BONE HEADS in charge of AIG can't seem to understand that the APPEARANCE of impropriety is just as important as an ACTUAL impropriety. And the PRESS, the willing accomplices of the political parties who WANT the Government to control more and more aspects of our lives, "play it to the hilt." In mock, feigned, or real "outrage" they splash all over the news that the "big guys at AIG" spent a few hundred thousand dollars on a meeting during a time when they are also asking for and receiving "bail out" money.

Personally, I think that they should be fired for "lack of common sense" and replaced with others who haven't been infected with the "well we HAVE to" thinking. Getting together in a nice setting is not wrong. Spending money on a conference is not wrong. But the TIMING is wrong.

But as "bad" as anyone might thing that is, they are "pikers" compared to most of the political parties, and particularly the Democrat party.

So let's "compare" a little to see some of the "balance" that the news organizations WON'T tell us.

Jamie Gorelick - anyone familiar with her? Rumored to be "on the short list" for Attorney General under Obama. Former "2nd" in command to Janet Reno. Former author of the "wall" between the CIA and the FBI that led, most probably, to the 9/11 attacks in 2001 because the two agencies were forbidden by her to talk to each other and share information.

She also worked for Fannie Mae and got paid some 65 MILLION dollars (not a few hundred thousand) for a whopping 5 years of work, during which time the FM and FM where digging the mortgage hole we are now paying for. WHERE is the outrage?

Where is the outrage over what OBAMA was "paid" by FM/FM in HUGE (millions of dollars) "contributions" to his campaign?

Where is the outrage over Barney Frank who had what oversight of FM/FM that there was, and did NOTHING other than to lie to the American people that "all was just fine over at
FM/FM and it was a "Good time" to invest...as late as JULY 2008?

Where is the outrage that the McCain legislation was KILLED by the Democrats that just might have averted the mortgage meltdown mess?

Where is the "outrage" over the huge Political Junkets, "masquerading" as "fact finding trips" that the Pols take, costing the taxpayers HUGE amounts of money, all while they have their hands out for MORE TAX money?

Where is the outrage over the BILLIONS of dollars the USA spends in aid to OTHER countries, when we have BIG PROBLEMS here at home, the ONLY home that the Goverment is Constitutionally required to "take care of FIRST?"

I am sick and tired of all this rhetoric by the "Left" about how "bad" business is. Business, by and large, are "pikers" when it comes to finding ways to spend OUR money compared to Congress (which DOES hold the "purse strings").

Congress doesn't make a PENNY. Government doesn't make a PENNY.
They TAKE hard earned money and confiscate it, to use as THEY want to use it.

The taxation for the Constitutional responsibilities of Government I have no problem with. The "monolithic monster" that Government has become I HAVE a BIG PROBLEM with.

The confiscatory tax policies need to END. The "big and needy" programs of the government need to END and the responsibilities for providing them RETUTNED to the States and to the PEOPLE.

And then there's "Mr. Education is so important" Barack Obama. NOW that he's gotten elected, guess where HIS children are going to go to school? It WON'T be a "public school." But why not? HE supports the Chicago Teachers Union, he wants to "fix" the public education system by throwing even MORE money down a broken sink hole, but it's "not good enough for HIS children and VOUCHERS to give the same sort of CHOICE to the "average [censored] and Jane" is just NOT RIGHT."

Let GM and all the other business' fall. Why not? DON'T talk about the Unions, the Pension Plans, the foreign government support of similar businesses in THEIR countries that give foreign companies an "unfair advantage" in the marketplace.


Yep. You guess it. I am "fed up to here" with the Feds and the MOOCHERS who support them. Create the problems and scream bloody murder that "we have to bail them out!"

Give ME the million dollars and I WILL pay off my mortgage, pay off my car, and INVEST and SPEND and STIMULATE the economy, PAY to support charities to help the needy directly and help some individually. Get the Government FOR the people and OF the people AGAIN that the Founders intended and WARNED us about if they centralize power too much.


No, what we get "treated to" is this sort of garbage: "FH is a part of the immoral, yet, powerful health insurance industry mafia" and "Unlike FH, who as a immoral profiteer on the current health system and is, thus, biased when it comes to the issue of single payer health care."

The "Health Insurance Industry", NOT the Government, is "immoral."

I, personally, am an "immoral profiteer" because I try to find ways to PROTECT people and their assets in the system that we HAVE, and of which the government is "part of the problem."

I am "biased" simply because I earn my living in this "insurance industry."

No one else is "biased" based on where they "Sit." No one else thinks that lawyers are overpaid and that personal responsibility IS important.

NO ONE can "evaluate" the Healthcare Delivery System" that is NOT a politician or a lawyer or wanting someone ELSE to pay for THEIR "problems.

I am REALLY tired of the political teaching of "personal destruction" being more important than a close examination of the real ISSUES and the far-ranging effects of potential solutions.


Perhaps it's simply time to let all the Wayward People have their way and just let them do whatever they want to do with no "opposition" and no attempt to "fix things." IT works for government, why not for individuals.

Have you ever heard of "ordinary Americans" who have been TERRORIZED by the IRS, over TAX issues? NOT the Wesley Snipes sort of "scoff-laws," but ordinary Americans who get into trouble BECAUSE of confiscatory tax policies?

Now, where can I go to get my Concealed Carry License? I think I know just the Christmas present I want and will likely NEED.

Kayla:

You stated this:


Where did I say that?

I just wanted to compare Apples to Oranges.

Income taxes are based on income, calculated however the social engineering of tax policy has decided to tax or not tax.

Real Estate taxes are based on the assessed value of your real estate.

Personal Property Taxes are based on the assessed value of the personal property in your business.

Titling taxes are based on the purchase price of your car.

Sales taxes are based on the purchase price of the items being purchased, and to what is taxed and what is not.

So, we have a whole fruit salad listed above.

KA:

I have clients that write checks to the US Government for $250K in income taxes annually. And then turn over to the Peoples State of Maryland another $40K.

Plus Fica taxes of $14k
Plus Medicare Taxes $3.7k
Plus Local Real Estate taxes of $20k
Sales Taxes of 6% on everything they buy in MD.
Unemployment taxes for $251.
And the list goes on....

They get you coming and going.

Obama ain't going to make it much worse. And Bush didn't do much to change it either.

If you have a household income of $100k or more, your largest personal expense on an annual basis is federal income tax. Closely followed by the amount of Social Security taxes paid by you. Next, might come your house rent/mortgage. This is true, depending on your housing choices, to amounts significantly lower than household income of $100k.

Believe me, I clearly understand the impact of taxes on the below average, the average and the above average households.

The feds want $3 trillion dollars to run the government next year.

Out of a GDP of $10 trillion. That's thirty (30%) percent. They have to get it from somewhere.

And unless your willing to give up Social Security and Medicare, it's only going to go up.

LG

FH,

If only it were that easy. Wouldn't everyone love to get a check for $1 million dollars? There's one problem with that notion, Hyperinflation. The reason money holds it's value is because not everyone has it. If you give that amount out to everyone, it would instantly drop it's value to almost nothing. We would see inflation rates increasing at 50% per month likely sending our country in another great depression.

I understand your frustration with the bailouts, but I'm not sure that the alternative of letting the businesses fail would be any better. Basically, we are screwed and the government knows it.

Hold on to your hat...it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Want2Stay

Airline Industry

Want2Stay

LG - ESPECIALLY if Obama gets his ADDITIONAL One Trillion Dollars in MORE spending for his "ideas."


Don't you think it's time, past time, for a little "outside the box" thinking?

Everyone thinks the Mortgage Meltdown Crisis is "so bad." It IS bad, but just how long does anyone think the Government itself can be sustained before IT "melts down" because there simply is NOT enough "tax money" out there to continue supporting inflation, let alone INCREASES in spending and NEW spending?


It is, in my opinion, time to consider jettisoning the Republican Party and forming a new party, perhaps called the "Conservative Party" or something similar.

It is time to DISMANTLE a lot of Federal Government "programs" and "largesse" to others. It is time to drill in Alaska, off shore, anywhere. It is time to build nuclear plants, and do everything possible to reduce and/or eliminate our reliance on Oil from countries that are fundamentally opposed to FREEDOM of the people.

It is time to get the "800 pound gorilla" of the Federal Government OFF of the backs of the people.

Just how "Well off" or "Better off" would the AVERAGE taxpayer be if THEY could keep the 30+ percent of their wages to USE as THEY see fit? IF you got a 30% "raise" by not earning one new penny, just in keeping control of what you already have, how many people would be in a position to not only help themselves and their families, but others that they saw "in need" of some help? What, for example, would the "healthcare needs" be like for someone who HAD a serious problem, but where people could GIVE 5% of the 30% to a "healthcare pool" available to anyone who had bills in excess of "some number," say $100,000?

How affordable WOULD health insurance be if the policies that people had LIMITED the payment BY an insurance company to $100,000, and then the "pool" would kick in where the entire nation was funding that pool through their own giving?

OR, if people don't like the idea and think that healthcare is right that the government should provide, why not look at WHY healthcare costs ARE so high? Why not start with the FACT that healthcare has gotten so good that people DON'T DIE. If they would just have the "common decency" of dieing, we wouldn't HAVE such huge medical bills to "live with."

Why not just STOP all the things that medicine does to "prolong" our lives for a few "extra" years? Why not let my sister die from her ruptured brain aneurysm? Why not let the heart attack folks die? Why fight cancer, let them die. We ARE all going to DIE someday, why not today, this week, "in six months," by simply letting "nature take it's course" in the "survival of the fittest?" Nope, it's MUCH easier to "blame the insurance companies."

Nope, it's MUCH easier to turn over more control of our lives to "the government."

Just WHERE does that "control" stop?

For me, it "stops" at the Constitution and the Constitutional REASON for Goverment AND the Constitutional "limits" (needed checks and balances) ON that Goverment IF freedom IS to be preserved. This "unique experiment" in Freedom of the PEOPLE is in grave danger. And the current "incoming regime" is going to do all that it can to solidify the control of government (read that as THEIR control) over YOUR life.

I disagree, Want2Stay.

I'm not talking about printing new money, I'm talking about RETURNING our money to us and NOT giving it to other countries.

Got a "natural disaster" somewhere in the world?

Let the people contribute to charitable organizations for relief if THEY want to.

But let the people who have EARNED the money decide what to spend it on.

IF people have the money to BUY what they want, do you think COMPETITION in the marketplace would INCREASE or DECREASE the cost of items?

Why are airlines, for example, "failing" and "struggling?" Why are "no frills" airlines the NORM today? Fuel costs. Union labor costs. Lack of MONEY in the "coffers" of the individual people who LIKE travel, need travel, but can't afford it as part of their PERSONSAL budget because the Government steals so much of their "hard earned" dollars.

Why is $4.00 gasoline for the car such a big problem? Not because it costs $4.00 but because individual people can't "tax" someone else to increase their available "money supply."

They have to live within their own budget, and MUCH of that budget is dictated by the TAXES that are confiscated from them whether they like it or not, and if something else happens in their lives (like medical expenses) and they can't afford to pay the taxes, THEN the government goes after the individual with a VENGEANCE, putting liens on everything and seizing what little money they DO have in any accounts.

Enough is enough. I think that by the time Barack's first term in office is over, A LOT of "ordinary citizens" will be sick and tired of the "government largesse" with THEIR money.

And I agree that letting the companies fail is not a "good solution," but you can trace just about all of it back to the "taxation" solution to "punish" businesses and the "entitlements" that people think they have to have.

Maybe I'm a bit biased on this, since I live on "straight commission." I don't sell something, I don't eat. But I EARN every penny I do make by trying my best to help others in a system that DOES exist and that IS regulated and controlled BY the government.

And they want to call it "windfall profits taxes." Puke on them. The greatest "Windfall Profits Tax" is the taxation of the people and the deadly and wasteful SPENDING of the Government that doesn't create ONE thing. PROFITS are a "dirty word" to government.

"Zero sum" is the notion they embrace and they just don't want to "get it" that with increased productivity in the nation, the revenues to the government GO UP.

With all the ranting and complaining about health insurance companies......

Does anyone know how much of EACH DOLLAR that is paid in HEALTH INSURANCE premiums are paid back out to Medical Providers


Not necessarily. I'm covered by an HMO.....in VA. Was seen in the ER in NJ and my insurance paid the entire bill minus my $100 co-pay.

JoJo - I understood that her son was Out of State and most HMO's have severe restrictions on Out of State coverage. It's one of the reasons why I often recommend Medical Flight insurance coverage for clients, especially those who like to travel around the country, or even in some cases, around the world.

Additionally, Emergency Care is usually covered, but if further treatment is needed, it usually requires a trip back to the "Network Area."

Also, most coverages "end at the water's edge," so if you do like to travel out of country (including on Cruise ships) you need to be congnizant of what coverages you have or don't have if something happens while not in the USA.

HMO's can work fine, but each has to be evaluated individually for the given client to figure out what might be the "best" type of plan for their needs.

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!

you pull out a post from 8 days ago...surely yuou also saw this from me as well..

You don't really have a clue do you? Heath Insurance companies are contratually oblogated to pay for negotiated services.

Lets just say that your insurance company COULD deny payment and refused to pay for your $25 bandaid what do YOU think will happen?

1. the provider of service is going to bill YOU, the patient for services rendered.
2. When YOU get the bill for that $25 bandaid, what is the first thing YOU are going to do?
3. YOU ARE going to call your health Insurance Company to find out WHY they didn't pay.
4. When they tell you that they're protecting you from the provider by refusing to pay for the $25 bandaid.....

You're just going to say, "Oh, OK. That's fine then, as long as you're looking out for me"

What a LOT OF CRAP.....

Oh and BTW ~ in the mean time, while you're trying to straighten out why your bandaid didn't get pay for by your insurance company, the provider of service is turning you over to a collection agency for non-payment of that $25 bandaid.

Stop making assumption about how health care and health care insurers work and do some un-biased research.

I was actually responding to this post....not yours.

Sorry for the confusion.

No they won't. They WILL try to ascertain that your claims are legitimate and medically necessary as part of the "fraud prevention" efforts. But they WILL pay for your legitimate claims because Health Insurance is a CONTRACT between you and and the Insurance Company. The TERMS of the contract will specify what YOU bought in the way of coverage, not what you "think they should pay for anyway."

Mr. W., I will be the first to say that healthcare premiums are too high (from a personal budgetary perspective of affordability to any given person's family budget) and that there should be coverage, not denial of coverage, available for people with "health conditions." The "issue" is not that. It is HOW should that be best accomplished without destroying the very system that provides the best healthcare in the world? IT IS NOT "solely" a "money issue." There ARE "other ways" other than a government run socialized medicine system.

However, the effects of what you proposing are much more far reaching that just a "few dollars" or even a "lot of dollars" (be it 30% for the administrative costs of insurance companies or anything else). First, I don't accept for one "New York Minute" that the government would "save" that alleged 30% in administrative costs as the Government itself has no "profit motive" and has no "accountability" to anyone for what it does. It simply establishes beauracracy that is bloated and inefficient and arbitrarily assignes "payments" regardless of true COST to the providers.

Thus, the "administrative costs" will soar, not reduce, and the available providers WILL decline because they will choose to NOT provide the services at the rates "offered" (read mandated) by the government. The reimbursement rates, for example, for Medicare, are the same regardless of "where" in the country the service is performed. I guarantee you that the "cost" to provide the very same service is markedly different in different regions in the country, say between New York and Michigan and North Carolina and Mississippi.

Doctors are in "private practice." They are NOT members of a Union, such as the UAW.

The "average" UAW worker, for example, at Ford, GM, Chrysler, makes about $75.00 per hour by Union Contract. That is WAGES and does NOT include healthcare and pension benefits that the COMPANY must bear on their behalf (and "pass on" to the consumers in the form of higher car and truck prices).

$75.00 x 2080 (straight full time annual hours, not including any overtime) = $156,000 per year. EVEN IF benefits were included in that amount, $156,000 per year is a LOT of money to "afford" health insurance, which of course they DON'T have to do because they make the Automobile COMPANY provide it.

But guess what, NOW the automakers and union employees want YOU and ME and EVERYONE to pay for their "folly." ONLY the auto industry people will "benefit" from a bail out. It will do nothing to help the "average" non-auto industry person.

Why not sent the "bail out money" directly to TAXPAYERS and let THEM decide who to help with the cash?

THAT is always the "government response." "Throw YOUR money at problems" in the hope that it will "fix" the problem (Same thing we see with Education).All the "experts" aside, these "bail outs" WON'T work. NOTHING has changed in the base problem, which in the case of the auto industry IS the unions and management's capitulation to the Unions. It is TIME for them all to "face the music" and go out of business. LET the Union workers go find some other sort of employment. SAVE the taxpayer money and let the "Free Market System" work.

All the businesses that exist to support the Auto Industry can likewise "go under."

Let the government BUY everyone a car (probably Japanese or Korean) in exchange for their "Foreign Aid".


NO MORE TEA for the government to keep them "in office." Indict, impeach, and toss the "culprits" like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank OUT OF their malfeasance and irresponsibility as "Managers of the Government Corporation."




No they won't. That simply indicates that you do not understand how healthcare insurance works.

First, NO person with "individual insurance" can be dropped simply because they USE a lot of healthcare.

Second, GROUP insurance has a MANDATORY continuation of coverage built into it. First there is Mandatory COBRA continuation of coverage, and following COBRA there is GUARANTEED COVERAGE for the person(s) coming off of COBRA. NO company can "deny" coverage, regardless of the existing medical conditions.

The "problem" is "affordability" of the premiums...and THAT is what needs addressing.




Again, Mr. W., the cost of the High Risk Pool is a GOVERNMENT "answer" to the problem. Just like with the COBRA continuation and the "creditable coverage" guarantee, the "problem" is NOT the availability of coverage, it is the PRICE of the premium and whether or not it is "affordable" to any given person or family.

IF you think that the cost will be "lower" AND "affordable" by some State run, single payor (socialist), system, then you are sadly mistaken because the PAYOR is not the "problem." The "problem" is the COST of SERVICE performed. That is true whether it is an auto mechanic fixing your car or a healthcare worker fixing "whatever ails you."




You had that chance and you voted for Obama and his support for unlimited abortion "on demand," whether it was medically necessary or not.

pieta,

I like your posts on relationships, but you have your history wrong on FDR. His economic policies were a miserable failure.

First, he continued the failed "stimulus spending" programs put into place by Hoover, when FDR had attacked during the 1932 campaign. Then he instituted more huge public works programs, modeled after Mussolini, and paid for with deficits which were 50% of the budget. He had to run deficits because none of his programs stimulated the economy.

Unemployment was still as high in 1938 as it was in 1932.
Factory and farm production did not increase during the New Deal.

Just like Mussolini and Hitler, it was military buildups and sending 5,000,000 young men off to war which stimulated the economy and ended unemployment.

His wage and price controls were circumvented by the creation of company retirement plans and medical care plans which could not be continued, yet they still plague us today, bankrupting the steel industry, railroads, shipbuilding, airlines, and now the automobile industry.

Barack Obama, an avowed socialist (read his writings) with no work experience, proposes the same tax increases ($2.50 a gallon on gasoline), and public works programs as FDR. They will fail, too, because they will drain money from smart hands of entrepreneurs to the stupid hands of bureaucrats and dishonest hands of politicians. Obama's threat to confiscate our 401-k and IRA plans sent the stock market into a nosedive, and it will not recover until smart investors see the Democrats back off their Marxist rhetoric.