The following letter was received from the office of Del. Rick Impallaria:
Health Care and Insurance Issues – July 28, 2009
Many of you have recently been expressing to me your concerns about Pres. Obama’s proposing drastic changes in our health insurance. I share your concerns, and, by what I read about it, I believe that the bill now being worked on in Washington will result in a system of nationalized health care. Other countries’ experience has proved that rationing is inevitable, with long waits for routine care, treatment, and surgery. Our elderly will be counseled to just go away and die, for, in the immortal words of Ebenezer Scrooge, “If they be like to die, they better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
I protest these draconian approaches to health insurance and health care, and have, among other things, called AARP Maryland to voice my opposition.
If you would like to do so as well, you may call them toll-free at 1-866-542-8163. Their website is www.aarp.org/md
Harford County Farm Fair – July 30 – August 2, 2009
I will have a booth at this event, and will be joined by representatives from several grass-roots conservative groups in Harford County – the Tea Party organizers, the Fair Taxation people (who have been working to get our property taxes reduced), the Rt. 40 Republican Club (not your average political club). We will also have candidates for House of Delegates, District 35A David Tritt and Jason Galleon, and for District 34 Patrick McGrady and Glenn Glass.
The Farm Fair will be held at the Equestrian Center, 608 N. Tollgate Rd, Bel Air. Hours are July 30, 31, and Aug. 1 – 10 am to 10 pm, Aug 2, 10 am to 6 pm. Adult admission is $7.
For further details, including directions, go to the Farm Fair website: www.farmfair.org
Rick Impallaria
Delegate, District 7
rick.impallaria@house.state.md.us
He’s supporting Jason Gallion but doesn’t even know his name. I hope David and Jason are smart enough not to associate their campaigns with this guy. Gallion says he is a Ronald Reagan Conservative, yet Impallaria is constantly attacking Republicans. Gallion should stand by his principles and stay as far away from bad influences that will tank his campaign as he can.
Gallion is supported by Euler. nuff said
I think all members of our State delegations should be required to pass random and frequent drug tests.
I have debated whether or not to respond to the first two posts to this article. I realize that when you put yourself out there as a candidate, you better be ready to take some hits. No problem. North County: I appreciate your concerns, and yes, I am proud to be a Ronald Reagan conservative. As for the farm fair, I have not told anyone I will be at any booth. I will make every attempt to be at the farm fair, it has been an annual tradition for myself and my family since it started in the late 80’s, but due to work obligations I am not sure when I can stop by. JJ: In 2006 Mr. Euler gave me a lot of sign locations, and I appreciate him for doing so. He has also bought hay from me in the past to feed his horses. I have no idea who he supporting for elected offices in 2010. Also JJ, as a candidate, I will only post things using my real name, nuff said.
Hey Jason,
I think that North County was supporting you. It looks like he was saying to not be associated with Delegate Impallaria, not the other way around. But maybe I’m confused.
Enough of IMP’s exaggerations about health care “reform”. Change is needed but not his constant negative condemnation and criticisms:
“Other countries’ experience has proved that rationing is inevitable, with long waits for routine care, treatment, and surgery.”
When is the last time anyone has called up for “routine care, treatment or surgery” and gotten an appointment the next day??!! Even when you’re feeling bad and need to see your doctor immediately, you may have to wait for all the other folks who are ahead of you that day – it’s called “taking your turn”. If it’s an actual emergency, they practice “triage” and handle the most serious situation first.
And then his total disparaging remark to frighten seniors:
“Our elderly will be counseled to just go away and die, for, in the immortal words of Ebenezer Scrooge, “If they be like to die, they better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
indicates how little he really knows about the situation. No one in this country has or ever will be told such a thing (unless it’s an insurance company referring to someone with a costly or pre-existing medical condition).
Bring on the facts and say something that sounds like an intelligent explanation or assessment – not Palin-type blathering to scare everyone.
That’s exactly what health INSURANCE execs are encouraging the “Just Say NO Republicans” to do and he’s simply repeating that same constant bray. If they say it enough times (i.e. there are weapons of mass destruction), then the populace begins to believe it is true.
Any half-way intelligent person who attempts to listen and tries to understand the situation realizes it is the “health care INSURANCE industry” (a very profitable sector that contributes MILLIONS in campaign contributions to many politicians) that needs the most realignment.
We have wonderful health CARE in this country from excellent physicians, dedicated nurses, top-notch hospitals, and outstanding pharmaceutical research organizations. It’s the manner in which we, the PEOPLE, must obtain that care that NEEDS to be improved.
Don’t believe for a moment that “government-run clinics” are what’s in store. It’s the PROCESSING and administration of the costs and coverage that need to be updated. A NATIONAL health care option is needed to reform our very antiquated, FOR-PROFIT style of obtaining proper health care.
MEDICARE is a classic example of national social health care that has been working very well for millions of people for over 50 years (and NO ONE seems to want to give up that very appreciated “government run” system). By the way – all of the 500 or so congressional representatives and senators also have very nice government run health care coverage (and no complaints).
The preamble to our CONSTITUTION states that one of our nation’s goals is to “promote the general welfare” of the people (i.e. fair and affordable health care). It’s time to bring about the needed CHANGE to promote health care coverage for all — not scare everyone with false, misleading and silly predictions.
If that’s the best he can do ………….time for someone else to work for us.
“Our elderly will be counseled to just go away and die” is one of the most irresponsible representations of the proprosed health care legislation I have heard, and there have been some doozies. If this is Del Imp’s attempt to frighten vulnerable seniors he should be ashamed of himself. If he actually believes it he should seek mental health treatment for he is quite delusional.
Elsie –
The Congressional Budget Office has evaluated The House plan and proffered an opinion that it will cost more and provide less.
A government takeover of our health care is a recipe for disaster.
What you can be assured of is rationing, a Government Insurance Option will through subsidies destroy private insurance, fewer doctors, lower quality care and increased cost, waste and abuse.
What we need is tort reform, more doctors, more insurance providers, less government insurance mandates, insurance pooling across state lines and less government intrusion.
I am amazed that folks in favor of a Government Takeover of health care hold up as examples Medicare, Medicare, Canadian System and UK National Health Service to make a case for US socialized system. When the aforementioned examples are failures.
Let’s get our government leaders focused on fixing bankrupt programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security before experimenting on a new government run entitlement that will most assuredly fail and require them to actually read and understand bills before they vote on them.
Joe
Consider that three States; Massachusetts, Hawaii and California have some form of “health care reform”. Mass and Hawaii programs are bankrupting the states and are looking great on paper but are total failures in reality. California put a cap on pain and suffering limits and has reduced the health care costs in their state. Let’s try getting the lawyers off our backs first and then see what else needs doing.
Joe please cite a source for your CBO report. I would like to read more. Intrestingly I heard the same lines on Rush today and yesterday as well as Sean Hannity.
Cdev – you can find the Congressional Budget Office report that Joe cited at the Congressional Budget Office website below.
http://www.cbo.gov
Cdev –
You can read this http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cbo-healthcare-bill-exceeds-1-trillion-2009-06-15.html or go to http://www.cbo.gov/
Joe
Thanks
Tami He may not be as Delusional as you’ think. I recall reading and article in the Sunday Sun, that in the event of a major influenza attack. and a shortage of vaccine. ( A study done supposedly) by the U.S. goverment.
Senior’s Handicapped & mentally ill would be the last to get a vaccine. assumeing of course such a thing was to occur,
Let’s play what if for a minute…
What if the gov’t takes over health care…that means a few different things to different folks.
l. If Gov.Med is in charge, what happens if my grandmom falls and needs to go to the emergency room. Make believe she is in her late 80’s and has the early signs of dementia. If we go to the closest hospital emergency room, does gov.med check her records before she gets seen by the er staff? Do they treat the pain only and let her “sleep” until she’s better? or does gov’med admit her, treat her pain, offer her senior end of life counselling and send her home? Dementia is real, it is non-life threatening, and it flows like a river…one day up and the next down. What if the govmed sends her home w/ the understanding that she can make her own informed decision…what happens then? Our gov.t takes almost 45% of estate tax now, do you really believe that the govmed would have any grandmom’s best interest at heart?
Do you think that the er staff is paid enough for the “above my pay grade” decisions that Pres. Obama said during his campaign that he refused to make?
What about abortions? If govmed is in charge, should a religious hospital be forced to violate their beliefs to receive the funding needed for govmed?
Sarcasm alert… I am not willing or able to determine if govmed would provide health care for gang members that are injured, overweight and speak English without providing translators and/or appropriate color coordinated bandages to maintain social correctness.
If the govmed program is implemented, the cost increased will be passed onto the consumers. No doubt about it. Costs for food, clothes, gas, heat, etc. will all rise, again, to increase the costs for the consumer, small businesses will close and who will suffer?
If govmed is passed, will the gov med doctors explain to a teen-ager the facts of life about food choices affecting moods, skin care, annorexia vs. bulimia, the use of illegal drugs or other mood enhancers that are available to our teens? What about the referrals that primary care docs make now, or about the use of natural cures or accupuncture or any number of other med practices. I am not sure that I would want my personal data and medical info on a computer disc in Washington DC for any and all to peruse. That is only one area of concern.
What about the medical school bills that our current docs have and the skills that are developed in med school? I think the public schools in our country already need help, how can the govmed expect to teach new med students with out preparing or fixing the education problems that the gov. has helped to create. The take over of the health care programs in this country is not what we need. We need to stop, look and listen to find out what does work and what needs to be fixed.
The comment by Elsie about the preamble stating that “to promote the general welfare” means all Americans need to have health insurance is different than what I was think is meant by that phrase. I believe all Americans have access to health care now. Any one, legal or illegal, in America has access to health care. The new bill that the gov. wants to implement is not guaranteed by the constitution and is not a right. It pretty much throuws the baby out with the bath water. Please find out the details and let your rep. and senator know how you want them to vote. They work for you.
Mrs. Pat McGrady
Could Gov. Med simply function the same way that medicare operates now just open to a larger group of people? I mean seniors swear by medicare so what is wrong with it for the rest of us. Or at least having the option.
As Dave and I have said their is a problem it just needs to be defined and acknowledged first before we fix it.
Blue Dogs say they may have a health care compromise.
Well it still has a government option which ultimately means a “government takeover”. Private insurance cannot compete with a government insurance plan that makes the rules and will be subsidized. The government can’t control costs and in the end we will have less choice that cost more for bad service and poor health outcomes.
What the Obama administration wants is their foot in the door and once inside they will slowly but surely have a federal government takeover of health care resulting in a single payer system.
It will happen if we don’t stop it.
Joe
More and more physicians will not accept Medicare patients because the reimbursement is often to low to cover the cost of service. Medicare already rations care to seniors.
Here’s one senior (66) who would not use medicare if given any choice at all. the program is expensive and substandard.
vietnam vet
Sr.s are at the top of the list, followed by children and medically vulnerable adults ( asthma, diabetes, etc). At the end of the list are healthy adults like me. Assuming you receive your reg health care from the VA, how would you rate their services?
Honestly I have too say, perry point is over worked & under staffed. but the service is very good. some day’s are busier than other’s but I think they put forth and Honest effort to help.
I was not leaning, on the VA hospital. until I lost my job of 31 years. who I might add allowed me to work slowly for the last year & half. due to two Heart attack’s which led too Congestive Heart Failure.
My ability to breath has become and issue. But I look a round & say I could be worse. Perry Point for me is A blessing.
vietnam vet
Good to hear that PP is a blessing for you. I asked because I have been lead to believe by others who have used their services over the longterm that the care they receieve has been good to excellent. A focus on preventive care, or at least regular check ups leading to early detection and treatment for any problems, has lead to very positive outcomes for VA users, better that non-VA care. I am friends with a VA social worker from the Baltimore facility who explains this as the result of intensive tracking, outreach, and attempts to maintain very regular care for users. This would seem to bode well for a system with governmental oversight, assuming the intensive monitoring approach was employed.
MA, a government run system of care, is available to children in MD whose parents are below the poverty level. It is not a bad system. Regular checkups are encouraged and routine care always available. The two main problems are parents who do not access the care for their children and a lack of Dr’s in the Baltimore City area who will accept new MA patients because of the low rate of reimbursement.
For most of us who live here in Harford County in the middle class with third party coverage the situation is very different than the underclass that lives in urban areas. Imagine waiting for 8 to 12 hours in the ER at JHH for a generic medical problem or watching a 50 year old sibling die from treatable CA because she could not access care. It happens all the time to the poverty stricken and working poor. It is possible that I may have to give up some level of accessibility or convenience if the current legislation passes so that those who don’t have guaranteed health care can get it. I’m OK with that. The dirty little secret that no one seems to mention is that most people are not willing to give up a little of their own so others lives can improve. How patriotic is that?
tami;
I can follow most of your logic and appreciate your position, however…. First and foremost you point to one very serious flaw here:
“Imagine waiting for 8 to 12 hours in the ER at JHH for a generic medical problem”
What is anyone doing in the JH ER for a generic medical problem? They are triaged to end of the line and only get perfunctory care at best. You then indicate that you are willing to give up some of your care in order to spread it to the poor and under served. That’s the same logic that has caused our school system to drag down the good in order to make the lesser feel better. Why not aspire to have a system like the 535 honorable men and women on capitol hill have be available for all? Why do you think that the system is a zero sum game? You logic assumes that there are a grand total of n medical services available and that you and I are using too many of them. That’s the same bullshit we get about economics and all the rest from our media. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone to end up with less than they had at the beginning. If there is then the solution has created more insidious problems. The solution to the “health care” problem is just give every man woman and child in this country the very same coverage as the congres enjoys. Really simple.
Here is how I define the problem of health care.
Is not medical care and innovation…we are a world leader is this area.
Is not a lack of innovative surgical procedures and techniques…we are a world leader in this area.
Is not an uninformed consumer….we have access to technology and information to make wise choices overall….we lead the world in this area.
Is not the lawyers……sadly we do lead the world in these.
Is not the doctors…….they are highly qualified……..we have more doctors per capita….we lead the world in this area.
Is not lack of facilities and emergency services…..we lead the world in this area.
We lack “effective cost controls” that now allow medical costs to increase at rates effectively double the cost of inflation every year. At this rate only the upper middle class with have effective and affordable health insurance.
the lack of cost control, lack of disclosure and lack of incentives to lower the cost of care….we do lead the world in cost per capita.
Meanwhile the cost does not equal overall results. We are in the top 25 lower infant mortality, while we lead in cost, innovation, doctors, and facilities. Something is lacking here.
We appreciate our Members including: Jason Gallion, Dave Tritt, Del. Pat McDon0ugh, Del. Rick Impallaria, and our many other members.
See you all at the Harford County Farm.
Steve Wright
President
Rt. 40 Republican Club
Tami –
Why don’t you state clearly that you want government takeover of health care that will move us to a socialized system? You want to tax the 60% of Americans that pay income taxes more so socialized health care can be funded?
Joe
Dave and all would we be opposed to Govemed if it was the same plan as members of congress have?
Joe in all fairness IF we had a good system and you saved by paying less for employee plans and your plan would you find it OK?
Cdev –
If in some alternate universe the government in power was not involved in health care and through private enterprise health insurance was available to all who wanted it, then sure I’d be for it.
Joe
The governemnt running health care will be a disaster. How many Canadians come to the U.S. each year for healthcare because their system is overloaded and overused. So many that there are medical travel agencies in Canada that schedule trips for Canadians to travel to the U.S. for healthcare that they cannot get access to in their country.
Once healthcare is perceived to be “free”, it will be over utilized and the people that need care will not be able to get it. In Canada, there is over an 18 week wait for a specialist visit. I personally know people in the U.K. who have had to wait a year, sometimes close to two years for routine surgery. I know of a very recent case where someone (someone close to me) had two potentially life threatening issues and could not get testing done in a reasonable (many months) timeframe, so they opted to pay for the testing themselves. He told me that he could be dead or at least terminally ill by the time he received the tests through the National Health System.
Think about this simple analogy, if bread, milk and eggs were free, would you ever be able to go into a store and find them on the shelves? The answer is of course, no. Before anyone comments that I am comparing healthcare with food or any other commodity, I am just pointing out human nature, and that people will over utilize the system beacuse it is perceived as free, therefore making unaccessable for all. Be very careful what you wish for.
Look at the care given at some of the veteran hospitals. Look at the stories about Water Reed Hospital. The government can’t run a hospital, let alone the entire health care system.
The government does nothing, absolutely nothing efficiently. The politicians say they will control health care pricing? Please tell me how they will do that? They pay hundreds of dollars for toilet seats and hammers. They cannot control the cost of the goods and services, they can artifically set pricing but that is an entire different economics conversation.
The fact of the matter is what better time to be alive? Man has been walking the earth for tens of thousands of years and modern medicine arrived 40 years ago. People live longer, live better quality of lives and it is all beacuse of modern medicine. 40 years ago if you suffered with severe heartburn or acid reflux, you drank a glass of water with baking soda, now you can take Prevacid or Nexium. I know they are expensive, but I think it is better to have the option to purchase it, than for it not to exist at all. If there are no financial incentives for companies to create these drugs, procedures, equipment, etc, then they will not invest the millions and billions of dollars into research and development. I can tell you that they will not invest the money for the betterment of mankind. If there are no financial incentives, we will stop or significantly slow down the introduction of new drugs and technologies.
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
Communicator I see your point. If people think it is free they will not think twice about using it and just use it when they do not need it. In this country however we can wait 18 weeks for some specialists. I have to schedule my Nueroligist or Dental visits when I leave the previous one or they are booked up. I get that part.
I beg to differ the govornment does some things efficiently, collect taxes.
I just profer this scenario. Person X worked 17 years for a company, has benefits etc. Gets Cancer and can no longer work. After carrying him for as long as they could they let him go and he has NO income. Not only that he can not work because of his illness and has NO insurance to paty for his expensive cancer treatment. What should happen to this person? They are not the leach on the system some people imply. They were a hard working american citizen!
Cdev –
Actually the government does a poor job of collecting taxes too. There are billions of dollars that the IRS has been unsuccessful in collecting from individuals and businesses.
And how many people do you know that work “under the table”? Well, the worker and the employer in this situation are cheating by underreporting or non-reporting wages and revenue.
I do expect that the IRS will get better at collecting with Tim Geithner at the helm.
Joe
Joe
Efficient and effective are two different animals. The govt has the personnel in place to handle taxes. The govt has a process in place to audit questionable returns and locate and penalize late filers/payers. I’m with Cdev in as much as that I think their process is as efficient as could be expected.
You find that they may not be effective in finding unreported or underreported taxes by people who willingly and knowingly avoid putting themselves in a position where they could be caught by a paper trail. I don’t think privatizing tax collection would make that effort any more effective without the paper trail.
Dave
You are correct that a parent who presents to the ER with a 3 year old with respiratory problems caused by a cold would be triaged well below any emergency care. In my experience that parent will wait the 8 hours sometimes necessary for the child to be seen because, triaged as an emergency or not, to that parent it is indeed an emergency that the child be treated. I am not sure the care would be perfunctory but it certainly would be delayed. As to you Joe, private health coverage is indeed available to all who want it if they can pay for it. The problem remains that many can’t pay for it and go without. That , philosophically speaking, is not OK with me but, well beyond what I think or feel or believe to be right, the expense to me(and you) in the longrun is too high. Children without routine medical care suffer from treatable conditions that lead to adult illnesses that cause immeasureable cost to us. Lack of prenatal care in the underclass results in early and low weight births that lead to long stays in neonatal ICU’s. Lack of access to birth control can lead to people having children who can’t afford it or to marginal care for children when it does happen. Poor or non-existant treatment for diabetes or obesity and the resulting complications cost our health care system more than all other health problems combined. So whether you agree with me from a philosophical standpoint or not, the coast of not providing care comes out of your pocketbook as much as mine and it is only going to get worse.
DJ –
Well, the IRS would like congress to give it permission to hire private collectors because it can’t collect the outstanding taxes that they know is due, which does not address the underreporting and non-reporting issues.
You should have read my previous post carefully instead of selectively. The government is neither efficient nor effective in collecting taxes.
Joe
Tami –
Thank you for your emotional argument, but your objective of a government takeover of health care does not address the fundamental issue of cost of health care. You address the cost with more private options resulting in competition.
Government should reduce its role in health care by removing obstacles like mandates, restrictions of interstate insurance commerce, punitive taxation of health insurance on self-employed/individual buyers, allow pooled purchasing and by reforming the outrageous malpractice tort process.
Joe
P.S. Tami try paragraphs instead of your typical wall of text.
You’re worried about the government having any kind of say in your health care. Don’t you hate the current situation? In the early 90’s, forward-thinkers saw that the health insurance companies wanted to move to managed care (where they can tell you where, when, and what care you can get). Clintoncare would have allowed this system with many protections for consumers. Republicans attacked and prevented reform. Managed care came anyway, so now we’re stuck with that without the protections.
I would prefer to not have anyone, especially for-profit “health” companies, managing my care. Having a for-profit health company managing your care is sort of like having a fire department make money by allowing the city to burn. We pay the fire company to keep us from burning, but it costs them money to actually do that, so they prefer to just allow us to burn.
From 2000 to 2007, health care premiums went up 90 percent. Over the same period, the profits of the 10 largest insurers went up 428 percent! A huge insurer has a monopoly in most markets around the country. What Americans want is choice. If we can have a “government option,” most Americans (over 60 percent of them) want it. However, if that option would put private insurers out of business and decrease our choices, less than 50 percent of Americans want it.
Joe that arguement “more private options resulting in competition” was the same load of crap that was sold to me to deregulate phones and deregulate power. I pay more then I ever did for those items now and get crappy service to boot!
To make another point, the costs of healthcare are not increasing, the utilization is increasing, therefore making healthcare more expensive. Ask any hospital or doctor if they are making more today than five years ago and most will tell you they are not.
On page 425 of the Heathcare Bill, it says in black and white that EVERYONE on Social Security, (will include all Senior Citizens and SSI people) will go to MANDATORY counseling every 5 years to learn and to choose from ways to end your suffering (and your life). Health care will be denied based on age. 500 Billion will be cut from Seniors healthcare. The only way for that to happen is to drastically cut health care, the oldest and the sickest will be cut first. Paying for your own care will not be an option.
Did you know that Congress IS EXCLUDING THEMSELVES FROM THIS COVERAGE!!!! If this plan is so great, why will they not participate? I can’t believe more people are not furious about this!
Also, President Obama, when campaigning, said the American people should have a plan more like the one Congress has. Well this plan is NOTHING like what Congress has. Not that I am advocating Government healthcare, but again, why are we allowing Congress to exclude themselves?
Cdev –
Telephone service is highly competitive and if you’re paying too much its because you haven’t shopped. Heck you can get local and unlimited long distance from Comcast for $29.99 per month and Verizon for $39.99. Supply and competition were increased.
Electricity is another matter entirely since it is mostly a supply issue and the price would have gone up irrespective of deregulation, especially since competition never materialized and supply did not increase.
Government never makes things cheaper.
Joe
Before anyone jumps on the bandwagon, read below….also read below – the link to the entire bill is at the bottom. We have members of Congress (probably most) who will vote to pass this without reading it, probably never looking at it. In my opinion, for lack of a better word, this is scary.
Or wait until you are older and they deem you too old to get the operation or treatment and start counseling you on death.
Chairman Obama wants to ram his gargantuan healthcare bill down our
throats before anyone realizes what’s in it. What doesn’t he want us to see?
Some examples, from a quick inventory by Family Security Matters:
Pg 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Government will audit books of
all employers that self insure.
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – a Government committee (good luck with
that!) will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED!
Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose
your HC Benefits for you.
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided to ALL non US
citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Pg 58 HC Bill – Government will have real-time access to
individual’s finances and a National ID Health card will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to
your bank accts for election funds transfer.
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their
families in Unions & community organizations (read: ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government will create an HC Exchange to bring
private HC plans under Government control.
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill – Government mandates linguistic
appropriate services. Example – Translation for illegal aliens.
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups, i.e. ACORN & Americorps, to sign up individuals for Government HC plan.
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP
members – your Health care WILL be rationed.
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be
automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Government on price
fixing. No “judicial review” against Government Monopoly.
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ AMA – The Government will
tell YOU what you can earn.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into
public option plan. NO CHOICE.
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time
employees AND their families.
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from
individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)
Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (the
GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans’ finances and personal
records.
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC – “The tax imposed under this section shall
not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that.
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician
services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors – doesn’t matter what specialty – will all be paid the same.
PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor’s time, professional judgment, etc. Literally, value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131 Government mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.
Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment.
Government tells Doctors what/how much they can own.
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion – Government
will mandate hospitals cannot expand.
Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special
needs people!
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning
Consultations. Think Senior Citizens end of life prodding.
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved
list of end of life resources, guiding you in how to die.
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end
of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.
PG 429 Lines 10-12 “advanced care consultation” may include an
ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from the Government to end a life!
Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION. 1
monthly payment to a community-based organization. (Like ACORN?)
There’s plenty more. See for yourself: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf
Don’t mistake my approach as emotional just because my frame of reference is more humanistic than yours, Joe. I don’t see ACORN as the black helicopters not do I believe this bill means Guv employees will be counseling Sr.s on how to kill themselves.
Tami –
Pardon me but your approach can only be called “emotional” or “feeling” based as opposed to practical and empirically based. You are focused on a rosy outcome and have not carefully considered the plan or in this case the lack thereof.
It matters little what you think the intentions of Obama and Congress are. What matters is the passed performance of government and what is actually in the bill.
Joe
Communicator any more talking points you wish to pass off? Pg 37 paragraph 2 I heard on the radio almost word for word about an hour ago!
Post 39 includes so much editorilization it is hard to tell where the quotes begin and end. Not only that I have seen it on other message boards and e-mails. Although I am glad you credit the source although the link is bad. When you search the group name you get their website which espouses some of there very radical views (my opinion).
Cdev –
If the President’s government takeover health care is passed we will pay more and get less. The economy will be damaged and our generation and future generations will suffer.
Joe
I sincerely hope Imparllaria and the TEA party will not turn the Farm Fair into their personal political grandstand. The Farm Fair is to showcase and appreciate rural farm families, not for protesting healthcare, taxes, and whatever else you don’t like.
The Farm Fair has been a successful family-friendly event, I would hate to see that the true focus of it be lost amidst the political turmoil.
HDGReader –
Health care, taxes and especially estate taxes that make farm families sell the farm are all family issues. I can’t think of better subject matter for families to concern themselves with can you?
We can’t begin too soon to educate our children on civics, individual responsibilty, politics and government.
What a great opportunity for you to teach your family members!
Joe
Cdev – Maybe radical is what we need. It’s the only way we get people to listen. The politicians pushing this plan through don’t seem to care and have their own agenda, regardless of how poeple feel.
I have personally seen socialized medicine. I lived in the UK for three years and saw people go without, wait months and years for tests and go out and pay for these “free” services themselves becuase the systems are broken.
It sounds like you are in favor of “change” ? Like I’ve said before, becareful what you wish for, you just might get it.
If you cut and paste the link, it works.
I am saying the way thing’s are does not work for a big number of hardworking americans who can not afford treatment when they really get sick. They pay for years into insurance and when they need it for the big costs they lose the coverage or can not afford it because by the very nature of the illness can not work. I am not saying we need a mandated govt option. Maybe regulation, a true gov option something. We need to look at and define the problem then act. Last time this was attempted some people refused to look at options and study the problem and we ended up with HMO’s which many are not happy with.
Spreading propaganda which is editorialized and taken out of context is not helpful. That sight is a propaganda machine. I listened to a women on Rush today who said “while there be a place on the form to ask what party we are in to deny us coverage because we are Republicans?” Although Rush first said no he then qualified that with remarks in which he feed more into the absurd belief that the plan was out to irradicate members of a political party.
In post 29, Cdev said:
“If people think it is free they will not think twice about using it and just use it when they do not need it. In this country however we can wait 18 weeks for some specialists. I have to schedule my Nueroligist or Dental visits when I leave the previous one or they are booked up.”
Apples and oranges. You can get an earlier appointment at another neurologist or dentist. If your specific one is popular, than you may have to schedule in advance, and even then they usually reserve some time for emergency care along with their routine, scheduled clients.
And Rush, like O’Reilly, is no more of a news reporter than Olbermann, and neither Rush nor Bill ever claim to be one. They are politcal commentators and not ashamed to be labeled as such.
Keith, however, doesn’t quite seem to grasp the difference. Along with many other things.
Cdev – you say when they lose the coverage? Why do they lose the coverage? The insurance company can’t cancel the coverage because of a large claim. Disability Insurance protects the person’s income in the event of sickness or injury.
In my opinion, the last place any of us should look to for help, guidence, programs, etc. is the governement. I believe it all starts with personal responsibility and if more people did, instead of looking to the government, then we would all be better off.
HMO’s are great plans. I have used one for years. By the way, all medical insurance is managed. No insurance company is going to give carte blanche to a physician to do whatever test, procedure, surgery, etc. they want. There is a system of checks and balances, to ensure the patient gets the coverage afforded to them in the contract.
I am not saying the system is perfect, but it is the best one out there. Nobody goes without healthcare, there are avenues. If people were dying in the streets, it would be on the news every night. The uninsured may not get to see the doctors they want, when they want but they get covered. 5 out of 6 of us are insured. Why are we going to revamp the entire system for 1/6th of the population? You may think that I am cold hearted, really I am not, but I think many can provide for themselves and choose not to.
Phil the difference is someone is espousing the same stuff heard on Rush as their original thought!
Communicator. They lose their coverage because they lose their job because they can not work. While they get extended Cobra coverage they have no income and can not afford coverage at the new higher rate. Anyone who has had disability will tell you it does not equal your previous income.
In this hypothetical case personal responsibility has nothing to do with the person getting cancer!
“Nobody goes without healthcare” That is a bold lie people are denied care because of ability to pay in some cases for reasons they can not control. I agree some people choose to be uninsured but some do not choose to be they have no option!
Health insurance is indeed getting more expensive; the problem is not merely that it is being used more (although over-testing everyone and sending everyone to a ton of specialists certainly is a large problem). I wrote it before, but from 2000 to 2007, the profits of the 10 largest insurers went up 428 percent! Your doctors may not be making more, but some executives at the insurance companies certainly are!
Health insurance doesn’t even need to be for-profit. For the most efficient (lowest cost per person) and effective (healthy communities, satisfied “customers”), see the Mayo Clinic.
Sorry Joe
I’ll just accept the fact that you simply don’t understand the definition of ‘efficient’.
DJ –
No need to accept false data as fact! I’ll provide you with the definition of
“efficient – productive of desired effects ; especially : productive without waste”.
You can stop feeling “sorry” now that you know what “efficient” is. However, I will not expound on what “is” is.
Joe
Folks the Communicator hit on a couple of very important points. He mentions disability insurance. That my friends if the single most important insurance. It protects payroll! Responsible people have a disability policy in force. Most small businesses don’t even offer disability coverage any more so it must be purchased individually. The argument that you get dropped from insurance coverage because you are sick and can’t work is simply irresponsible. I personally sell disability coverage in lots of companies and the lowest paid among us understand the concept and need. The problem of “health care” has still not b een defined. Keep trying.
Dave Y. I am simply suggesting one rational reason to reexamine the system. Again I do not think we need to go as far as ome suggest.
Dave has hit the nail on the head. Fraud and abuse are a big part of the problem. WHy if I paid myself should the cost of an X-ray be 475 but the insurance company only pays 290? An X-ray is an X-ray.
Cdev –
Your x-ray example makes a great case for increased private option free market competition.
Now, if you are suggesting that we have price controls enacted by some government or quasi-government agency the price will either go up or the supply will be reduced with the net result being rationed access.
Joe
No I am suggesting that an x-ray is an x-ray and it should cost the same for the person without insurance as the insurance company pays on behalf of the insured. I just think the industry needs to be prevented from gouging people and making prices to expensive so the poor can not afford health care.
Cdev – The costs associated with insurance are negotiated pricing that doctors, imaging centers, hospitals, surgical centers, etc. are willing to accept in order to participate in an insurance network. The pricing you are addressing is the cost to the consumer who pays out of pocket?
I do think you bring up an interesting point. There seems to be this sense of “entitlement” when it comes to healthcare. For example, if I spend millions or billions of my own money to develop a little red pill, that if taken once a week, would extend your life for 10 years regardless of any disease or illness. If such a pill existed, I presume many would feel that now this pill has been invented that they would be entitled to get it. If I charged $10 or $20 or $100 or $1,000 for these pills, people would gripe. Why would I spend my own money to develop this pill if not to recoup my investment and to make a profit? Medicine costs money, lots of money, whether it is an x-ray, MRI, traditional surgery, non-invasive surgury, or any of the latest and greatest drugs available to us to lower our cholesterol, lower our blood pressure, prevent our acid reflux, treat our cancer, etc. Without financial incentives, there is not innovation or research and development. I’ve said it before, man has walked the earth for tens of thousands of years and modern medicine arrived 40 years ago. I would rather have to option to pay for modern medicine than not have it available at all. This sense of entitlement and healthcare reform will be a disincentive to many who would otherwise invest their money in modern medicine and medical technology. I promise you that most, will not invest in modern medicine for the betterment of mankind without some monetary incentive.
Cdev is exhibiting a fundamental misunderstanding of the way medical insurance works. An x-ray is an x-ray, but the cost can vary. The insurance company is granted a discount on the cost of procedures in exchange for directing customers to the health care provider.
Let me make it simpler for you so you can understand. Doctor X signs on to Insurance Company Y’s list of providers. Insurance Company Y sends Patient Z to Doctor X. Doctor X pays Insurance Company Y for the increased business by giving them a discount.
Doctor X gets more clients, Insurance Company Y saves money on procedures, Patient Z saves money because the customer portion is a certain percentage of the reduced price.
Any questions?
DJ – I agree with Joe Caruso, I do not think you understand the definition of efficient. I repeat, the government does NOTHING, absolutely nothing efficiently.
yes it does one thing, very efficiently. it spend’s tax payer’s money on foolish project’s.
SO like a referal fee. A referal fee of $120 an X-ray. Also add to it that since most of the patients have health care the cost disparity would increase. It is essentially riping off the consumer because h/she is not a massive company. Do these discounts get passed on to the insured party? not if they are having profit increases of 400%
It is not ripping off the consumer nor is it increasing costs. It is actually decreasing costs. Look at your Explanation of Benefits from your insurance company. It shows the Actual Charge, the Allowed Charge (per your provider’s contract with the insurance company) and the Patient’s Responsibility. Also, if you pay cash to a provider, they will often reduce the charge because it is cash and they do not have to submit the claim to the insurance company.
We actually want the patient to have to pay and share in the costs. Otherwise the care is viewed as free and it loses it’s value. The sharing in costs can be a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. Remember, if milk, eggs and bread were free they would never be on the shelves in the store. We will have to go through the same issues waiting for service as Canada and the UK. The UK and Canada also ration services. Remember, there are only so many resources, so for an example, you have two patients, a 75 year old man with cancer and a 35 year old man with cancer. Don’t think it is beyond comprehension that the 35 year old receives treatment first and the older patient is forced to wait for treatment or worse yet, counseled on making final arrangements.
Communicator so how much does the actual X-ray cost? Either the X -ray costs more to do then the insurance company is saving money and the doctor is taking a loss or the X-ray costs about as much as the insurance company pays and the guy paying cash, with no claim forms to be filled out, no extra work gets shafted and overcharged for making less work for all involved. Is that even remotely fair. All the while if the whole “it needs to cost so the patient does not abuse it” arguement I ask this. Is the person paying out of pocket the large cost of the X-ray going to abuse it?
Here is another scenario. Individual X needs a Semen Analysis to investigate the doctors diagnosis of infertility in a couple. As is standard this procedure is the starting point as it is least invasive. Unfortunately the insurance only covers lab tests done at lab test center Z. Most of those places do not do Semen Analysis; one must go to a special Andrology lab at a hospital which can not be sent to insurance so……you pay the $200 OUT OF POCKET! The only way insurance pays for that procedure is with a diagnosis and you can not get the diagnosis with out the procedure! Funny who pays in the end. Things like this need to be worked out!
Cdev – it all comes down to personal responsibility. If you think x-rays cost what people are willing to pay for them. If you think x-rays are too expensive, open an imaging center and charge $10 per x-ray or maybe $5 or just ask for a donation of what people can afford. But remember, you will have to pay the x-ray machine, the rent, your staff, commercial insurance, unemployment insurance, utilities, office supplies, computers, office furniture, an x-ray technician to read the x-ray, and probably plenty I have not loisted. So it’s not just the cost of the x-ray.
Face it, you are a socialist. I am not. I like the system the way it is. You obviously don’t. If you don’t, move to Canada. You can get as many x-rays and other healthcare you want as long as you are willing to wait for it.
I do not subscribe to “my brother’s keeper” or a “collectionist” mentality. If we take care of ourselves (it comes right back to personal responsibility) the better off the entire country will be. The rason we don’t, is people take the path of least resistance and look to the government first for help and guidence instead of themselves.
I am not a socialist. I do not think the drastic reform being proposed is the answer but there is a problem. You seem too obtuse to acknowledge that. It is not personal responsibility when you get sick!
You are essentially saying if Couple X goes to the store for 10 specific items and pays hard earned cash they should pay $82.62. However if Couple Y goes to the store and buys the exact same ten items and uses a organized food subsidie plan they should only pay $8.26 and the subsidie plan should give the grocery store $33.05 and the grocery store should have to do more paper work and somehow that is fair to everyone and efficient.
Something has to be done. To make this work. The most personal responsible would be to go back to having a cost for everything based on how much the service actually cost to provide plus a reasonable amount of profit for the provider. Then Everyone who uses it pays that price out of pocket. If you have insurance you send the bill to your insurance company and they send you back your benefit! I get an X-ray has associated costs but that should be bore by all X-ray patients not just those without insurance while the insurance company gets off without paying for that! Essentially that is who is saving because the insured party pays $10 of it and the discount helps the insurance company.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. People too often look to the government for help. The governement is not the answer.
If people are responsible and pay insurance premium, why shouldn’t they benefit from discounts negotiated by their insurance company?
Bottom line, life is not fair. Life will never will be fair and anyone looking for it to be fair will be forever disappointed. I am not being cold hearted, just realistic.
The cost of care has increased exponentially for years now, doubling the inflation rate and then some. This trend is unsustainable to most families. My family insurance plan costs more than $1000 per month. I can afford it for now, but I recognize that many can’t. There should be a system can compete with the private insurance system.
Most people complaining about the Canadian system, don’t even know how it works. Having a govt plan does not preclude a consumer from having private care and paying for it. All we need is a plan that ensures that health insurance is affordable. That my friend would be fairer that the current system that charges too much.
Someone keeps asking about defining the health care issue. clearly the definition is one of ever increasing cost. Lets reduce the cost.
Rocco –
The advances in medical have contribuited immensely to the cost of care.
25 years ago AIDS and cancer were a death sentences. AIDS patients in the 1980s could expect to live 6-12 months and the same for many kinds of cancer, today these illnesses are treatable as chronic maladies resulting in many years of extended life. The cost of care is expensive as compared to the cost of death.
We should be grateful for these life extending innovations, but we should not destroy our creative medical regimen with a government takeover of heath care.
More government is not the solution…less government is!
Joe
Communicator the person is not benifiting from the discount charged by the doctor….the insurance company is! Meanwhile the poor sap who provides no additional paper work pays more then the company with it’s forms in triplicate!
Cdev –
Your beef should be against insurance laws that prevent people from banding together to negotiate for heath care services.
The problem we have now is that the consumer of heath care is removed or barred from the purchasing of the care in negotiating the cost or in most cases knowing the the cost.
Joe
Rocco,
The cost of healthcare has not increased. Ask any physician if they are making more money today than five years ago. Most will say no. The reimbursements from the insurance comanies are down, reimbursements from medicare are down. What has increased is the utilization of healthcare, that is driving the insurance premiums up.
By the way it is against the law for a Canadian to circumvent the heath system and pay for services privately in Canada. The Canadian government put this law in place to prevent the wealthy from getting better coverage. In other words, they wanted no class warfare within the health system. Is that what you want? 18 weeks on average for an appointment for a specialist and it is against the law for you to go down the street and pay for the services yourself.
Cdev,
If the insurance company did not benefit from lower negotiated costs, who do you think they would pass those increased costs to? The consumer of course! so we do benefit.
Joe, one point, there used to be association programs in Maryland for groups of people to buy health insurance. What happened was adverse selection – this was typically an unhealthy group, who needed the insurance and the system imploded. It was not a balanced, actuarial sound population. Maryland has since put into place (MHIP) Maryland Health Insurance Plan for people who have certain pre-existing conditions or have been declined health insurance. So there are systems in place today for everyone to purchase health insurance, but most, turn to the government instead of providing for themselves.
Communicator –
Safety nets are useful for those people who are in a difficult circumstance, however we do not need to throw the baby out with the bath water with a government takeover of health care.
Joe
So Joe is that not a reasonable thing we could do to reform health care? I said from the begining I do not think the massive overhaul is needed but some reform is needed for which I have been called a socialist!
Joe,
I agree completely. My point was there are systems in place currently for people in difficult situations. The premiums are reasonable too.
Cdev,
It is already done. That is my point. There are systems in place for the uninsurable, poor, and unfortunately, people who choose to go without and then depend on the system. Anyone can show up at an emergency room and receive treatment. I admit that is not ideal, but the system works for 5 out of 6 of the population. To use Joe’s words, “let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.”
The insurance companies are not to blame. I know CareFirst (a not for profit company) operates on a 1% margin. It is a utilization issue, a preventative medicine issue and a personal responsibility issue.
the cost of health care is too high. we need to take the for profit element out of it. Its the same thing as electric deregulation, it does not work because health care as well as utitities provide a public good and they must be regulated to prevent abusive practices and unfair policies that increase costs and produce less services.
I am not advocating a Canadian system or a public health care program. I am advocating thighter regulation and cost reduction incentives as well as a public health insurance program to compete with the private plans.
There are millions of people with no insurance, the poor are covered, the upper middle class is covered , but the average workiing joe is not. there are no real viable options out there.
The cost issue is one of lack of cost competition amongs health care providers and health care insurers.
Imagine if you could buy “grocery” insurance. You could pay your premium and go to your local supermarket and purchase the most expensive staples and your supermarket would have a profit motive to reduce the low cost items and sell you the highest cost items. This is our current health care system. As long as people are insured and they don’t have to shop for services based on cost, premiums will keep on increasing The insurance companies just built in their profit and high administrative costs on the premium and they never lose.
the consumer has no incentive or way to shop for lowest cost procedures and has no control over their policy increases. With auto insurance if you take driver safety, have no tickets, and have no claims, your insurance cost can go down. I would want to see some incentives to obtain annual check ups, routine care and practive healthy habits to reduce your cost. Have you ever seen such a system in place? I don’t think this even needs govt program, just common sense cost disclosure and ability to make choices.
Rocco –
The “profit motive” is what has catapulted innovation in health care. We lead the world in new medicines, procedures and prosthetics because the creators of these magnificent products can expect a profit.
Profit is not “evil” it is the root of what is good. I am for profit.
Joe
joe,
typical, you focus on one word and make your argument based of that alone. Did you read the whole post or just what you wanted to hear. reasonable profits are good, the create the motivation to innovate and bring better products to the market. What has happenned is that the profits have gotten too large and the costs have spiraled out of the affordability range of most people.
The cost of business is not as big as their profit margins. Insurance companies typically have higher than average administrative charges that most reasonable business would, high “marketing” costs, and no incentive on their part to reduce costs that they just pass on to the consumer.
The same level of innovation is present in other industrialized countries, most of the top 25 countries have the same levels of innovation, we though pay a higher percentage of our GDP towards health care than other countries.
You spout about inneficiencies……….I could not think of a billing system as inneficient for the consumer as this one.
Dude……I work in health care. I think I know what I am talking about. Many studies have been done on this. This is not about democrat vs. republican ideas or about being against the marketplace. The marketplace needs to be regulated, just like financial institutions need to be regulated.
Rocco –
i know about health care and even more about business and the answer to obscene profit is more competition, not price controls and government take over.
Joe
there is no incentive to compete, is a monopolistic system. the average joe can’t open a hospital and compete……i am not talking about price controls….I am talking about cost controls. Hospital beds are regulated, but their cost is not.
We can agree or disagree on how to do it, but there is no question that the present system needs a correction or the cost will drown our economy. You can’t compare health care to a lemonade stand vs. another lemonade stand or any other business model. Only specialized entities can provide the health care lemonade, you can’t and neither can anyone else.
Govt can insure that health care is affordable, what is so bad about that. We have seen what an unregulated financial market has done to our economy, uneeded risks that we, the taxpayer are paying to the tune of trillions of bailout and stimulus nonsense.
You may know what you know, I don’t dispute that you have a philosophy and I have another, but your idea of free market economics has proven that is a broken model in health care. the market must be regulated, because greed trumps everything unless business are regulated.
Rocco,
Government cannot insure health care is affordable or any other service or commodity without paralyzing the industry. The govenrment can’t insure anything is affordable. Everything they touch is a bureaucratic mess. Just look at this “clunkers for cash” debacle. Again, the government puts a progam in place with little thought or foresight and lots of unintended consequences. You want these people in charge of healthcare? That’s the problem, the people drafting these bills have zero experience in the “real” world and live in an artificial world of government and politics. In this world, profit and loss does not matter. The revenue stream is our tax dollars, which they do not appreciate because they do not have to work for it, they just take it and spend it. My point is simply – keep the government out of it, period.
With regulation, service will diminish, the innovation and reasearch and development will stop. Profit is not a bad thing and we cannot predetermine or define profit. I would rather leave it and let the marketplace decide. The doctors, hospitals, imaging centers, urgent care centers, etc. have agreed to prenegotiated compensation by agreeing to accept the insurance. They have contracts which spell out exactly what they get compensated for every service provided. In turn, they have a large pool of potential customers who will seek their services, since they accept their particular insurance plan. I know this is simplified, but my point is, a lot of what you describe is already in place. The last thing we want is to limit or cap profits, if we do, we will all drown in a sea of mediocrity.
The discussion is all over the place, as it should be. The issue is also all over the place with accusations and charges over who is “making too much” or “is gouging the public.” I still don’t see any semblance of a definition of the problem. Let me take a stab at a definition.
Health care and its delivery system is extremely complex and involves several different disciplines. Until the providers, the subscribers, the insurance companies, the insurance agents, the third party administrators, the pharmaceutical companies, the pharmaceutical distributors, the pharmaceutical salespeople, the laboratories, the imaging centers, the lawyers, the courts, and the 50 separate state insurance administrations step up to the plate and come to a single agreement about what the consumer needs and can expect, no solution can be achieved. Sad but true, the government at the federal level has little to no control over any of these elements. The federal government is not capable of taking all of these free market elements and tossing them into a big pot. Each and every one of the stakeholders must be addressed separately and equally in order to achieve any goal that is somewhat fair to all.
Please notice that I tossed us the consumers into this fray. When was the last time any of you actually audited an explanation of benefits? A very good friend demanded and got the hospital’s itemized bill following a stay at a local hospital following triple bypass surgery. His insurance company had already paid the bill. He found in excess of $14,000 in fraudulent entries. There were doctors he didn’t know, tests he never had on days when he wasn’t even around, pharmaceuticals which were not in his records, etc. etc. Since the amount was ONLY $14,000 his insurance company refused to pursue it as too expensive for the legal fees. The friend challenged the bill directly to the hospital and the hospital reimbursed the insurance company. End of story: he never even got a thank you. Now in this little single tale, who is at fault and what can Obamahealth do to fix it?
Dave Health care fraud is a common practice. take a look at st joe’s in towson. my First heart attack. treated at a local hospital double charges for x-ray’s testing. & doctors I never heard of.
Trust me. it did’nt take blue cross & blue shield long to check it out.
Dave Points out an interesting thought! Again socialized medicine is not the solution. Something needs to be done. Those that deny that are burying their heads in the sand.
Dave –
You aptly point out that the consumer of health care and providers of health care when it comes to cost the consumers have no reason to shop for value or even know the actual cost of care.
However we do not need to get all the various parties together to agree on health care or sing Kumbaya, we need to remove barriers to competition and allow people to shop for value and then the pikers, bad actors and rip offs will go out of business. We need a health care private market. We need reward the innovators with profits from their creations.
Joe
Dave,
You keep saying that no one has defined the health care problem. It is a problem of cost and costs increasing at double the rate of inflation, as is if the health care industry won’t or can’t change the business model and make it affordable, then govt will step in and do something.
Insurers have no incentive to lower costs, because their premium structure depends on increases in costs to justify their increase in premiums. Hospitals don’t advertise based on cost, but on new servvices and state of the art, expensive new procedures. Drug companies advertise high end new medicines and urge patients to talk to their doctor about it.
I think they are squeezing blood out of their golden goose and resist any attempt to rain in their high premiums.
Rocco –
New procedures are initially going to be expensive in order for producers to cover the immense R&D costs and make a profit. Absent a profit there will cease to be innovation on the scale we have today.
Medical breakthroughs that extend life make health care more expense over time because people live longer and consume even more health care. So the more we innovate the more drugs and medical technology becomes available therefore we have more to consume and consumption increases expenditures.
Joe
joe
all you said is true. How do we rain in the expense in health care? who will be able to afford health care in the future? How do you reduce costs, so that health care doesn’t become a luxury for the few and well to do?
Rocco –
We need an environment where vibrant competition is rampant.
The government needs to knock down the barriers that prevent folks from being responsible in their health care purchases and allows people to shop providers and insurers.
Imagine health care in free market like computers which keep getting better and cheaper. A government take over of health care would be a disaster.
Joe
I don’t think it would be a disaster. The system is already a disaster. As I already stated a monopolistic system that is taking too many $$$ for our buying power. It keeps american companies from competing in the world market, see what happenned to gm and chrysler. their health care costs contributed to their bankruptcy.
the status quo is not acceptable. changes must happen, and it may not take the form of a govt plan, but health care insurance right now is too expensive for many businesses.
Rocco –
I answered your question and I don’t what else to tell you.
Joe
joe
fair enough.
Rocco,
Healthcare did not contribute to GM and Chrysler’s bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler foolishly offered retired union employees health benefits for life. Back in the early 70’s the life expectancy of a retired employee was about 3 1/2 years now it’s close to twenty. They overcompensated their employees, produced inferior products and gave employees benefits for life. There is no way they could afford to compete in the global economy with companies whose labor costs were significantly less than their competition. They had to cut costs somewhere and it affected the products that rolled off of the assemby line.
As I’ve said, the cost of healthcare is not increasing, it is the utilization. We live longer, in part due to increased medical technology and pharmaceutical drugs. It costs money. I think Joe is correct, in every other aspect of a capatilist society, competition forces companies to offer goods and services and a competitive price. If they do not, they will not survive very long. We need competition in the healthcare world. But remember, price is not everyhting. I would rather have a reputable surgeon operate on me for more, than a bargain surgeon.
I have a client who is Russian. He went on and on how government healthcare is such a bad idea. The corruption it creates, the waiting, the lack of equipment and supplies, etc. He has lived it. If you do not think it can happen here you are naive. As I mentioned in previous posts, I have seen socialized medicine not work in the UK. My father in law had two, quite serious health issues and could not get treatment. He opted to pay for the services himself. He told me that he could be dead before he gets treatment. On paper it may sound like a utopia, the reality is, much different. We can discuss later the younger getting treatment before the old, doctors determining who gets treatement based on a set criteria and who is sent off to die. That’s not what I want, do you?
communicator
you seem to communicate one point of view. how do we as a society insure affordable health insurance. the system in place does not compete on price, but on services. the free market has put us in a position in which millions of people have no access to affordable health insurance. does a person has to go bankrupt in order to access quailty health care.
there are many disparities in price for procedures. a simple cat scan can vary in the hundreds of $$$ from one provider to the next, and the consumer does not know the price of goods paid, that doesn’t sound be informative to me.
the free market system needs checks and balances just like govt does to ensure that access to care is affordable. this can be accomplished in many ways. the administration is looking at health insurance affordability, not to a take over of health care providers.
In other countries their system is one of public health care, clearly this is not what the american system needs, but it does not need be revised.
Rocco –
We do not have a free market system in health care today. We have a patchwork of state and federal laws/mandates that prevent market forces to act in a competitive way.
Joe
Rocco,
My biggest concern and my main point is I think you and many others put way too much faith in the government. Everything they touch is a mess. No forethought, many unintended consequences, red tape, government employees who have never worked in the private sector and have no concept of profit and loss, etc.
Yes, that’s right…everything the government touches is a mess. (Please note my sarcasm.) Think railroads, the highway system, the Internet, etc.
So how well is the privately run health care system running? I’d say it’s a bit of a mess.
Dave –
The only railroad development the government can take credit for is Amtrak. Amtrak is gigantic failure.
Highway system is primarily funded with fuel taxes and it’s broke, in fact millions have been spent on non-highway expenditures.
Internet while borne out of the cold war by government scientists the internet as we know has been created by for-profit entities and not government.
Joe
Dave,
Are you serious? The railraods would not be in business without being subsidized by the government, The highway system as Joe said broke and we can thank the innovative mind of Vint Cerf for the internet. The internet would zero impact on our lives without the free market capitalism.
Dave, you are another one who puts too much faith in the government.
And you, Communicator, seem to have faith in nothing but the power of the free enterprise system, and the belief of the inherent superiority of profit motivated decision making. Not everything the government touches is a mess, although it may not adhere to the social darwinist mind set you seem to espouse.
I work for the feds and have a great job with good pay, great benefits, a lovely pension in my immediate future, and the strong sense that I have made a positive difference in the lives of others. I have worked in a committed manner with similarly motivated and high functioning coworkers. A cost benefits analysis of the services I provide proves that immediate intervention and treatment for most individuals ( in a health related setting, mind you) saves us all money in the long run.
I
Yes, I’m entirely serious. Of course the railroads are outdated, but my point was only that we have had very few big innovations or advancements in this country in which the government didn’t have a substantial role.
I’m not talking about putting faith in or giving blind support to anything. I am skeptical by nature about anything to do with politics and government, but we certainly need some government intervention to right the ship when it comes to health care. I don’t see how the “free market” or for-profit entities will fix the situation.
I don’t see how the assertions that Obama et al are socialists who want to “take over” health care and make it into some European system have any base. I don’t see how anything that has been proposed amounts to a takeover.
Dave –
A government takeover would be a disaster.
You only have to look at Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to see what government control of health care will lead to.
Joe
Tami –
While you can posit your accomplishments as a government service employee you can’t prove the unprovable that government is efficient or cost-effective in Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security.
Less regulation promotes innovation and competition!
Lower tax rates increases tax revenue!
Joe
Tami,
I am not minimizing what your do, but I promise you, no matter how hard you work, no matter how diligent of an employee you are, you work for an organization that is not efficient, wastes money, does not have to show a profit, since all of the money you operate with is funded by the American tax dollar.
Dave, most of the health insurance companies are not for profit. But even if they were not, why is profit a bad word?
Read about McAllen, TX, in the poorest county in the nation, and why they have the highest cost of health care in the nation.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?printable=true
Dave –
A great argument for increased private sector competition, less government interference and more patient responsibility/control.
Joe
Dave
Thanks for the link. Hope all you Greed is Good people read it too. Profit is not a bad word but it does turn some people into monsters.
Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections
Tens of thousands with chronic back pain will be forced to live in agony after a decision to slash the number of painkilling injections issued on the NHS, doctors have warned.
The above is an article regarding cuts in the UK National Health Service.
Tami –
What about government greed…greed for power, greed for taxes and greed for hegemony?
Government greed through economic and political control is the most insidious kind of evil since it has no competition and once entrenched difficult to remove.
Government takeover of health care is not about health care at all it is about power.
Joe
Tami,
Face it, some of us believe in a free marketplace where innovation, competition and yes, even greed is healthy. A free marketplace promotes motivation, a will to improve and subsequently progress. Others, ( I think you probably fall into this category) want government control, think corporations (even though they employ most Americans) are evil and you just want to go to work, punch the clock and be taken care of from cradle to grave.
If you want to extinguish modern medicine, new medicine, procedures, equipment, cures for diseases, just take the profit out of it. It will be tantamount to pulling the plug on a boat and watching it sink. No matter how much you bail out the water, it will not be fast enough and so much energy will go into bailing the water, nobody will make a better boat.
Joseph,
1 – I’d assert that there are many, many more insidious forms of evil than government regulation/reform of health care. In fact, I’d wager that there are more evil things in the world than even governments with nationalized health care (those socialist pigs!!!).
2 – Could you explain how the proposed reforms equate to a government takeover or nationalized health care?
3 – What would any member of the Obama administration or Congress gain in terms of power by reforming health care?
Dave –
1. Socialism, fascism. communism, progressivism have produced the worlds greatest evil in governments.
2. A government takeover of healthcare would put 15% of the U.S. Economy under government control.
3. Health care takeover means creating a new agencies and unprecedented growth in government (i.e., bureaucrats) which equals power, control and money for the ruling class.
Joe
Come on, folks, give the government a chance. They are doing such a good job with the Veterans Administration hospitals that running our health care should be simple. Just ask any vet who needed treatment and went to a VA facility. Go on, it’s easy to find them. They are probably still sitting there waiting to see a doctor.
Phil,
You hit the nail on the head. The government can’t run a VA hospital, let alone the entire system. Everyone has seen the stories in the news (although, the media is awful quiet about them now) about the substandard care.
Dave – The democrats have forever wanted to create these programs that keep “the people” dependent on the government. Look at Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society – wow that worked out really well, didn’t it?
tami
you need to realize that these guys don’t believe that govt can do anything unless its GW giving them back $300.00 tax advacement for overpaid taxes 1 year ahead of their tax return, eveb though the nation still ran a deficit. I bet ya that when that happenned they were all for lower taxes and less govt. All these guys want is govt to go away, anarchy!!!
Rocco –
Conservatives are promoting less government, lower taxes and individual responsibilty. We believe that private sector solutions are preferable to costly ineffective big government boondoggles.
Joe
Rocco,
For the record, philosophically I was, as were many of Americans, were against these stimulis packages as well as many other programs introcduced during the Bush administration.
Unless it is in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, I do not believe the federal government should be involved, period. Everything else, becomes a state issue. Both sides break the law.
I do not want government to go away, I want the government to follow and adhere to the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less. I think we are headed in the direction of anarchy.
Gentlemen
I do not believe corporations are inherently evil, nor do I believe governments can be greedy. Individuals, however, can be both. Some people, when faced with a choice between what will benefit them personally and what will be a decision for the greater good, will make the selfish choice. Be that a surgeon who orders unnecesaary tests or a guy who breaks into my car to steal my stereo. Gov controls are necessary to protect me from both.
The health reforms proposed are not about amassing power for the gov or enriching the ruling class. The ruling class is not at risk of losing power or influence, nor will it ever be. The people who are most at risk if the reforms do not occur are the ones protesting Arlen Spector and those who fall between receiving gov provided medical care and those who are covered by a decent policy from their secure employment. They are self payers and those who can’t afford insurance for themselves and their families despite working hard and making the right choices. There are elected officials on both sides of the aisle who recognize the sad state of our current health system and the potential for disaster down the road.
As for expecting to be taken care of from cradle to grave: I do expect that if I am a productive member of this society I deserve a health care system I can access responsibly. Is that so unreasonable?
Tami,
The federal government should not run or manage anything not spelled out in the constitution. What the government should do is create laws that protect the citizens from corruption and crime, and keep law and order, whether it is from individuals or corporations. What the government should do is create an environment which encourages people to start companies, create jobs, stimulate innovation and for people to invest their money in the creation of these entities. This model stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Remember this, no matter what good the government thinks it is doing, it cannot do anything without first taking money from an American first, because government doesn’t have any money to begin with.
I think you said it yourself in your last paragraph. That you “deserve” healthcare. I do not see healthcare as a God given right or an entitlement, I see it as something that I must work for and provide the means to pay for myself. I can self insure (pay for everything myself) or purchase insurance with the money I make and protect myself this way. The idea that we as a society deserve anything is the root of all of our problems. The sooner we get rid or the “deserve” mentality, and the sooner we embrace the I am “willing to work for it” mentality,, the better off we all will be. I do think you deserve Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
If you are going to say that people need help and they can’t do it for themsleves, then we will disagree. The difference between me and you is, I believe people can provide for themselves but I think they have been trained not to or they are lazy. They look to the government for help and guidence because it is the path of least resistence. If the government were to say, figure it out on your own, people would figure it out on their own.
You seem to forget that the government is American. You are always speaking about the government taking money from Americans, as if it’s some entity in a far off place that has nothing to do with Americans.
Anyway, I understand that you like to think of yourself as a strict Constitutionalist who doesn’t believe the government should be involved in anything that’s not spelled out in there. What sort of health insurance market existed at the time of its writing? None, you might say, so the government shouldn’t be involved. Fine, but how about air traffic safety? I’m pretty sure the FAA isn’t spelled out in the Constitution. Things change.
Folks – lets clear up a misconception. You can negotiate costs with medical providers as a single, uninsured individual. I have done it successfully. A person without insurance may be billed $250 for that Xray that the insurance company already has a $85 negotiated rate for. The trick is knowing that these folks will negotiate with you because they do want to be paid.
Second – insurance fraud at hospitals, clinics, doctors offices, etc is rampant, and although you may have health insurance, it is still your responsibility to be a careful consumer. When my husband had open heart surgery at Union Memorial two years ago, I had a sign in sheet for all doctors, technicians, nurses, etc., that consulted or treated him. I made it clear that unless a signature and business card was presented along with a reason for the visit, no payment would be made. I audited those records against the dozens of different billings I received. Some billings were through the hospital, some through private billing companies, etc. I found on a number of occasions that doctors were double billing – once through the hospital and once through their practice. I found doctors who never entered my husbands room on bills, also double billed.
I found billing for medications he never received, and even an extra day at the hospital after he was discharged and at home. It was an astronomical amount of money. Part of it was deliberate, in my opinion, and part of it was just bad billing practices. A $40k surgery was billed out to $60k until I audited it, challenged the double billings, unknown doctors, etc.
One of my children works for a medical billing and administrative company and she admits that their billing system is horrible. No one except the programmers understand it, and the charges are always screwed up. Having worked with an office that billed through them, I had to audit the bills myself to figure out if something was applied, where, when, and what the actual balance remaining was on a number of occasions.
It is ultimately the consumers responsibility to hold these institutions responsible. You wouldn’t allow an auto mechanic to bill you for new tires that were obviously not installed, or consulting with another mechanic because they didn’t know what they were doing. In the same light, we cannot allow ourselves to be taken advantage of by a disorganized system when we are emotionally and physically vulnerable.
The responsibility lies with the consumer at all times. If we hold the providers and insurance companies accountable we will help reduce costs across the board.
Juls – Well said. As I’ve stated, it’s all about personal responsibility. I wonder if the same people that have so much faith in the federal government are going to go to the government to buy their $500 toilet seats and $1,000 hammers?
Dave,
I think the FAA should be a privately ran company. There should be no health and human services or social security. The department of education on the federal level is insane. Educational standards and practices should be mandated on the state level. The government is American but the founders wanted limited federal government and more powerful state government – we have the exact opposite. They can’t put into place any program without total chaos. Look at this simple (and unnecessary, wasteful and unconstitutional) program Cash for Clunkers – no planning, no forethought, another big government program wasting tax dollars.
Tami writes –
“I deserve a health care system I can access responsibly. Is that so unreasonable?”
The government takeover plan doesn’t ensure your responsible access at all, in fact it will obstruct your access, cost more and giving you less. And your family members on Medicare will have a worse time seeing a doctor.
Tami, you can hope and pray that government will get it right this time with a social entitlement program, however they never have before with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The government health care takeover is the biggest threat we have to our economy and future.
I am not willing to gamble our future away are you?
Joe
Cutting through the rhetoric:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/209817/page/1
Dave – how can you call
http://www.newsweek.com/id/209817/page/1
Cutting through the rhetoric?! It’s just another diatribe, not fact, not any real data. How about real data so folks can make an informed judgment about the whole affair?
I don’t think I’m alone in saying I’m sick of the rhetoric, the ranting, the garbage. Give the public real information or is that just too scary for folks. If the public has the facts, opinion may sway the wrong direction?
The real problem with this whole debate – actually with all of the nonsense thrown around regarding social programs for the last 40 years is that a government check is not the real American Dream.
What is the American Dream? It’s the FACT that we live in a country where if we are willing to work hard, are ambitious, and show some real drive and motivation, we can succeed. There is nothing to stop someone who is willing to work hard and sacrifice from obtaining real success. That success once EARNED is deeply savored and those who have EARNED it share their success by mentoring others so they can do the same.
I’m not talking about some stupid Ponzi or Pyramid scheme. I’m talking about working a 40 or 60 hour week, scraping and scrimping and going to college at night. I’m talking about digging in and working hard to learn new things, apply yourself, and make yourself and your employer successful.
How do I know – I’ve got 3 kids, 5 step kids, and have done it. I’ve gone from being on welfare in 1992 to being a computer engineer now. How? I busted my fanny to make it happen.
That, my friends is the American Dream. Now when I share my story and mentor other moms who want to do something positive with their lives, it means a great deal to me to know that all that hard work is a good example to others. That is what this country was built on and built for, not social programs, government handouts, and “redistribution of wealth”.
::stepping down off of soapbox::
Folks – sorry, but it needed to be said. Somewhere we’ve got to stop being a country of lazy, self absorbed, people with wicked entitlement mentalities waiting for the next handout. There are phenomenal opportunities available in this country for anyone who is willing to get busy; so lets get busy and stop whining.
I don’t see how health care reform equals lazy citizens…
Dave,
An article written with bias and many untruths, no lies. No sources to back up the accusations. It is meant get people scared and behave like a bunch of mindless sheep. This is the same magazine which kisses Obama’s ass at every opportunity.
Here is a more non-biased opinion on national healthcare, Dr. Walter Williams, Economics Professor, George Mason University. You will find this article not only filled with facts, but with the sources of these facts.
Sweden’s Government Health Care
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Government health care advocates used to sing the praises of Britain’s National Health Service (NHS). That’s until its poor delivery of health care services became known. A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, “Delay, Denial and Dilution,” written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now “waiting lists” for the waiting list.
Government health care advocates sing the praises of Canada’s single-payer system. Canada’s government system isn’t that different from Britain’s. For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks. Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless. Canadians have an option Britainers don’t: close proximity of American hospitals. In fact, the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in our country. I wonder how much money the U.S. government spends for Americans to be treated in Canada.
“OK, Williams,” you say, “Sweden is the world’s socialist wonder.” Sven R. Larson tells about some of Sweden’s problems in “Lesson from Sweden’s Universal Health System: Tales from the Health-care Crypt,” published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Spring 2008). Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor’s request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.
Malmo, with its 280,000 residents, is Sweden’s third-largest city. To see a physician, a patient must go to one of two local clinics before they can see a specialist. The clinics have security guards to keep patients from getting unruly as they wait hours to see a doctor. The guards also prevent new patients from entering the clinic when the waiting room is considered full. Uppsala, a city with 200,000 people, has only one specialist in mammography. Sweden’s National Cancer Foundation reports that in a few years most Swedish women will not have access to mammography.
Dr. Olle Stendahl, a professor of medicine at Linkoping University, pointed out a side effect of government-run medicine: its impact on innovation. He said, “In our budget-government health care there is no room for curious, young physicians and other professionals to challenge established views. New knowledge is not attractive but typically considered a problem (that brings) increased costs and disturbances in today’s slimmed-down health care.”
These are just a few of the problems of Sweden’s single-payer government-run health care system. I wonder how many Americans would like a system that would, as in the case of Mr. D. of Gothenburg, prohibit private purchase of your own medicine if the government refused paying. We have problems in our health care system but most of them are a result of too much government. Over 50 percent of health care expenditures in our country are made by government. Government health care advocates might say that they will avoid the horrors of other government-run systems. Don’t believe them.
The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, who published Sven Larson’s paper, is a group of liberty-oriented doctors and health care practitioners who haven’t sold their members down the socialist river as have other medical associations. They deserve our thanks for being a major player in the ’90s defeat of “Hillary care.”
The article I posted a link to is obviously supposed to be taken sarcastically. You say it is full of scare tactics? Like what? Asserting that somehow health care reform equals euthanasia? That health care reform equals acceptance of illegal aliens?
Did you read those talking points you cut-and-pasted? Since when does having linguistically appropriate materials equal catering to illegal aliens? According to the 2000 Census, there were approx. 47 million people living in the US who speak a language other than English. That number has almost certainly grown quite a bit since then. If there are indeed 10 or 12 million “illegals” here, you’re ignoring the 80 or 85% who did it right.
Congratulations to you Juls, as you used an entitlement program appropriately, and temporarily as it was meant to be used. Why do you think this is a society of people with wicked mentality issues waiting for the next handout? How does that translate to the desire for health care reform? And why would you deny anyone the same opportunity granted to you?
In Baltimore City currently the average length of time a family uses TCA (Temporary Cash Assistance) is 7 months. It is just that, temporary. There are a few who abuse it, make no attempts to secure employment, and are content to scrape by on it. They make me as angry as they do you. Conservatives do not own that particular emotional response to deadbeats. The whole point of the welfare system as it is currently run in Baltimore, is to force users to take part in job training, not just to prepare them for employment but to enable their children to observe a working parent. Even the Johnson administration people understood that a work ethic is learned behavior. Children that grow up watching parents (or parent) go out every day and labor for a living internalize it as surely as language patterns and political leanings. Trying to teach an older person to have a work ethic rarely succeeds. Either you have it or you don’t.
Tami –
We began the LBJ’s War on Poverty in 1964 spending over $1 Trillion dollars…you’d think we’d made a dent in it by now. Poverty seem to have won that war.
So, I guess public assistance is both temporary and perpetual? It would have to be, otherwise we’d run out of poor people to accept the money.
Joe
Joe the same can be said on about the War on Drugs and War on Terror and anyother stupid War program that can has been created. You will never iradicate poverty, drugs or anything else intangible.
For the strict constitutionalist what is meant by the phrase “promote the general welfare”?
I am very encouraged by the lively debate. The rally that will be held at Rep. Kratovil’s office will allow all to share their ideas with each other and hopefully with Rep. Kratovil. His office is at 202 S. Main St. in Bel Air, MD and we will be outside from 4-6pm with signs and hopefully will get Rep. Kratovil’s attention and some answers to many of our questions.
I find it very inspiring that the “curious masses” have attended speeches by delegates and senators that returned home for info sharing about CAP and the Health care bills. I hope that this freedom to share one’s ideas and speech is not taken for granted. How many folks show up will make a point and hopefully allow for quality not only cost.
Ms. Pat McGrady
Cdev –
War on Drugs not successful…however the post 911 War on Terror under President Bush and for the time being continuing under President Obama has indisputably kept Americans safe.
Joe
Cdev –
“promote the general welfare” doesn’t mean create welfare programs.
Joe
Cdev –
What does this K.M. quote “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” mean?
Joe
Cdev,
Promote general welfare means congress should legislate and create laws in the best interest of the nation.
Cdev, you and I finally agree on one thing – the war on drugs. A huge waste of money and resources.
War on terror – if you think that our enemies have not tried to attack the U.S. since 9/11 you are sadly mistaken. So many terror plots have been thwarted. If the details could be shared with the American public, most would be kissing the ass of President Bush.
Whether you like President Bush or not, he risked his second term of office on what he thought was in the best interest of our country. Sure mistakes were made (we would all love to have a crystal ball) President Bush made what he thought was the right decision, not the popular decision. Great leaders do.
The war on terror has been fought using tools that have undermined the constitution and those who have claimed it was for our good have sacrificed their freedoms in the Bill of Rights for it. Beyond that we have not found any of the WMD’s someone swore he was protecting us from. Infact he asked Sadam Hueisen to prove a negative to start the war. All the while he ignored Afghanastan and allowed Osama Bin Laden to flee and ignored the real war we should have been fighting. So in terms of stated objectives…..it has failed and cost tons of money. The War on Terror has been a failure it is Vietnam all over again!
Cdev –
We disagree.
Joe
I know it does not mean give out handouts it means take care of it’s citizens. BTW The Karl Marx quote is not what I am talking about either just simply fell regulations and harsh penalties for abuse need to be put in place to keep healthcare affordable.
Post #27 The Communicator
“I think the FAA should be a privately ran company. There should be no health and human services”program Cash for Clunkers – no planning, no forethought, another big government program wasting tax dollars”.
this maybe one of the most thoughtless and dumbest statements have read on this blog. The FAA can’t be under a profit scheme, because airlines seek to cut costs and worry less about safety and aviation standards as regulations cut into their profit margins.
Making sure that our elderly have some income to live on once they retire is not a waste, and the health and human services administers programs that promote the general welfare of the american people.
You may have a point about cash for clunkers. its ok to advocate for less govt, but to advocate for no govt will just make your argument seem foolish and without merit and reason.
Communicator,
What special classified knowledge do you have of the details of all the thwarted terror attacks for which I should be kissing Bush’s ass?
Dave –
Do you hate President Bush so much that you can’t see that his leadership kept us from further attacks by terrorists post 911?
And President Obama is sticking with the Bush Doctrine on The War on Terrorism.
Joe
Of course I am thankful that we have not suffered another awful attack. I don’t hate Bush (Cheney and Rumsfeld are another matter…just kidding). I do find it laughable that those claiming to be Constitutionalists praise the last administration for authorizing unconstitutional measures to spy on Americans, etc. in what I consider misdirected attempts at keeping us safe. Of course the end goal of keeping Americans safe is something wanted by all, but it surprises me that Constitutionalists who want smaller government seem to have no problem with how the last administration acted (Patriot Act, huge overreaches and growth of executive powers, etc.).
Asserting that we would all be “kissing the ass of President Bush” if we only knew what he did for us is just ridiculous. How could anyone without classified knowledge be able to say that? It’d be the same thing if I said “you all ought to kiss Obama’s ass because he single-handedly beat up a reincarnation of Hitler who was intent on exterminating all Americans…oh, but you can’t actually know that because it’s classified…but trust me, I’m a liberal so I must have some sort of insight that you conservatives can’t possibly know.” That’s just ridiculous.
Rocco – I absolutely think an organization besides the FAA could manage those responsibilities. Why do you inheriently think the governemnt is the only answer? Social Security is imploding. Medicare is broken. These are just more programs that make people more dependent onthe government instead of themselves. I am not against government. I am for a limited government.
Dave – I know people, and although no specific details could be shared, it was made clear (and it only makes sense – if you think about it) that there have been many more plots, plans and attempts stopped than we all care to know. Think of the ones that have made the news. Plenty of more have not. Listen, I am not drinking the Bush CoolAid. What I am saying is this man was in office when we were attacked. I believe he did what he thought was in the best interest of our country. By the way, I do think the Patriot Act is a huge threat to our liberties and freedom. Taking away liberties in the name of freedom is dangerous.
Yes, Cdev, no WMD were found, but everyone thought he had them. I mean everyone, us, the Brits, Germans, France, Russia, The Clintons made comments, as did John Kerry. So did ex-secrerary of state Madeleine Albright, numerous members of congress from both sides of the isle. So if this was the intelligence information that Bush had at the time, which was supported by most of our allies, congress, the CIA, FBI, etc. wouldn’t it have been negligent not to act on that information? I promise you one thing, had he not acted on that information and there was an attack with WMD’s you, me and a lot of other people would have wanted heads to roll. Like I said, it would be nice to have a crystal ball.
By the way, is well documented that President Clinton demanded not to be disturbed while at a PGA event (even though his aides tried to get him to take an urgent phone call) he was attending. Our military had bin Laden in their crosshairs and the opportunity to get him elapsed. So you are correct in that bin Laden got away but that was on Clinton’s watch, not Bush.
Tami –
It’s nice that you can quote statistics, but having been there and seen the abuses, I know those statistics are skewed to the political machine.
My point wasn’t to say that health reform supporters are lazy people, my point is that an entitlement mentality has developed that says “I deserve” – as you said yourself, and in truth, no one “deserves” health care or any other financial benefit. You work for it and you earn it.
I agree that there should be a clean up of the Medicare program — just look at the advertisements on television “we’ll make sure your scooter is totally paid for by medicare” – um, that’s milking the system and telling folks it’s ok. Those kinds of abuses need to stop. Yes, scooters are necessary for some people, but that is between them and their doctor, not some retail store advertising on TV.
There are currently programs in place that can handle a majority of the people that can’t afford health care. Expand those programs to offer health coverage with a sliding scale fee based upon income, and administered on the state level. There are ways to do this to help folks out without placing enormous government rules on our health care system. I for one don’t want the government telling my father when he can and cannot have access to treatment and giving him an “end of life” counselor. It smacks of uthenasia, is frightening, and opens the door to abuses we were previously protected from.
The Communicator
private enterprise is not the answer for anything that involves public good, service, safety and involves overseeing that regulations are followed. I agree that govt is involved in too much. Should we have a truly private army, police, fire dept, sewer…etc.
You have too much faith in the free market system that gave home loans to anyone that could fog a mirrow for the past few years. Or brought in toys full of lead from China, tainted milk, sheetrock that is contaminated. These actions were completed by your free market system. There must be checks and balances or greed will rain over safety, quality assurance, and will inherently bring in more risk to the consumer.
The FAA, FCC, SEC, HUD, are all important agencies with missions to aid, fix, administer and control certain free market activities. More regulation or better regulation will ensure that proper safety, rules of the game and disclosure will protect the consumer and citizens alike.
Your assumption that the private system is best for everything is just plainly short sighted.
Based on the Wall Street Journal article today “Will a Public Option Hurt Insurance Company Profits?” it seems that the huge insurance company profits aren’t so huge after all and the savings will have to come from providers (doctors and hospitals).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124947013703607453.html
Nonsense, the insurance companies make way too much money off our premiums. if they really don’t make so much, why are they in business? for their moral obligation to the consumer? I hardly think the WSJ would be a source of great impartialty in any matter that restricts the free flow of profits. their net is deflated by the high administrative costs (salaries they pay to themselves) and marketing. If you factor their salaries, stock options, and retirement deals, these guys make out really well. Their overhead is not that of a gm, dell, wallmart or any big box retailier. their highest cost is claims for sure, but 30% of their other costs are inflated and uneeded. that 30 to 40 % is extra money the consumer is paying for “costs” and profit.
By the way, many other businesses work on a profit margin of 1 to 2 percent. Ask you local supermarket how much they make, or your local gas station.
Look up returns on investment and you will see that their investment is minimal compared to manufacturing, industry and technology. These guys don’t want anyone else touching their golden goose.
The Wall Street Journal is one of the most accurate and respected newspapers in the world.
Wellpoint, Aetna and UnitedHealth are a public companies and you can look at the financials if you’d like to learn more. I highly doubt the Journal would ever lie about profitability of public companies that could be fact-checked so easily.
Maybe you should read the article once again?http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124947013703607453.html
joe
if they don’t make a high enough profit, then why are they is business.
Come on Rocco! On the one hand you insist that they are making huge profits and should be controlled by some numbnuts in DC and on the other ask why they are in business if they aren’t. Each one of those insurance companies is already scrutinized in each state to insure that their products are properly priced and delivering the services promised. We truly don’t need the 51st regulator. I’m in this business to a certain degree and am very familiar with the Maryland insurance commissioner’s office. They don’t need another boss, believe me.
After all expenses, the average profit in the industry is about 3%. That is also pretty close to the national average profit for all businesses in this country. If a company is not supposed to make a profit then they are in some other business.
Rocco,
I am not saying eliminate government, I am saying limit government and do not put so much faith in government. You also bring up an interesting point. Way back when, mortgage companies had self-regulated (they only wanted to write good business and good paper and it worked very well) strict guidelines and standards to qualify for a mortgage. It began with Jimmy Carter and then finally Bill Clinton’s administration really opened the reigns. They wanted everyone to “live the American dream” and be able to buy a house. They put policies into place, threatened and strongarmed lenders to relax their underwriting standards or face fines and possibly being put put of business. Then the applications started rolling in and you and I both know the mess this created. Remember, the mortgage companies managed this themselves for years, it worked well. You needed a certain percentage for a down payment, you needed an adequate credit score, you needed a job, you needed a certain income to debt ratio, etc. When the government got involved and forced the mortgage industry to implement practices it otherwise would have never engaged, we now have the mortgage crisis. The mortgage industry was very sound financially. That is why so many companies, mutual funds, individuals, etc. would buy their stock, they knew it was a great investment. That was until the governnment intervened and it all went to hell in a handbasket.
I also blame the mortage companies. They, in many cases, broke the law. They took liberties, many falsified applications, showed applicants income higher than it really was, but they did this because the government had eliminated the mortgage companies own guidelines and human nature took over. The same human nature will takeover once healthcare is “free” and is government sponsored. The providers will over bill and misrepresent (we see this today in medicare already), people will over utilize the system, after all it’s free right? People will take the path of least resistance, over utilize, waste and not appreciate the healthcare because it does not cost them anything.
Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank are probably the two who are most responsible for this mess. Dodd is the chairman of the National Banking Committee and Frank is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Both were warned, and questioned numerous times about the mortgage industry. Both commented that there were no problems, HUD, Fannie Mae and Fredide MAC were fine, no worries. Many economists questioned the practices (again created by a way too involved government) of the mortgage companies and banks and they were ignored. President Bush was also concerned and questioned these practices. All while Barney Frank has a boyfriend who is an executive at Fannie Mae with much to gain or lose and Christopher Dodd is getting sweet mortgage deals for his own home. Both dropped the ball and both blame others for the mess.
Another point, personal responsibility; you point out that the mortgage companies are to blame. What about the people applying for these mortgages?They knew there was no damn way they could afford these mortgages? Some of these people had homes foreclosed on without making a sngle payment. again, personal responsibility is never mentioned. Always look to the government for help, let the govenment make the rules that everyone must follow and never blame the government for setting up rules that will never work. Have you ever studied economics?
Yes grocery stores and gas stations operate on a low profit margin. That is their business model which is self regulated through a free market system and competition. Don’t you think the supermarkets wouldn’t want to make a 10% profit? Of course they would, but if they raised they prices to achieve this margin, people would shop elsewhere. By the way, most companies do not operate on a 1% – 2% profit margin.
Why is profit is not a bad word. If the insurance companies don’t make a profit, who do you think the would pass along their loss to? Us, that’s who. So if the insurance companies do stay in the black, that ultimately keeps our insurance costs lower. If your company did not make a profit, you may not have a job and the company may not be long for this world. That is assuming you work for a private company. If you work for the government, then you have no idea the concept of profit and loss in a business setting because your revenue stream is derived from other people’s hard work and sacrifice.
Communicator check some facts the failure of the mortgage industry can be linked more acuratly to the repeal of the Glassman Seagal act. There was a lot of lobbying for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act in 1999 which allowed lenders to underwrite their own mortgage and eventually to turn a larger profit, as banks often do, they began robbing Peter to pay Paul. Then when people defaulted on these loans they made to people that could not pay they did not have the money to back it up. Carter had nothing to do with that and Clinton did sign it into law. I notice you only blame Democrats for the problems not both sides of the ailse who are equally responsible!
Cdev,
It did start with President Carter. Interest rates were extremely high (16%) and Carter implemented the Community Reinvestment Act. So you do your homework.
Deregulation is not the problem, forcing banks and mortgage companies loan money to people who are not financially able to repay the loans is a receipe for disaster. That is precisely what President Clinton and Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of HUD did. They started this entire mess by minimizing the role of credit histories in lending decisions, loosening required debt-to-equity ratios to allow borrowers to make small or even no down payments at all, and encouraging lenders the use of floating or adjustable interest-rate mortgages and teasers rates.
The system on the open market worked before. How can you argue it did not? We never had a mortgage crisis remotely close to thsi magnatude, until the government changed the rules. Clinton changed the rules, made the mortgage companies and banks loan money to people that they normally would not by changing underwriting guidelines. Basically, they changed the foundations of a very successful and secure industry with social and economic engineering. Again, the government gets involved and there is kaos.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act was not bad legislation, that did not cause this crisis.
If I came to you for a loan, would you loan me money if I had a poor credit rating? No, because I had proven that in the past I was not responsible and that it was statistically probable that I would not repay your loan.
If I came to you for a loan, would you loan me the money if I did not have the means to repay you? No, because I would not have the income to repay my obligation.
If I came to you for a loan, would you loan me money if I did not qualify (as long as there were no violation of lending laws, i.e. race, religion, national orgin, etc.) under your guidelines to qualify for a loan? No, you would not and that is your right. After all it is your money to begin with and you should be able to lend it to whom ever you want. At least in my world. But in your world, I or the governemnt should be able to tell you, who you should lend money to or risk fines or being put out of business?
Yes but Gramm-Leach-Bliley allowed banks like Citi-group to be involved in mortgages and insurance on mortgages. They then could not back up the money they lent out causing the bank to suffer when it’s bad loans went south! This regulation was put in place in the 1930’s because of the deppression for exactly this reason to keep a colapse in one sector contained. The repeal of this act allowed these bad loans to fail and move into the insurance sector. The rules changed under Clinton…..include this bill which as I said was a GOP brain child. I am not blaming republicans only, the Dems did it too. It passed both houses with little opposition and was signed by the president. BTW lowering interest rates is not the problem. If it was we would have had massive forclosures in the 80’s and we did not. Our recession started in housing but spread quickly because of Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
Cdev, you are so off base. Clinton changed the rules that required lending institutions to make bad loans. That is why we are in the mortgage mess we are. The repeal of the act had nothing to do with the loans going bad, if they were good loans, written on strong criteria and underwriting, they would never had gone bad. The loans that were given under Clinton’s new rules would have never been approved in the first place.
Yes but even if the act had not been repealed when those loans went bad they would have been covered by solid loan insurance.
Two Nobel Prize winning economists seem to disagree with you.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/the-gramm-connection/
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5835269
The mortgage mess can be blamed on many laws and both parties actually share the blame along side with the federal reserve. After the savings and loan crisis of the 1980’s laws were changed to allow commnercial banks, wall street banks, insurance companies and cunsumer credit entities to enter the game of real estate. Up until this point, S&L’s and state and federal chartered banks did most of the real estate loans in the nation.
The subprime market stated once deregulation allowed the aforementioned parties to enter the real estate lending arena. No doc loans, stated income loans, liar loans, libor loans, negative amortization loans, balloons, and interest only loans were used to qualify people for higher amounts than they could afford. Greed on the part of consumers and lenders alike pushed for riskier products and higher loan amounts to be awarded to purchase real estate that by most acconts kept rising in value, as is lenders saw no ristk to them because they used swaps to “insure” their portfolios against the risk of default.
There wasn’t one particular law that allowed it to happen. Everyone won, the dems got the homeownership rate to increase, and reps got increases in borrowing that allowed for greater purchasing power and created an aura of hidden wealth that really did not exist.
The CRA did not promulgate lesser underwritting standards, just required lenders to report demographics on the people being approved and denied loans. The CRA applies only to federally chartered banks, none of the subprime lenders needed to follow their rutles. Wall Street firms saw fat profits and big dividends in lending. Predatory lending abuses, and high cost loans became the norm.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entered the alt-prime market-a step above subprime because their business was being taken away by subprime lenders. The GSE’s lowered their standards to compete for business. No law was created to mandate anyone to give loans to anyone that could not afford it. But the market set the tone and govt did not intervene in the ongoing mess until prices became unaffordable.
The Fed had the power to monitor what kind of loans, terms and products could be sold, but did not issue new guidelines until 2007, clearly the horse was out of the barn by then. Greenspan showed a “hands off” approach and he has indicated that he did not think that it would have gotten as bad as it did. Most wall street bankers did not have this complete meltdown in their models, but Goldman Sach’s never did enter the real estate lending and concentrated on “swaps” instead and reaped huge profits, Lehman Brothers became a huge subprime lender and introduced many risky products due to greed, not being forced by any govt entity to comply with any laws.
I think there was plenty of blame to be shared here by private and public interests alike.
The Supreme Court failed when they declared state laws invalid in forcing national banks to follow state law in serving loans in a particlular state. This my friends in my opinion made the playing game devoid of any rules that mattered. There weren’t any federal laws that regulated commerce of real estate. For example, Maryland has a high cost law on the books that national banks do not have to follow because they are exempt from state requirements.
A patchwork of regulations, laws, and enforcement showed that the free market if left to its own devices will find a way to turn a fast profit and leave consumers with no real value.
That my friends is the end of this story.
Since rocco’s declared that finished, let’s get back to health insurance. Who was saying that their profits aren’t all that much?
Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly-traded health insurance companies in 2007 rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, from $2.4 billion to $12.9 billion, according to U.S. Securities and exchange Commission filings. In 2007 alone the chief executive officers at these companies collected combined total compensation of $118.6 million—an average of $11.9 million each. That is 468 times more than the $25,434 an average American worker made that year.
The companies practiced anti-competitive behavior, price-fixing, and controversial financial maneuvers to artificially inflate their stock prices while they raised their premiums.
dave,
the communicator seems to think that insurers do this for their moral obligation and they don’t actually make that much money. Thanks for the FACTS. i hope that some good can come from shinning the light on insurance companies.
r
Dave,
“The companies practiced anti-competitive behavior, price-fixing, and controversial financial maneuvers to artificially inflate their stock prices while they raised their premiums.”? What an irresponsible statement.
Why do you focus on what the CEO’s make? You cannot compare what an average american makes compared to their salary because the average american could not be the CEO of a corporation. Let’s be honest, the average American can’t locate Washington D.C. on a map, tell you when World War II began and ended or name the current Vice President of the United States.
Only 77% of the kids are graduating from high school and while only 65% of those go to college and only 29% earn a bachelors degree. Notice I said earn a bachelor’s degree. It involves work and dedication. Please don’t give me the college is unaffordable line, if someone wants it bad enough, they will figure out a way to earn it. I did, as did many other people I know. That’s why the average amarican only made $25,434 last year.
Rocco and Dave –
You’ve obviously missed the point of the article which is you could eliminate the insurance companies and
“simply eliminating profits would only allow the public option to undercut the private sector by 4% or so.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124947013703607453.html
Under a government takeover of health care the savings will have to come from hospitals and doctors. And even then you will need massive tax increases and rationing to pull of this travesty of less care for more money.
Joe
How exactly is that an irresponsible statement? Need more info?
The chiefs of the largest provider
group in Massachusetts and the state’s largest
health insurer made a handshake deal to avoid
creating written evidence of the arrangement.
In that agreement, Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Massachusetts pledged to increase payments
if the provider group, Partners HealthCare,
ensured that no other health plan would be
charged less.
When small, independent providers want to
negotiate with multiple health plans, large
insurers exert enormous pressure to stop them.
The statewide trade group for doctors in New
York sued UnitedHealth Group Inc., the nation’s
second-largest health insurer by enrollment, for
allegedly using illegal coercion in just such a
scheme to limit competition.
In a separate matter UnitedHealth agreed to pay
$400 million to settle multiple suits alleging
price fixing and other anti-competitive
behavior.
The attorney general of New York,
Andrew Cuomo, stated that this was, “a huge
scam that affected hundreds of millions of
Americans [who were] ripped off by their health
insurance companies.”
Numerous other insurers
were implicated in the same scheme, including
Aetna Inc., Cigna Corp. and WellPoint Inc.30
If they chose to, private insurers could use their
market power to drive hard bargains and lower
costs, but instead they have passed along these
costs through higher premiums to enrollees and
employers. John Holahan and Linda Blumberg
of the Urban Institute note that “[d]ominant
insurers do not seem to use their market power
to drive hard bargains with providers.”
Large insurers do not face pressure from smaller
insurers, which use premiums that “shadow”
those of dominant insurers. Consequently,
insurers are able to pass costs on to individuals.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a
respected expert panel appointed by Congress,
reported that while, “insurers appear to be
payments to providers, they have been able to
pass costs on to the purchasers of insurance
and maintain their profit margins.”
In a recent paper Jacob Hacker of the University
of California, Berkeley, showed that Medicare
demonstrates it is possible for savings to be
shared with individuals instead of being taken
as profit. Between 1997 and 2006, private health
insurance spending per enrollee grew at an
annual rate of 7.3 percent, compared with an
annual growth rate of 4.6 percent in Medicare-a
37 percent difference.
Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly-
traded health insurance companies in 2007
rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, from
$2.4 billion to $12.9 billion, according to U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
In 2007 alone the chief executive officers at
these companies collected combined total
compensation of $118.6 million—an average of
$11.9 million each. That is 468 times more than
the $25,434 an average American worker made
that year.
The rising premiums paid by employers and
families not only generate oversized net
earnings, they also fuel controversial financial
maneuvers designed to pump up insurers’ stock
prices, which in turn help executives reach their
personal bonus targets. From 2003 through 2008
the seven largest publicly traded health insurers,
which cover 116 million Americans, spent $52.4
billion buying back their own shares. Buybacks
reduce the number of shares that are publicly
traded, raising the value of existing shareholders’
stakes. Companies make share repurchases with
excess cash on hand or with borrowed funds.
Buybacks are a way of removing money from
a company’s balance sheet for the benefit of
investors, reflecting management’s decision
not to invest in improving a company’s
operations, making the health system run more
efficiently or reducing customers’ premiums.
The companies prefer to hand over the money
to Wall Street investors and executives whose
soaring compensation packages depend on
reaching earnings-per-share goals that often
would not be achieved without buybacks.
Insurers have demonstrated through their
actions that they do not use consolidation
to bring efficiency to the health insurance
marketplace. Instead health insurance
companies use their size to engage in anti-
competitive behavior, rig the system to impose
premium increases that grow faster than
individuals, families, and businesses can afford,
and ensure “astounding levels of profit” for
themselves and their shareholders.
joe
you can hang your hat on that article. the truth is that insurance companies are in the business of making money, and that they do really well unless they engage in real estate “swaps” and other high risk insurance such as homeowners insurance in hurricane, or earthquake zones. the facts bear that they make too much money and gauge the public. Either they themselves reduce their costs (this reduces their margings) or a public health insurance option will. The writtiing is on the wall.
Rocco –
You just don’t get it do you!
We could go to a single-payer system and all those insurance company profits would not provide enough savings to offset the program. The government takeover of health care will require doctors and hospitals taking a haircut, taxes must increased and care would be rationed. Oh and if you are on Medicare prepare for even less.
Dave –
Regarding post #168, you are violating copyrights and intellectual property rights of authors/publishers of articles if you copy entire articles and pass them off as your own work. Is post #168 your work?
In fact the practice of posting other people’s work violates the Dagger Press’ Terms of Service.
Joe
Joe,
Well, I apologize. This is in fact a short section of an article and I didn’t think I was implying it was my own work. I certainly should have cited it, however. In my short time here, it seems to be common practice to copy-and-paste sections of articles.
Here is a link to the full report, from which I pulled content off of pages 6-8:
http://healthcareforamericanow.org/page/-/competition%20state%20reports/july-18-updates/NationalALL.pdf
Thanks for correcting me,
Dave
#15 Pat McGrady –>
The Emergency Room today is the one place where we already have socialized medicine in the United States and yet the rationing of care which you expressed fear over clearly isn’t happening there today. As it stands, 55% of all expenses related to the care and treatment of emergency patients are not paid by anyone and instead “absorbed” by the hospital yet if people were left to die in the ED these hospitals would all be out of business because of liability lawsuits. To claim that a federal insurance plan that covers more of the people, that makes it so that 90-95% of all emergency care is reimbursed back to the hospital instead of the current 55%, will result in worse emergency care is just outright wrong.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA) is a federal unfunded mandate which (to quote Wikipedia here) “requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.” Any hospital expecting to receive payment for any other Medicare or Medicaid care they deliver has to comply with this act. The result of this is that even with all the creative billing that #125 Jules points out, 55% of all emergency care in the US is currently unfunded.
You pointed out in the last paragraph of your post that everyone in the US (without regard to what language they speak, I might add) does have access to health care today. Today, this is because of an unfunded Regan-era mandate that as the cost of care increases is bankrupting our hospitals and flooding our emergency rooms, but the hospitals are doing a brilliant job in triage the flood to ensure that all emergencies are handled properly so that nobody’s grandma goes untreated.
Socialized Medicine in the US came into being the day that EMTALA went into law. EMTALA is much of what is wrong with the spiraling costs of healthcare today (coupled with better technology). Taxpayers need to stop living under the delusion that they can get free access to health care without its costs being seen somewhere. Either we abolish EMTALA and the obligation of hospitals and first responders to provide free emergency care or we find a better way to pay for it but what you posted is just political hack rhetoric and fear mongering for a hidden political agenda.
joe
we just disagree on this. I don’t see how a single payer system has been so bad for Medicare. There is no rationing of Medicare and the system seems to pay a reasonable fee for services provided. Clearly, I don’t see any hospitals going out of business because of it. Rationing? I don’t see how you can predict that outcome. Just scare tactics, that’s what i see.
Pat,
people with no insurance end up at the ER because they can’t be denied services. If they had insurance the services provided would be paid and hospitals would get a fair reinbursement for the work done. Emergency care for anyone is the moral obligation of the host country, we are a coutry of morals aren’t we? My spouse got sick on a trip to Spain and she was serviced rather well and we paid a nominal fee for the service, she wasn’t denie service or assistance.
Of course illegal inmigration is quite a different story and we should move back to open borders as it was when we became a republic.
Joe is the haircut analogy yours or the analysis from Rush Limbaught that I heard this afternoon?
Rocco –
You cannot add millions of people inclusive of illegal aliens into a health care system without adding more doctors/hospitals, therefore if you have more patients going to doctors more often then you have to have rationing including Medicare folks.
The laws of supply and demand are not suspended or frozen when you go to a socialized health care system. In fact socialized health care systems typically cause supply and innovation to decline because it removes the profit motive.
Joe
So Joe what do these Millions of people you contend we are adding do when they get sick now? Do they just die in their homes?
Cdev –
I don’t listen to talk radio very much and I don’t parrot Limbaugh.
Joe
P.S. AM radio reception in HDG is so crappy when I’m in the car I have 98 FM on.
the people here are already being serviced by the current system, there is no more strain on it if they are insured. Innovation will continue because we are still paying doctors and hospitals, just taking the insurance’s high profits out of the equation which will result in more affordable health care for everyone.
Cdev –
The government takeover of health care does not address cost and will not fix health care cost problems. Again it will cost more for taxpayers and we will get less. Go back and read my very consistent posts.
Joe
Rocco writes “the people here are already being serviced by the current system, there is no more strain on it if they are insured. Innovation will continue because we are still paying doctors and hospitals, just taking the insurance’s high profits out of the equation which will result in more affordable health care for everyone.”
You are wrong about your above conjecture.
It is wishful thinking that a government takeover of health care, effective abolishment if private insure companies, care rationing and price controls will improve our health care.
You can keep making things up, however you will never be able to defend the indefensible…ObamaCare. And if you are on Medicare you should be even more concerned.
Joe
#51 Communicator -> You are making the same mistake as #15 McGrady.
The uninsured are getting healthcare through an unfunded mandate to emergency rooms that has turned the ER into a primary healthcare provider.
You are happy to have the government mandate that the hospitals give away their care for free but now that they are saying that you need to help pay for it you start talking like a Libertarian.
Conservatives/Libertarians/TEA Party need to grow a pair and start saying EMTALA was a Regan-Era mistake that has put our nation’s healthcare system in crisis and move to rescind it OR they need to offer an alternative plan that correctly reimburses the care providers for the care they deliver on behalf of public good.
You all are good at pointing out that nowhere in the constitution does it say health-care is a right so stop pretending that the public is thieving from hospitals and health care providers today. Of course health care providers are making no more money even though their prices have shot-up because we put a gun to their heads and said if they want to get any money for taking care of our seniors, they need to also treat half of all emergency patients for free.
American Taxpayers needs to either start paying it’s full tab or stop ordering a free round for the house when it bellies up to the bar. It is that simple.
180 Rocco — I’m more in agreement with you and Dave than most others on this thread.
Still, Yes, there are some potential savings that could come from eliminating Insurance company profits but those will be offset by the fact that the Govt. spends less time/expense/effort in searching out and eliminating fraud and cheats. The savings cancel each other out.
Assuming EMTALA stays (my preference), I’m not sure if we need nationalized insurance vs. just making it mandatory that everyone pay into SOME insurance plan and then offer blind national (or conglomerate) reinsurance pools. The thing is there are a bunch of pundits out there pushing facts and figures about what costs more or who to blame when none of the studies take into account the fact that so much care in this nation is being given away for free today.
This debate needs to stop being about how else we can squeeze the balloon without it popping and instead recognize that EMTALA + Medicare/Medicade as the already law of the land means that the American electorate desires and insists on a sustainable universal health care coverage plan.
I’m again disappointed that my fellow conservatives, libertarians and TEA Party colleagues, of which I am one of, are putting themselves on the wrong side of this issue for short-term political points. All of the alternative proposals from the right are a disaster in that they make no sense and solve nothing. Those that opt to say there isn’t an issue and are instead attempting to obstruct any plan are only a mere few weeks away from having their legs cut out from under them when the press starts quoting problem statements uttered by G.W. Bush from the prescription drug debates (kind of like how we got into Iraq by conservatives quoting Clinton’s statements about WMD there). Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
#181 – Caruso: It will cost the taxpayers more, yes. But this is only because today “We the People of the United States” are acting like a collective bunch of New Jersey thugs making health care professionals “an offer they can’t refuse” that forces them to give away treatments and services for free. Yes, it costs more when you pay for it rather than steal it. What I ask is that we please stop acting like it’s within our rights to be stealing this care (see my above posts).
I believe you are wrong in your statement that you will get less as a result of paying for service, though. Please show me one case study from any time in history that a delivered products quality or quantity was reduced when it was paid for fully each and every time rather than having a portion of it regularly stolen (again, see my above posts). Normally, when you start paying rather than stealing the quality of goods and services you receive go up. What is amazing, and a tribute to all our working health care providers today, is that even though we are stealing from them they still are opting to deliver us excellent care.
What we should see happen if we put in place a solid system that is funded well-enough to reasonably guards against fraud is that the rate of health care cost inflation will slow to be in-line with the normal inflation of the economy. All because we stop acting like a Tony Soprano pretending that skimming off the top never hurt nobody.
ForestHillResident –
The government takeover of health care plan cannot work without rationing of care and increased taxes on everyone who pays taxes.
There will be never be government efficiency in health care since the government has never been efficient in any entitlement or social programs…Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Joe
P.S. My wife worked in the ER in NY for 11 years and in Medicare Claims Review for 7 years.
forest-hill resident
you seem to be making some sense, and i am beginning to get your thinking. I know that the status quo won’t work going forward. We can’t have 40 million hard working middle class without a health insurance alternative. The purists can just hide under a rock and say “is not a constitutional right” and the govt will create an inefficient govt all you want, the “bottom line” as ray ray would say is that the present sytem disposes of thousands of people from the health insurance ranks, and just having them show up at the ER for primary care is not only a waste of money but also highly inefficient. This type of health care goes unreinbursed and all of us end up paying for it one way or another. That’s the problem that happens when people don’t recognize workable solutions that would allow people to pay into a health care pool that would make their health insurance affordable. Instead, we just propose that a govt plan won’t work and that the private market would suffer? How about the middle class suffering?
Let’s include the real cost of american companies not being able to compete because their costs of employment are too high and are forced to cancell family insurance for their workers. Employers such as Walmart paying their workers just enough so that they qualify for Medical Assistance and thus having the american tax payer pay for their employees health care, mean while Walmart profits over a Billion per month.
lets find a way to keep our private insurance system, while giving everyone a chance to buy affordable health insurance. I am not for a public health insurance plan per se, but the current system is falling us.
Rocco –
The question is about a government takeover of health care Obama style and not about whether or not to reform of health care cost and competition. The Obama plan is ill-conceived and it will hurt all taxpayers especially the middle class.
Bad solutions don’t make bad situations better!
Joe
Forest Hill Resident,
The point about people getting care in the ER’s is that there is an avenue for care for the uninsured. I am not saying it is an optimal situaltion but Cdev and Rocco want to have a government sponsored, one payor system. Like every other nation with this type of healthcare, it will be over utilized and then the people who really need treatment either won’t get it or potentially wait months or years for treatment.
Dave points out some examples of insurance company abuses. Like the insurance industry is the only industry with some corruption. So what do you do? Do you punish the masses for the sins of a few? Of course not, you punish and punish severely the people who commited fraud or crimes and make an example of them. What you don’t do is throw the baby out with the bathwater and revamp a system that works very well for most of us.
I know WBAL ran an online poll (I aknowledge that is not a scientifically ran poll) and close to 84% of the participants said their healthcare was good or excellent, another 7% siad it was satisfactory. So even if there is a margin of error of 15%, nearly 75% of those participating were at the very least satisfied.
Forest Hill Resident, read post #132 where I listed Dr. Walter Williams article about socialized healthcare inSweeden. The UK, Canada, Sweeden and a host full of other countries have had socialized medicine for years and they all are experiencing the same problems – Long waites for service, inferior service, lack of money and resources, patients not getting the most modern treatment and drugs due to cost, etc. There are many, many people in the UK who buy their own health insuance because the system is broken and bankrupt. What makes you think we will not experience the same problems? The government can’t run VA hospitals, what makes you think they can run the entire system? Guess what, they can’t.
the communicator
we can learn from others mistakes and make a better system. i never said I wanted public health care program, just affordable health insurance for all.
Rocco writes “i never said I wanted public health care program, just affordable health insurance for all.”
Well Obama care does not deliver it.
Joe
joe,,
there are three bills being considered and the final bill hasn’t been approved. I don’t know the details of the final bill. As far as I can tell they are looking at an affordable health insurance option. No one is taking about a public hospital system or a govt provider plan. Interestingly, they only people floating a public health care program are those against any kind of reform.
those against it have no put forward any meaninfull option that would allow people to purchase health care other than tax breaks that do not lower the cost of care, but make premiums sheltered from taxes.
Communicator you did not read a word I said. I said the system needs to be reformed and said that full takeover is not it please refer to posts 16, 42, 57, 68, 77, 88 & 145. Perhaps you need comprehension lessons!
Rocco –
The House bill is the foundation for the Obama government takeover of health care and like all bills the Senate will get their bill together ending reconciliation. However we are starting with bad law from the House which is being rushed through the process.
Conservative Americans are demonstrating against what has been proposed in the House.
Joe
conservatives demonstrating………oh you mean those guys that harrass, yell, scream, and prevent any kind of dialogue to inform the public? I think these so called conservatives are more like right wind idealogs that are narrow minded and offer no solutions to our nations health insurance affordability crisis.
They can demostrate all they want, but I don’t think they have the numbers to abort (sarcasm) the plan.
Rocco –
We are a center-right country that does not embrace socialism. The vast majority of people don not like the direction Obama is taking us in.
Regarding demonstrations the left certainly demonstrated aggressively and sometimes violently with the media cheering them on from the 1960s through the present, but now that independents, libertarians, conservative democrats and conservative republicans speak loudly against the proposed government takeover of health care you object?
Go pound sand, Rocco.
Joe
Communicator –> Please see the link to the 2004 survey of how UK citizens perceive the quality of their own healthcare. 94% of Hospital Inpatients are satisfied with their care and 87% of General Practitioner visitors were also satisfied with their care. How many of WBAL listeners are currently users of socialized medicine programs like Medicare and Medicaid? These probably should have been excluded, likewise how many or were otherwise insured, probably too few vs the true population. Your instincts of rounding down to 75% satisfaction may actually be correct. All this shows is that people trust the providers that they opt to go to. Using this as an excuse for apathy is an incorrect leap in logic.
Joe – Health care in the US is already being rationed and much more inefficiently here than in every other developed nation. As your wife or anyone working in a US ER should be able to tell you, we have far to many cases of patients who waited until their illness becomes an emergency before seeking care. The cost of 90-minutes in the ER attempting to resuscitate a patient is equivalent to the cost of blood pressure medication for life. Instead of a system that encourages access to primary and preventative care, we instead choose to ration that interaction and instead give away emergency treatment when the inevitable problems get out of control. Just the fact that you are confusing the comparison of the wait times and costs for an almost healthy individual who regularly sees a primary care physician with symptoms otherwise manageable with medication to get a “just to be safe” MRI diagnostic in another country to the can’t-wait must-get-done-now crisis care that has come to be the norm here in the US proves my point. Care rationing is also actively growing now through hospital closures and the number of care providers that simply opt not to accept Medicare/Medicaid and the strings that come along with it.
On your other points of course if you stop stealing care and instead pay for it it will cost you more –> no matter if the new plan is Obama Care or the alternative Magic Pixie Dust Care plan that some seem to want to hold out for it’s either going to cost more or just plain not work.
Here’s the link to the survey that I found from educating myself about universal healthcare on Wikipedia which I find it’s a great source for those that like facts without politicized spin:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FreedomOfInformation/Freedomofinformationpublicationschemefeedback/Classesofinformation/Communicationsresearch/DH_4129933?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=16549&Rendition=Web
Come to think of it, maybe that’s why the Tea Party has their head in the sand on if there even is a health care crisis –> they think that is where the magic pixie dust is that cures everyone.
i thought the civil rights movement was about getting people to be treated humanly. I think you, right wingers rather protest about taxes that people. typical.
I’d say this is a pretty good caricature of the “demonstrations.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/a-first-hand-view-of-a-raucous-town-hall-meeting.html
And as a quick reminder to all those TEA Partiers that like to pretend our freedom is being stolen by a tyrant and that they are somehow carrying out the will of the people every time they make a fuss, the people are not necessarily with you.
“Views of Income Taxes Among Most Positive Since 1956”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117433/Views-Income-Taxes-Among-Positive-1956.aspx
Forest Hill Resident – I do not need a survey to know that the system does not work in the UK. I lived there for three years. My wife is from there. My mother and father in law live in the UK. As does my sister in law and her family and plenty of friends.
They are finding themselves paying for services out of pocket, waiting months and years for treatment, being given inferior (not state of the art) treatment in the name of saving money.
My sister in law is a nurse. I speak with her all of the time (especially lately) and hear the frustration she experiences as both a care giver and a patient on a daily basis.
So do you know what you can do with your survey? Move to Canada or the UK and come back in three years and tell me how great healthcare is.
Rocco, The left has traditionally, forever been the group that has demonstrated in the streets. Now you see some demonstrations regarding a subject you do not object to and you now call it “harrass, yell, scream, and prevent any kind of dialogue to inform the public?”
The difference between you (forest hill and Cdev too) and me is simple; I am willing to work for everything I have. I expect nothing from the federal government in the way of taking care of me or my family. You and your kind on the other hand practice the art of thievery. You want to take the money other people make, redistribute the wealth so everyone feels good about themselves. Because the government does it, it’s ok. If I came up to you in and demanded your wallet, took half of what was in your wallet and gave it to people I deemed more in need than yourself in the name of compassion or in society’s best interest I would go to jail.
You want to know the real problem. Many Americans are fat, dumb and lazy. Most do not have an appreciation for what a great country we live in. We won life’s lottery – living in this country. I wish more would appreciate it. This great country was not built on socialism. It was built on capatilism, hard work and people taking personal responsibility.
Way to go, Communicator! You’re so awesome! Too bad all those liberals are evil socialist thieves…
Rocco, Cdev and ForestHillResident –
Heed well The Communicator’s rebuttal…it is spot on!
Joe
P.S. I will be at Kratovil’s office on Tuesday August 11th from 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM to express my opinions and help him understand the folly of a government takeover of health care. Freedom of speech is for everyone and not the sole province of the left.
Joe,
Nobody has proposed a government takeover of health care and I may need to poke my eyes out if I read that phrase one more time on The Dagger!
Here’s a little commentary on all the false accusations and scare tactics being thrown around:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080603854.html?nav=hcmodule
I don’t call someone with cancer “dumb, fat and lazy” Affordable health insurance is a real problem in this couttry for hard working, smart and self supporting middle america, Can’t you see that the present sytem in which thousands of americans lose their insurance due to layoffs, the expense of it don’t have any other option other than lose their life savings, home and end up filling for bankruptcy because they can’t afford their health care bills? Is this really a system worth keeping the same?
You attitude towards govt in general sums up that you feel that money is being taken away from you. Maybe you should move to a country with no infrastructure to speak off and pay no taxes there. Here however the things we have need to be paid.
I pay for my own health insurance and don’t need the govt to subsidize it. However many people can’t, or their employer does not have an affordable option for their employees. You righties practice the art of tax evasion everytime you can, so that you can get yours without paying for it. Talk about the highest form of thievery.
Dave –
The Obama plan is most assuredly an incrementalist plan toward single-payer since there is no way government can fairly compete with private health insurance options. And frankly the government as health insurance regulator and insurer is untenable.
This is political debate about personal choice for individual health care options versus centralized government command and control.
It is interesting that Americans so despise “Socialism” and socialist programs that those on the left that promote these entitlements will go to such great lengths to attack conservatives when they point out “Socialism” as “Socialism” and the left will call these “Socialist” programs anything but “Socialist”.
Joe
Joe,
I don’t believe that Obama, nor any of the mainstream leadership in power, has a “socialist agenda.” Are you asserting that this plan is only a slight step towards socialism, but that Obama et al are sneakily trying to move us to socialism step by step?
Directly from the Washington Post article I linked to above:
“Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals.
“The centerpiece of all the plans is a new health insurance exchange set up by the government where individuals, small businesses and eventually larger businesses will be able to purchase insurance from private insurers at lower rates than are now generally available under rules that require insurers to offer coverage to anyone regardless of health condition. Low-income workers buying insurance through the exchange — along with their employers — would be eligible for government subsidies. While the government will take a more active role in regulating the insurance market and increase its spending for health care, that hardly amounts to the kind of government-run system that critics conjure up when they trot out that oh-so-clever line about the Department of Motor Vehicles being in charge of your colonoscopy.
“There is still a vigorous debate as to whether one of the insurance options offered through those exchanges would be a government-run insurance company of some sort. There are now less-than-even odds that such a public option will survive in the Senate, while even House leaders have agreed that the public plan won’t be able to piggy-back on Medicare. So the probability that a public-run insurance plan is about to drive every private insurer out of business — the Republican nightmare scenario — is approximately zero.”
Rocco write “You righties practice the art of tax evasion everytime you can”
I think you’ll find more tax evaders, underreporters and cheats on the left, in fact many hold high office in the Obama administration…e.g., Timothy Geithner.
Anecdotally, some off the most blatant business skimming, paying folks under-the-table and sales tax fraud happens in Democrat metros like New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, DC, Miami, Chicago and LA.
Joe
Dave –
We simply do not need to rush to health care reform plan. And I object to the misdirection of the Obama, Pelosi and the left.
We need a thoughtful bipartisan national debate on this very important issue.
Why are Obama, Pelosi and the left against a “Great Debate about Health Care Reform”?
Joe
You mean the debate that’s been happening since the 1930s? You mean the debate we’ve been having here on The Dagger? I don’t think there are many people trying to quash the debate. People who are trying to quash the debate are those who spout off talking points (admit it, we’re all guilty sometimes) and who try to shout down politicians and ordinary people trying to speak at town hall meetings and the like.
As for rushing the reform, if deadlines are not set, nothing will ever change. That would make a very small minority happy (and perhaps those running the private industry at the moment), but is unsatisfactory for the vast majority of Americans.
how about Joe the Plumber.
Rocco,
I never called someone with cancer dumb, fat and lazy. Don’t put words in my mouth.
I was referring to parasites that want to redistribute the wealth and take money from people who are willing to go out and bust their ass every single day to provide for their themselves and their families. The same people who will not go out and work for it themselves.
I also did not say that I am not willing to pay taxes, trust me I pay plenty. I am against over taxing and wasting money on issues that are not the responsibility of government. If you want to fund these programs, get out your checkbook and pay what ever you want. Keep your hands out of my pocket.
I love my country. Why would I move? My country has a great set of rules call The Constitution. I just want the rules to be followed. You want to make up rules and change the rules when it is convenient. I think you should move. You can set up a counrty where everybody takes care of everyone else. Where there is no personal responsibility, accountability or structure. You could call your country Spongemborg, Parasiteatropolis, The Unites States of Moochers or Bloodsuckeramania.
I am curious, Rocco, are you a military veteran? Just curious.
Speaking of military vererans let’s tlak about John Kerry. I found this snipet from an article regarding charitible contributions:
“Kerry reported (in 2005) a taxable income of $126,179, and charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he reported income of $127,884, and charitable donations of $2,039. In 1993, he reported income of $130,345, and contributions of $175. In 1992, he reported income of $127,646, and contributions of $820. In 1991, he reported income of $113,857, and contributions of $0.”
So the Senator, who pontificates and campaigns on taking care of the poor, social programs, spreading the wealth, etc. makes $625,911 over a five year period and gives $3,034 to charity. At the same time, he is not a bit shy about taking your money and mine and funding programs he deems worthy. Again, a life long politician and “public servent” who is willing to spend my money but not his own.
Define tax evasion. Are you saying I break the law and do not pay taxes? Or are you saying that I follow the law and take advantages of loopholes based on the advice of my CPA? I just want to make sure you are not calling me a criminal.
Joe,
You forgot to mention in the tax evaders and presidential cabinet nominees Hilda Solis, Kathleen Sebelius, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer and Ron Kirk.
If you remember, it seemed every cabinet nomination made by President OBama had tax issues. Of course, they were all honest mistakes.
Communicator –
When Imperial members of the Obama administration cheat on taxes it is simply their liberal adjustment due them for political service, you see the tax laws are for the unrepentant conservative taxpayers.
Joe
Joe,
Well Said.
I’m pretty sure tax evasion has nothing to do with political leanings, one way or the other.
Joe states in an earlier post that ,”we need a thoughtful bipartisan debate on this very important issue”. I could not agree more.
I might suggest to some on this list that calling those who do not agree with you “dumb, fat, lazy, and parasites” does not encourage a rational debate.
I also would like to suggest that an obsession with “socialist and socialism” and constantly referencing it in posts says more about you that about those you are communicating to.
It is clear that there are people on oppositie ends of the political continuum who are posting here. We seem to agree on little else than that changes need to occur in the manner of health care delivery in our country.
Dave –
You think so? The fact is no one knows for sure? However it is well known that Republicans give more to charities and Democrats give less.
Additionally, the are many more registered Democrats that pay no taxes at all when compared to registered Republicans.
So your premise that there is no difference in moral compasses, compassion and views on personal responsibilty when comparing Democrats to Republicans, you are simply wrong.
Joe
Tami –
It is disingenuous of the left to obfuscate socialist programs by saying they are somehow not socialist.
Joe
Joe,
So the fact that poor people pay no taxes means they have no moral compass? I don’t want to turn this into class warfare, but what about Warren Buffett’s challenge?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21708265
I suppose we could call tax evaders scumbags. Being a Democrat or a Republican has no bearing on whether you’re a scumbag, however. Perhaps a lack of a moral compass makes you a scumbag, but I don’t think that has anything to do with your political leanings (forgetting fascism, despotism, etc.).
Could you please explain to me the socialist properties of the proposed health care reform?
Dave writes – “socialist properties of the proposed health care reform”
Answers:
1) Government control of health care
2) Redistribution of taxes paid by one group to pay and subsidize health care for another
3) Government intervention in the private business sector i.e., health insurance
4) The goal of a single-payer system
And Dave I think you are all about class warfare, redistribution of other people’s wealth and a social welfare state.
Joe
1) So like government control of the postal system? Government control over our airline safety? Changing regulations, offering an insurance exchange, or even offering a so-called “public option,” does not constitute control.
2) Yes, this is how taxes work. It is how they work in a socialist state, a capitalist state, a republic, etc. The rest of the country pays taxes to keep up the roads that the poor (who may pay no taxes) drive on. I don’t need to pull out an income tax return to call 911 or use other public services.
3) The government most certainly is already involved in health care and changing this involvement does not mean a takeover.
4) Whose goal is this? When has this ever been stated or even implied?
Communicator
Whether I have served is none of your business!!!.
I don’t think that has anything to do with the political goings back and forth nor does it have anythng to do with my political views. I support our millitary as much as you do, and their sacrifice has been felt in my family too in WWII, Vietman, Bonia/kosovo. None in the present wars directly, but I have lost close friends in Iraq.
You insult the very nature of those who serve for our freedoms when you question whether I served or not. They paid the ultimate price for my right to express my without you questioning my alliance to the nation that I love.
As for your last charge about there being a goal of a single-payer system, this is most certainly not the case.
When the Senate (I believe it was the Senate) held its recent hearings on health care reform before the legislation all got started, no advocates for a single-payer system were invited or even allowed into the hearings. Insurance company representatives and universal health care advocates were, but those who want a single-payer system were not.
In fact, I remember it being on the news that two women from an organization wanting a single-payer system showed up at the hearings and were arrested when they tried to speak. A single-payer system is not anywhere near a political reality in America and it is not being discussed as an option for now or for anywhere down the road.
Tami,
I said “Many Americans are fat, dumb and lazy.” I did call anyone on the blog anything, but if the shoe fits……….In the future, please do not put words in my mouth.
For the record, I do not think anything needs to change in regards to healthcare. I am, as are most, pleased with my healthcare and insurance coverage.
You may be happy with your care, and there are certainly many Americans that are, but there are also many Americans who are not happy with their care or who have no care. You are definitely in the fringe minority when it comes to thinking that nothing needs to change.
This is from CBS News:
“While many have criticized Mr. Obama’s proposal for a public option, Americans generally see government involvement in health care in a positive light, and most support it. Fifty percent think the government would be better than insurance companies at providing medical coverage (up from 30 percent in 2007), and 59 percent think the government would be at better holding down costs (up from 47 percent in 2007).
“More generally, 64 percent of Americans say the government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans. Just 30 percent think this is not its responsibility. Those percentages have been stable for many years.
“When presented with the option of a government-administered health insurance plan similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance companies, 72 percent are in favor and just 20 percent oppose. Even 50 percent of Republicans favor that option. ”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml
Rocco,
I insulted no one. I asked a simple question and you got your panties in a bunch.
Obviously you did not serve. That’s ok. (although I am in favor of a mandatory two year military serve for everyone – but that’s a different conversation for a different day) My point was simply that you told me to move out of my country. I have found that people who have served in the military and had the opportunity to live overseas have more of an appreciation for how great we have it in America and how plentiful the opportunities for success if you are willing to work for it.
I did not ask you if you supported the military. You say you do, great, we need more that do.
You say you love your country, yet, you do not believe in adhering to The Constitution?
Communicator I have too second that vote. I have done some extensive traveling out side of the U.S.A. spent a bit of time in south america in 1972. there’s no country in the world like HOME SWEET HOME. land of the FREE ! THE U.S.A.
I am very pleased and satisfied with my health care and insurance coverage. That does not close my eyes to the fact that many people are not, and many more are at risk of financial ruin if a health crisis presents itself. This ( in most cases) is not because they are lazy, inferior, or somehow undeserving. It is solipsistic to be a part of the “I Got Mine and to hell with everybody else” school of thought.
i guess the litmus test is that if you have served you have a right to complain, but if you didn’t you can’t. interestingly, those who served, did so to protect my rights too.
for the record I did serve, did you?. I tried taking the high road on this one, but some people can’t be reasoned with.
Tami,
if you want to be your brother’s keeper, have at it. It is not so much “I have mine and the hell with everyone else” is it is I’ve worked for mine so work for yours. I am not opposed to helping someone out temporarily, who needs help. But let’s not change the entire system when most are satisfied with what we have. Personal responsibility.
Rocco,
I never even implied that you do not have a right to complain if you have not served. What I did say is that those who have served and especially the ones who served overseas see things from a different perspective and appreciate how good we have it here in the US.
For the record, yes I have served. Five years active duty and three years in the Guard. I am not saying that gives me more rights, more of a say, or any other advantages other than I lived overseas, I have visited many countries and we have it great here. At least from my perspective.
communicator
thank you for your service. we just disagree on how America can be even better.
#203 Communicator — I’m disappointed that you switched from a rational discussion to talking in circles and regurgitating political slogans (you should see your doctor about that problem; maybe a Limbaughectomy is in order. 🙂
Please reread my previous posts #174, 184, 185 and 186 that you chose to insert your self and debate me on with your #190 post. My intent is to educate, not to argue. In response to #190, I provided a truly scientific survey that combats your monte-carlo sampling and from that point instead of a responding with a rational response you spiral into jibberish.
Let me restate for you the basis of my arguments so far in contrast directly to your #203 post.
If you were truly a person who is committed to the values of earning what you have and paying for what you receive, as you claim to be, please explain to me how you can possibly support the US health care system based upon EMTALA that currently steals 55% of the cost of emergency care in the US from Hospitals and EMS providers in the name of the greater good. It is simply wrong-headed to think that the greatest healthcare system in the world can sustain this level of thievery without effect. The current effect is that our emergency rooms are overcrowded and that health care costs in the US is spiraling up at an inflationary rate that is now out-of-control and at a rate that is much worse than every other developed nation in the world that has some sort of universal care plan implemented.
On the fact that US healthcare today is second to none, we both agree. Based on the symptoms described above, though, I’m saying, though that the system has the equivalent of high-blood pressure as a result of this thievery and I think we should start responsibly investing in some medication that can relieve the undue pressure of EMTALA before something fails catastrophically. Google “status emergency care US” and you can find hundreds of articles written in the past several years that support this claim — you say you have family that worked in the ER but you fail to say if they agree or are instead oblivious to the crisis? In contrast, you are saying that we should do nothing and hope a heart attack doesn’t happen on the trauma system. The point where no one will have enough money or insurance to obtain the major care that they need later in life.
I just visited an uncle this weekend while I was on vacation who just found out that he is being dropped from his insurance because he exceeded his $1M lifetime benefits. Father of 3 who is now 2 years shy of qualifying for Medicare who worked his life for one company in a physical job and was able to retire a couple years early after his health took a turn for the worse. He is now driving an airport shuttle to pay for his (Type 1) diabetic supplies and insulin out-of-pocket and worrying that the batteries in his pacemaker don’t run out before he can get back on medicare. How many more years of runaway medical cost inflation do we need before such a story is commonplace??? You’re OK with the notion that if the current uncontrolled inflation continues there could come a day where anyone who was unlucky enough cancer in thier 50’s is guaranteed to exceed their lifetime benefits before they go into remission (how’s that for a system of rationing)??? You don’t think that seeing the sickest among us being dropped from any kind of health insurance coverage, further requiring doctors to write off 15-20% of the care that they provide as charity for which they raise prices on everyone else next year a worse system than UK / Canada???
If you were truly an intellectually honest conservative like me you would recognize the thievery for what it is, admit that stealing has consequences, and either push for the ending of EMTALA or support a solution that pays the provider for the care.
Again, I’m disappointed that you were on the precipice of thinking for yourself for once and then decided against it.
The Town Hall Mob:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html
ForestHillResident –
Could you be more condenscending to The Communicator?
You have some gall to say that conservative folks must be acolytes of Rush Limbaugh when the assert their speech in stating that people should earn their own way, be accountable and responsible, have government butt out of our lives and tax us less.
Are you zealot disciple of the “Great Leader” Obama, Pelosi, Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, etc…? Do you want to dismantle capitalism and move us to a cradle-to-grave nanny welfare state so popular and failing in Western Europe?
You spew a lot of rhetoric, but you are short on who will pay for this government takeover of health care scheme Obama can’t wait to install.
What most people fail to understand is that the Obama plan is not about health care it is however about health insurance. The foolish government takeover does nothing to give people more access to care since doctors don’t have to accept Medicaid, Medicare and the Government Optioners. And does even less to reduce the cost of care, which government is incapable of doing anyway.
Joe
I apologize for misspelling condescending.
Mea culpa
Joe
Communicator, You seem to take such offense to “have words put in your mouth” but had no problem doing that in post # 190!
Further more you again seem to be reciting the Limbaugh talking points I heard today again on the radio. I know Joe says he doesn’t listen to AM radio but you and him seem to be geting your talking points from the same place. As ForestHillRes. pointed out this is not a govt. take over it is simply another option. Those of you who are against this I hope you plan on declining Medicare when you get older. After all if it is about personal responsibility take some and properly plan for your retirement so I do not have to pay for you as you get older.
I again think a total take over is not a good idea. I say this because as a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States; there are problems with the British system. But it is not a train wreck. I think we need to offer a way for uninsured people who for a variety of reasons have the ability to get AFFORDABLE insurance if they desire.
To set the record straight, I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity either. I read, one of my favorite authors is Walter Williams. I suggest Cdev, Tami and Rocco read a little from Dr. Williams. It may help cure your CTG syndrome – That’s Cradle to Grave.
Another question……Particularly since we had a letter from one person critical of Kratovil because he feels that Kratovil didn’t. Has anyone here actually read the bill in kargr part or it’s entirty? It is 1017 pages in length. I just figured it was worth reading some sections or skiming. I have not had time to read the whole thing and will not but have read some chunks and sections of interest. I listen to talk radio from both sides and read news from multiple points of view. I have come to the conclusion that not many people have actually read it and are content being told what was in it. I couldn’t find the part that said anything about a single payer system. I did see the section about a public option but it seems as long as you have your own insurance you can keep that. It might eliminate medicare but simply enroll those in the public option.
Cdev –
Sure you can keep your health insurance for awhile but if your employer discontinues their plan or your individual plan provider pulls out you are forced into the government option.
Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Sanders all want on single-payer. Their strategy is to incrementally destroy private health insurance.
Why would any of you proponents for a government takeover of health care think that after the same politicians that have bankrupted Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security would now be successful with our nation’s health insurance?
Joe
Joe I do not think I have read one person who believes in a govt takeover. various people think there needs to be some option or level of regulation. But no one here has said (infact they have emphaticlly denied that) there should be a govt. “take over.”
Communicator –
Even if you did listen to Limbaugh there is no need to apologize for it.
These liberal leftists think that conservatives are locked into some kind of group think, well conservative ideals follow the thinking of Reagan, Thatcher, Churchill, Goldwater and W.F. Buckley, while liberals follow the thinking of Carter, Roosevelt, Lenin and Castro.
Socialism is great, until you run out of other people’s money. M. Thatcher
Joe
Cdev –
We disagree.
Joe
Joe,
Not a big Limbaugh fan. I don’t like his style. Walter Willams is a great read. I like to catch Brian Wilson if I can too.
On another note, isn’t ironic that the federal governemnt put laws into place such as the Clayton Antitrust act and the Sherman Antitrust act to prohibit monopolies. It’s not that I disagree with antitrust legislation. I just don’t think the government should prohibit competition with the federal government. If a private corporation can deliver a better product or service, why stop it? Yet the governenment has no problem protecting its own monopolies such as the post office? Now that’s a well run efficient machine. If the post office were a privately owned company it would have been out of business years ago. Soon it will be healthcare.
I still do not have an answer as to why the President and Congress have excluded themselves from the new government health plan. I guess the plan is so great that they would not want any of us to think they are taking advantage of their postion in public office? It surely couldn’t be because the plan is crap and they don’t want it for themselves or their famalies……could it?
Joe, Correct we disagree, but that is what makes the United States we are free to disagree with each other. We are free to tell each other that and at the end of the day we are still Americans. I once read somewhere that alot of times the true implications of a policy is not apparent until ten years after it is inacted.
Guys, I listen to Limbaugh and Hannity even though I disagree with about 75% of there opinions. I do it because it keeps me thinking. For the most part they are reasonable sane people whom just disagree with me. My critique of them is Rush puts Party ahead of right or wrong. Hannity generally will call Republicans out for being hypocrites although he is starting to talk as if he buys into the Birther stuff.
Although niether of you answered my question….Have you read the bill?
I have read alot of it and read summaries elsewhere.
I have viewed:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/hr3200_summary.pdf
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3200
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3200:
Joe
Communicator –
While Limbaugh’s bombastic style may be irritating to some his conservative ideals are consistent with those of others like Dr. Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell.
My point is that true conservatives are not part of some Borg like group think from Star Trek fame.
Joe
Joe,
I agree. I just don’t loike his style. I am certainly not a koolaid drinker. I disagree with a lot the republicans do. I think inheriently, both sides are evil and self serving. I am conservative my nature on most issues regarding fiscal responsibility, limited government, etc. but I am equally socially liberal. I enjoy freedom and I know that with freedom comes responsibilities.
Communicator –
Conservatives must be forever vigilant against the progressive, liberal, socialist, fascist continuum.
What most people do not recognize is that progressive movements have been responsible for the origins of early twentieth century Italy and Germany societal disasters. Those countries were caught up in severe economic upheavals that over time brought fascist/socialist totalitarian regimes to power. And what I find completely ironic is when leftists call conservatives fascists or Nazis when those ideologies were rooted in progressivism.
It is unfortunate that Americans do not embrace geopolitical history from the Grecian-Roman eras to present day.
Joe
I think left wingers would like to peg conservatives as narrow minded drones that do what Hannity or Limbaugh would want us to do. Many conservatives such as me have ideas and views alongside the expectrum of political thought. It is not incompatible to me to believe in limited govt and in setting up a health care marktet place that allows people to purchase affordable insurance. But states have many requirements that increase the cost of insurance.
This can be accomplished by allowing limited insurance policies that cover basic needs, or insurance that covers catasprhophic events such as surgery or expensive treatments. This however is not possible because our great state of Maryland has added many mandatory components that a person can’t buy a limited policy or a catastrophic policy should that be their choice.
The problem seems to be that the insurance industry is forced to provide a high level of services by law!!!. For example, a few years ago the state of Maryland passed a law that compels insurance companies to include dependents up to 25 yrs old!!!. This seemingly small change increased the cost of health insurance for most families because now insurance has to price in their family premiums additional risk for a family to have an insurance policy insurance policy that covers all mandatory elements required by law. These changes even though well meaning, do in fact increase the cost for employers and employees.
Govt in general, is unable to really design a health insurance plan, because they never have to include making a profit and paying the bills……they can just borrow vs. their national equity. These guys think of a “program” as a goody bag to please their constituencies and provide social goodness out of everyone else’s pocket.
I hear them say “we aren’t advocating socialism” but they are embracing socialiast concepts and ideology. Please, anyone tell me where socialism works anywhere in the world? anyone? anyone? Bueller?
The answer is, it doesn’t. The system implodes because it sucks the life and work ethic out of society. Unemployment soars, the government begins to mandate when employees can be fired, mandatory maximum number of hours worked per week, mandatory vacation, etc. Where does it work?
Our founding fathers feared this. Go back and read any of their writings. This is precisely why they formed and fought for this country. Go read Madison or Jefferson notes and letters.
Cisco –
Great post!
I am a conservative and if a liberal calls me an idiot for my conservative idealogy and views then I am on the right track. History and soundness of my positions are my validation. And I ask them to live up to the the same standards. They are unable since their examples fail the test and their theories are unproven.
Joe
Cisco,
Good point. One note – the law in Maryland that mandates the keeping of dependents on until they are age 25 is for employers of 50 or more. It does not apply to small groups below 50 lives.
Rocco, Cdev, Tami & Dave –
You are supposed to help Obama and his minions track conservative dissent by emailing our expressions of free speech to flag@whitehouse.gov. So have at it!
Joe
joe,
their theories are alive and well in European countries saddled with national health care debt. they increased mandates on their insurance coverages and they over utilize basic health care, run up costs for “free” prescriptions and they allow people that “can’t” pay to be at higher income levels every year. This cost is passed on by having high energy taxes. That’s why their gallon of gasoline costs $6.00 and they have value added tax that taxes the auto they purchase from the stamping plant, to the manufacturing, tires, engines and finally is paid again by their consumers.
I have met many europeans that have moved to the “land of opportunity” because in their lands they are not able to hire and fire freely. In some european countries if you hire an employee and then you let them go, the employer is on the hook for that employees health care insurance for up to 18 months or as long as they remain unemployed. Unemployment benefits also last for 18 months.
My family moved from Europe, so this is a marketplace that I am rather familiar as my brother just visited this summer and he really would like to move here to the land of the free. I don’t see alot of these wannabe europeans actually moving to Europe.
The liberal banter is just that, banter and complaining. No plan, no forethought, just what would make us feel better or the old “if we could just save one more life”, Complain, complain, complain.
Then they implement a plan and uh oh, we didn’t think about that or they just dump more money and resources into the problem and the numerous unintended consequesces it created.
Conservative people are not evil, they are responsible. It’s easy to be a liberal politician; you can get up on your pulpit and tell everyone everything you are going to do for them. What programs you are going to inroduce, how you are going to make life more easier for them. Where a true conservative tells his constituants to take responsibility for themselves and not to look to the governemnt for help.
I have another question….why do these poiticians insist on calling themselves lawmakers? we have enough laws. They should be repealing laws not inroducing them. Everytime another law is passed, more liberty is lost. Politicians do not think they are doing their job unless they are introducing bills. Where did we go wrong?
Thanks for the correction. But the point being that Maryland has many unfunded mandates, that although well meaning, increase the overall cost of basic insurance for a family looking for that kind of coverage. In fact, you can’t get basic coverage in health insurance, but you can get basic coverage for your auto insurance.
I am afraid that allowing the feds to control what is covered and the minimum requirements will restrict choice, increase costs for everyone eventually, and bankrupt our nation faster than 10 Iraq wars.
My family came originally from Europe, I have to tell you while their “free” health care restricts enployment (most european countries think 15% unemployment means we are doing good!!!), and increases their cost of gas to $6.00 per gallon and their value added schemes lower their standard of living, and take away opportunity and innovation because employers can’t just hire and fire, no they have to carry their employees insurance for up to 18 months past their employement or as long as their former employees are laid off!!!.
What does this mean? My nephew, graduated with an engineering degree two years ago…can’t find work and is now a bartender!!. Who is going to hire him if the employer is on the hook for 18 months of insurance if he does not work out for his new employer?
For any american that wants european style health care, they should move there, I can guarantee you that there are 10 europeans for every american that would do that trade.
In response to 254
India
Portugal
Egypt
Sri Lanka
Ireland
Joe,
#1 I find that repugnant that it is asked and would never do it.
#2 It was as repugnant as the Patriot Act which asked us to do the same thing.
Which essentially means that since Clinton left office we have moved to a Facist govt since 2001! Just like the saying “Those that would sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither!”
#3 I am not a loyal supporter of Obama I am an independent. You know the 30% of Americans give or take who decide the presidency every 4 years and who controls congress based on how the other side screwed up before. I have voted as follows
88- Bush; 92- Clinton; 96- Perot; 00- Gore; 04- Nader; 08- Paul (Write-in)
I would not say that I am loyal to one side or another! I vote for whom I think is best and I do not vote lesser of two evils. I would have voted for McCain except his health worried me and Palin was to much of a Jesus Juice Drinkin Republican for me. That created the mess the 8 years before. I think we need a third party in this country because both sides have grown accustomn to being in the minority with an attitude of we will just wait for them to screw up and do nothing to propose alternatives. Imagine if you will the GOP had to compete with another minority party to ascend to the majority. We might hear actual ideas or alternatives.
Communicator we went wrong when we made being a legislature a full time job and paid like it was. we should pay far less and only have it meet for some defined time like the MD General Assembly!
Progressive liberalism = impotency.
Cdev = naïveté…you may be beyond redemption.
Joe
Cdev,
You voted for Ralph Nader? I can understand Ron Paul. Liked Paul’s domestic policy but the foreign policy was too simplistic. You voted for Ralph Nader? That guy is a complete nut job. I think what credibility you had, you just lost.
Surely, you are not saying that socialism works in India, Portugal, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Ireland? Have you seen the poverty? Have you seen the dispair? The unsanitya conditions in which people live in these countries? The class warfare with no hope of ever improving their situation? Their standards of living are so much lower than in the U.S.
The funny thing is the poor in other countries live in tin shacks, with no clothes, no food, no hope. The poor in the U.S. have cell phones, microwaves, color tv, etc. Why is it the US has the fattest poor people in the world? They are not poor, not comparitively speaking. But the big difference is, here in the US, with our capatalist, free economy, anyone can improve their situation. Hell, Bill Clinton grew up poor, raised by his grandmother in Arkaksas and became the President of the United States. Say what you want about his politics, he worked hard and lived the American dream with hard work. A socialist society will never offer the same opportunities.
Hey I did not like the direction Bush took this country and Kerry was to spineless to stand up and put an end to the very incorrect swift boat information. He just assumed it would be to absurd and people wouldn’t believe it. I don’t want someone in the oval office like that who is supposedly going to run a war. Nader outlined a simple plan it was called leave! A lesson we have not learned from the British.
I never sayed they do not have poverty but socialism has worked in those countries and we even call them our allies. Britian is controled by the Labor party which is socialist in nature so some could contend they are socialists. We do not have a socialist party in this country that is gained much ground. But let us be honest the GOP has ruined it’s credibility and is not doing much to get it back. The plan they have seems to be say no and wait for them to screw up! Well that is no plan at all.
the argument that socialist regimes work too…is just plain foolish. Tell me, would you want to live there? Is their standard of living as good as ours?
the best ways to lower health care costs would be to remove barriers to insurance, deregulation of states enorous insurance mandates that just increase the cost of insurance by mandating certain service levels, and full tax wrie off cost of insurance for self-employed and small business.
these changes would go along ways to lower costs and allow millions to be able to afford their insurance needs.
I think small, and tempered changes would increase competition and reduce costs.
Cdev –
Socialist progressivism benefits the ruling elite. It doesn’t help the poor, it just makes middle class poorer and the upper class smaller. It mathematically cannot work since these social progressive systems can never get enough money to deliver entitlements.
Social progressivism system implementations require capitalist economies to begin within in order to employ the capitalist wealth to redistribute through the socialist progressive economy unfortunately the socialists require capitalist economic growth to fuel their ever increasing government spending. You can’t get increasing revenue from the capitalist economy that you are killing.
Joe
Quick note to all:
Joe and The Communicator have successfully sidetracked the discussion to examining the merits (or lack of merits) of socialism. This has absolutely nothing to do with health care reform in the United States, and don’t believe them when they try to scare you into thinking we’re becoming a socialist nation. It’s just not true.
Dave –
It is disingenuous for you to say that a government takeover of health care is not socialistic. When it is most certainly a social progressive strategy in and of itself and tactic to move the economy to socialist model with the government owning key manager industries e.g., health care, automotive manufacturing, energy and financial/insurance institutions.
Joe
Joe,
It is disingenuous for you to say that this is a government takeover of health care.
Very true dave Joe did you read the bill? This is the third time I had to ask you? Are you dodging the question or forgeting to answer?
24 hours later and Joe is still looking for commies behind every bush. Let it go, comrade.
Well Tami how would you characterize government control and intervention in large portions of the U.S. Economy? And plans for increased taxation of taxpayers/producers?
Joe
Cdev –
I answered you yesterday in post 250.
Have you read HR 3200?
Joe
Joe I answered your question when I first posed the question. Sorry I was actually hoping you would say it I think with the delay on links being posted I missed it!
Cdev –
I understand, when you put up a post with links as I did the post is approved by admin to ensure it is not SPAM which causes a delay.
A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform
Take note of the section on whether this is Socialized Medicine. Also note the section on Euthanasia, where the AARP calls all of your rumors flat-out lies. Nobody will be required to have end-of-life care meetings or draw up plans on how they want to die, etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/health/policy/10facts.html
Cdev,
Saying The British are conrolled by socialist because the labor labor party is in control is like saying we are socialist because the democrats are in power. It is a two party system. Sometimes the conservatives control and sometime the liberals control. What is true is the British have a socialized medical system and it does not work. I will also say that the British instinctively look to the government for guidence, help, etc. and that this mentality and system of dependence has stymied the British as a former economic world power.
Dave,
Socialism has everything to do with the takeover of healthcare. You know as well as I do, the government slowly takes away liberties and implements socialists programs.
Let me quote Norman Thomas, leading American Socialist and former Presidential candidate: “The American People will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ They will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day, America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
If you look back at history, you cannot argue that the social programs and citizen’s dependence on the government has grown astronomically. That is what I fear. This socailized medicine is another slippery slope of the democratics party’s attempt to gain more power and make the citizens dependent on the government.
A very telling article, which I presume will be ignored by the socialists.
August 06, 2009
ObamaCare and me
By Zane F Pollard, MD
I have been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching all of this national debate on healthcare. It is time for me to bring some clarity to the table by explaining many of the problems from the perspective of a doctor.
First off, the government has involved very few of us physicians in the healthcare debate. While the American Medical Association has come out in favor of the plan, it is vital to remember that the AMA only represents 17% of the American physician workforce.
I have taken care of Medicaid patients for 35 years while representing the only pediatric ophthalmology group left in Atlanta, Georgia that accepts Medicaid. For example, in the past 6 months I have cared for three young children on Medicaid who had corneal ulcers. This is a potentially blinding situation because if the cornea perforates from the infection, almost surely blindness will occur. In all three cases the antibiotic needed for the eradication of the infection was not on the approved Medicaid list.
Each time I was told to fax Medicaid for the approval forms, which I did. Within 48 hours the form came back to me which was sent in immediately via fax, and I was told that I would have my answer in 10 days. Of course by then each child would have been blind in the eye.
Each time the request came back denied. All three times I personally provided the antibiotic for each patient which was not on the Medicaid approved list. Get the point — rationing of care.
Over the past 35 years I have cared for over 1000 children born with congenital cataracts. In older children and in adults the vision is rehabilitated with an intraocular lens. In newborns we use contact lenses which are very expensive. It takes Medicaid over one year to approve a contact lens post cataract surgery. By that time a successful anatomical operation is wasted as the child will be close to blind from a lack of focusing for so long a period of time.
Again, extreme rationing. Solution: I have a foundation here in Atlanta supported 100% by private funds which supplies all of these contact lenses for my Medicaid and illegal immigrants children for free. Again, waiting for the government would be disastrous.
Last week I had a lady bring her child to me. They are Americans but live in Sweden, as the father has a job with a big corporation. The child had the onset of double vision 3 months ago and has been unable to function normally because of this. They are people of means but are waiting 8 months to see the ophthalmologist in Sweden. Then if the child needed surgery they would be put on a 6 month waiting list. She called me and I saw her that day. It turned out that the child had accommodative esotropia (crossing of the eyes treated with glasses that correct for farsightedness) and responded to glasses within 4 days, so no surgery was needed. Again, rationing of care.
Last month I operated on a 70 year old lady with double vision present for 3 years. She responded quite nicely to her surgery and now is symptom free. I also operated on a 69 year old judge with vertical double vision. His surgery went very well and now he is happy as a lark. I have been told — but of course there is no healthcare bill that has been passed yet — that these 2 people because of their age would have been denied surgery and just told to wear a patch over one eye to alleviate the symptoms of double vision. Obviously cheaper than surgery.
I spent two year in the US Navy during the Viet Nam war and was well treated by the military. There was tremendous rationing of care and we were told specifically what things the military personnel and their dependents could have and which things they could not have. While I was in Viet Nam, my wife Nancy got sick and got essentially no care at the Naval Hospital in Oakland, California. She went home and went to her family’s private internist in Beverly Hills. While it was expensive, she received an immediate work up. Again rationing of care.
For those of you who are over 65, this bill in its present form might be lethal for you. People in England over 59 cannot receive stents for their coronary arteries. The government wants to mimic the British plan. For those of you younger, it will still mean restriction of the care that you and your children receive.
While 99% of physicians went into medicine because of the love of medicine and the challenge of helping our fellow man, economics are still important. My rent goes up 2% each year and the salaries of my employees go up 2% each year. Twenty years ago, ophthalmologists were paid $1800 for a cataract surgery and today $500. This is a 73% decrease in our fees. I do not know of many jobs in America that have seen this sort of lowering of fees.
But there is more to the story than just the lower fees. When I came to Atlanta, there was a well known ophthalmologist that charged $2500 for a cataract surgery as he felt the was the best. He had a terrific reputation and in fact I had my mother’s bilateral cataracts operated on by him with a wonderful result. She is now 94 and has 20/20 vision in both eyes. People would pay his $2500 fee.
However, then the government came in and said that any doctor that does Medicare work cannot accept more than the going rate ( now $500) or he or she would be severely fined. This put an end to his charging $2500. The government said it was illegal to accept more than the government-allowed rate. What I am driving at is that those of you well off will not be able to go to the head of the line under this new healthcare plan, just because you have money, as no physician will be willing to go against the law to treat you.
I am a pediatric ophthalmologist and trained for 10 years post-college to become a pediatric ophthalmologist (add two years of my service in the Navy and that comes to 12 years).A neurosurgeon spends 14 years post -college, and if he or she has to do the military that would be 16 years. I am not entitled to make what a neurosurgeon makes, but the new plan calls for all physicians to make the same amount of payment. I assure you that medical students will not go into neurosurgery and we will have a tremendous shortage of neurosurgeons. Already, the top neurosurgeon at my hospital who is in good health and only 52 years old has just quit because he can’t stand working with the government anymore. Forty-nine percent of children under the age of 16 in the state of Georgia are on Medicaid, so he felt he just could not stand working with the bureaucracy anymore.
We are being lied to about the uninsured. They are getting care. I operate at least 2 illegal immigrants each month who pay me nothing, and the children’s hospital at which I operate charges them nothing also.This is true not only on Atlanta, but of every community in America.
The bottom line is that I urge all of you to contact your congresswomen and congressmen and senators to defeat this bill. I promise you that you will not like rationing of your own health.
Furthermore, how can you trust a physician that works under these conditions knowing that he is controlled by the state. I certainly could not trust any doctor that would work under these draconian conditions.
One last thing: with this new healthcare plan there will be a tremendous shortage of physicians. It has been estimated that approximately 5% of the current physician work force will quit under this new system. Also it is estimated that another 5% shortage will occur because of the decreased number of men and women wanting to go into medicine. At the present time the US government has mandated gender equity in admissions to medical schools .That means that for the past 15 years that somewhere between 49 and 51% of each entering class are females. This is true of private schools also, because all private schools receive federal funding.
The average career of a woman in medicine now is only 8-10 years and the average work week for a female in medicine is only 3-4 days. I have now trained 35 fellows in pediatric ophthalmology. Hands down the best was a female that I trained 4 years ago — she was head and heels above all others I have trained. She now practices only 3 days a week.
on “ObamaCare and me”
Communicator,
Wait…I can’t quite keep it straight. As a liberal Democrat, am I a socialist or not?
Dave,
I think you are beyond help. You just want to be taken care of and you think that government involvement in your life will create a Utopia or Heaven on Earth. Don’t worry, there will always be people like Joe, Cisco and myself to work hard and pay our taxes so you and your kind are taken care of.
Pretty sure I’ve never said anything of the sort. I was just pointing out that two posts before mine you stated that we aren’t socialist while being run by Democrats, but then in your very next post you seemed to call the same folks socialist.
I work quite hard and am able to provide for myself and my family, thank you very much. I also pay my fair share of taxes. I don’t think that “government involvement in my life” is going to create a Utopia. What the heck does “government involvement in my life” even mean?
Cradle to Grave. You want to be taken care of from cradle to grave. Let the government take care of everything, medical, retirement, etc. Tax and redistribute the wealth.
The Communicator pontificates like mad but does not seem to listen or comprehend other posters very well. No party wishes to make people dependent upon the government. Health care reform is needed in this country whether YOU need it or not. Others do need it, or will need it, not because they are lazy, stupid, or looking for a handout.
I am not a socialist. I am a patriot and, I would hazard a guess, look out for my fellow americans far more than you, Communicator. Your patriotism extends only to those who meet your specific approval for life choices they have made and fit your mold of acceptable behavior.
Tami – ” I deserve a health care system I can access responsibly. Is that so unreasonable?” Your words not mine. You deserve nothing except life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The democratic party absolutely wants to make people dependent on the government! My God, the social program after social program they have introduced throughout history. Programs that cost billions of dollars that accomplish nothing. The democrats want people dependent on the government because they want the votes of the dependent people. The democrats compaign on how the “evil republicans” are going to take this away and take that away, while democrats tell voters how much they are going to “help” them.
Democtrats are like drug dealers, they get people hooked and dependent on the system until they can’t help themselves any longer. Then the people look to the government for help from that point forward.
Keep chanting…”cradle to grave, cradle to grave; I disagree with liberals, therefore they must be evil, naive, and/or lazy”
Dave,
Truth hurts, huh? You can’t take from the system more than you put into it. The government is too big. I’ve lived in a country with socialized medicine. It doesn’t work anywhere, not one single country. We have the best healthcare in the world and people want to put into place a system that does not work. I admit, it’s not perfect, but it’s the best there is. Competition and citizens from one state being allowed to participate in a healthcare plan in another state would be a great start.
I was at the townhall meeting at Towson tonight with Senator Cardin. I called the Senator’s office today and the aid who I spoke with said, “first come, first served” when I asked the criteria to get into the meeting. Yet, I watched hundreds of people with “tickets” march past people who were standing in line. So the good Senator, is not willing to allow the people who lined up for his town hall meeting to get in, he has to stuff the room full of his supporters and other seat takers so he doesn’t have to face his disgruntled constituants? I thought he worked for and represented the people?
You know what Communicator? Your insults towards Democrats are demoralizing and downright degrading. Stop acting so high and mighty and stop your self-righteous bullying. All you’re doing is trying to make yourself look superior, but you’re ending up sounding like a redundant gasbag.
Some of you conservatives and TEA party members need to stop with the conspiracy theories and stop crying socialism to suit your needs or fit your theories. Healthcare reform has been in the news and a part of the Presidential campaign since 2008—and only now are so many people up in arms about it? Would there be such a violent reaction if John McCain was proposing a plan? Also, what is Medicaid and Medicare then? Don’t we pay for this through our taxes? You can’t say UHC is socialist when Medicare and Medicaid are government run public plans.
On other message boards I post at, I actually hear from Canadians and British and most of them can’t understand why so many in the US are saying UHC is socialized medicine, and they are angry that they are being called government-controlled sheep. No, their plans aren’t perfect, but they chose it.
The current healthcare system we have now has tons of faults. It would be wonderful to focus on reforming private insurance and their denying people based on too many pre-existing conditions, labeling certain members of the population as “high-risk” when everyone is at risk for getting ill and focusing too much on money and not enough on care. But everyone needs a choice. Uninsured people using ER’s as their own personal PCP’s makes up a huge chunk of medical costs. There has to be a better solution, instead of repeating “personal responsibility and “keep government out of my healthcare.”
I have been away for a few days for some fun and relaxation “down the ocean” in Delaware were I am just fine and they don’t tax you to death.
Dave,
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…….it must be a dumb duck. If you act like a socialist and want me to pay for your health care, they you must be a socia…….a mooch? or a comunist?
I don’t need my govt telling me what medication, procedure or kind of treatment I need to have, that is between me, my doctor and my conscience. I don’t need my taxes to pay for baby killings (choice as you call it) or to possibly clone babies in the future.
This democratic proposal is nothing sort of liberal wishfull thinking that govt can fix anything and we can have the “rich” pay for it all, or have evil businesses and corporations be forced to do so. We normal americans have every right to protest, demand, and shout for our voices to be heard.
HDG reader
any faults in the health care system can be addressed by deregulation of state medical insurance mandates and allow companies to offer affordable health insurance programs.
Any govt program will oupace its cost projections, and will not be billed to the people using it. It will be billed to me, who works and pays taxes. It is UnAmerican.
1. Have some kind of Tort reform where the Drs. can’t cut back on the number of test they do. Hopefully, this will also lower malpratice premiums. Maybe if insurance companies don’t have to pay for all these tests it might impact what pre-existing conditions they will cover.
2. Do away with employee sponsored health care plans. People should have to pay for it on their own but should be allowed to pick and choose how much coverage they want. This might foster some much needed competition in the Health Insurance Industry.
3. Accept the Fact that Health Care cost are going to go up because we are living longer and the procedures to keep us living longer are expensive. It is gonna cost more so deal with it.
4. HealthCare is not a RIght. It is a person’s responsibility.
Well back to drinking beer and smoking my Lucky’s!!!!!
Funny how I’m a frequent giver to republican campaigns, have never given a dime to the democrats, but because I’m simply taking a stand against out-of-control inflation I’m now branded a liberal. I’m pretty sure no real liberals would waste their time reading the nonsense being regurgitated here.
Joe C – I don’t think I’m being any more condescending than my boot camp Drill Instructor was toward me. This is intentional and only happened after I was called a liberal for no apparent reason other than no one can think of a response. Conservatives are woefully out of shape when it comes to critical thinking and debate and a boot camp is clearly in order. If you’re going to rebut, a more thoughtful rebuttal along the lines of “care to document your assertions” or “but isn’t it really the advent of new technology that is driving up health care” based on all this reading you all claim to be doing would yield a more civil response. This is all because I care.
Getting back to the topic (sorry for the slow response, I had to recover from my last 36 hour shift).
#279 Communicator — Thank you for posting your article. It doesn’t contradict my problem statement. In the article he attempts to point out that in order to get reimbursed by Medicaid and Medicare they need to meet certain criteria, like giving away Emergency care for free to those who can’t afford it and give away at fixed prices that are often below cost for those on Medicare/Medicaid without any ability to bill the excess expenses back to the patient through a copay. The author is slightly incorrect in that we CAN bill non-Medicare/Medicaid patients at a price that is different than set by the Govt. The result is that we raise our prices any/everywhere else we can to recoup these losses. This is central to why the reimbursement rates are. Everything else in the article accurately describes the quality of care that is being delivered TODAY in the greatest healthcare system in the world to help it creep by. This is what all of you is saying you’re satisfied with and are fighting to protect. The vision I want to promote is IF you give all the people clogging the ER some insurance so that they can get lower-cost care at true primary practitioners, hopefully before their illness is out of control and in need of costly intervention, it WILL reduce medical inflation rates. There is no such thing as a free lunch and it is wrong of everyone to think that just because people are not being turned away at the ER that all is well. Spiraling costs in the US not seen elsewhere in the world (which all does have universal care) can all be traced back to the mandatory giveaways. All the estimates of how much universal insurance will cost is based upon speculation of how out of control this inflation will be. What is being missed is that if the giveaways ever end, inflation will normalize.
Runaway inflation always has to be combatted first. Anyone who remembers the 1970’s should already know this. The medical industry is absolutely at the breaking point. Medicare and Medicaid are projecting bankruptcy sooner because of the inflation rates. Cut inflation and there will be fewer cuts needed by these programs.
On the claim that I’m being impractical in how we can afford this expense, I am ABSOLUTELY in favor of ensuring that this program fits within a balanced budget. In my mind, there is a simple way to pay for this without changing taxes by eliminating needless govt programs for special interests. We can get 90% of the total projected $634B cost over the next ten years simply by stopping payment of the $576B farm bill over the same time period that does nothing but increase the cost of food for consumers. I’ll assert most EVERYONE will be far better off if we get rid of needless farm subsidies that themselves inflate consumer costs in order to stop stealing from healthcare providers.
#291, Hey Bud –>
I agree with #1, Tort Reform is needed, but I don’t think it’s a major contributor to the overall problem.
I’m OK with #2. The challenge as I understand it is how to pool people in private insurances if not based on the companies they work for and types of work done and then price plans accordingly and then do all that without Govt intervention.
I take issue with #3 -> First, we’re not living all that much longer because of the Obesity Epidemic and we’re not living longer than people in other countries so it doesn’t explain out of control inflation of expenses here.
Second, how come the advent of the computer and the internet (other examples of new technology) did not cause runaway inflation in the greater economy? The answer is that new technology creates new productivity. For each brand new procedure or diagnostic that is invented, there are 10 more improvements that cut costs of existing procedures and diagnostics. All this gets distorted in the medical industry, though, where prices for each new diagnostic and procedure are always priced exceptionally high to make up for all the other free services that providers are forced to give away. Stop the giveaways and it will stop looking like new technology is somehow to blame.
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT #4 SHOULD BE THE LAW OF THE LAND, but when Ronald Regan went against core conservative principles to sign EMTALA into law, he unfortunately created a loophole that now makes healthcare a right. Everything that I’ve been writing is a call to arms that all us conservatives need to stop playing politics and instead get behind correcting this mistake since it is at the core of what is bankrupting the nation today.
HDG – You don’t like my tone? Tough.
When the democrats and the left demonstrate, you call it patriotism. When the conservatives or the right demonstrate you call it “angry mobs” “conspiracy theories” or “disruptive”. It’s a two way street.
If you remember the presidential compaign, Obama said “you (meaning the public) should have the same healthcare coverage as congress.” Not that I am advocating that program but what they have proposed is not anything close to the healthcare the congress enjoys. So what happened? Og he lied, hmmmm.
If John McCain, Ronald Reagan, or Jesus Christ were proposing this plan I would protest against it. It’s a bad plan, regardless of who is proposing it.
You bring up medicare and medicaid. Did you ever hear me say I liked medicare or medicade? Those systems are also brokenand unconstitutional.
Damn right the British and Canadians are mad. I would be too if I was forced to use those systems to access healthcare. If you read my earlier posts, you would see that I lived in the UK for three years and I have personally witnessed the system not working. That I have seen friends wait months and years for service. That my father in law had to pay for tests out of pocket for two very serious medical conditions in fear that he might be dead by the time he could access coverage.
By the way, the Canadians and British did not choose their system of healthcare, it was forced on them.
Communicator it sounds like you just did not get there early enough. According to the Suns article (not a very conservative paper I might add) Many of the 500 people who got in 4 hours before it started were against the plan. You just happened to get there late.
Cdev,
They were letting people who had tickets into the building ahead of those who stood in line. I did get there late and did not expect to get in. But I saw it with my own eyes and the people who were not able to get in were mad.
Since when did I ask anyone to pay for my health care or for anyone to give me anything? Until you’re ready to have a debate about the issues at hand without spouting lies and calling names, this is not worth it. Citizens are having productive, civilized debates about health care elsewhere, but this does not seem possible here.
Laughable…conservative hero Kenneth Gladney is either scamming his fellow conservatives or acutely demonstrating the need for health care reform.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019423.php
Dave,
It’s not just you, it’s everyone who wants change to a government sponsored healthcare. Why do we think it is going to be any better than the failed systems in the rest of the world? How are we going to pay for it? ME and YOU and more taxes on the middle class. Obama campaigns that under his “system” the middle class will pay less taxes. Now they say that may have to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for healthcare reform.
As I said, it’s not perfect but changing it to government sponsored is moving in the wrong direction.
If a Communicator goes to a meeting and isn’t allowed in to speak, did a Communicator really Communicate?
🙂
I agree Communicator. These uppity doctors inventing “systems’ just to make You and Me and the rest of the world pay taxes for them is ridiculous.
Let’s roll it all back and get rid of the whole system of licensing of doctors and the FDA and all those other things that the government just screws up.
Hell, if you feel like being a doctor some day and cure your hangover by applying leaches or blooding demons from Cisco, I say you should just be able to do it.
If the government hadn’t stepped in and made this health care stuff so unaffordable we probably all would have evolved X-Ray vision by now and been able to diagnose our own illnesses.
Don’t let anyone tell you that your proposal for doing nothing is going to cost more over the next 10 to 20 years than these nonsensical new-fangeled ideas that could “cut the rate of inflation” whatever that means. Those nut jobs that believe in that probably believe in things like airplanes and computers and rockets to the moon. Freaking liberal hippies.
Forest Hill – Put down the bottle, you’ve had enough
forest hill
are you proposing that you would want my blooding demon? I guess even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while!!!!. Lucky me.
Being conservative is about being for good things, not being for unproven things. I was a liberal once, and then I grew up.
Grow up!!!
Cisco
I was finally calming down and having fun yesterday.
I thought a Conservative is someone willing to fight and die to preserve and protect the American way of life for his/her children and grandchildren. Not a coward who sticks his head in the sand to avoid glaringly obvious problems. My mistake, I guess, for giving money to the republican party all these years.
Try and find a single economist out that doesn’t believe that over the next 50+ years, Medicare & Medicaid are the single biggest drivers of the federal deficit and federal debt by a huge margin. We’re already kissing China’s a** to fund our debt today, don’t tell me we can preserve our national sovereignty for future generations by dong nothing about these problems. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/25/barack-obama/obama-says-medicare-and-medicaid-are-largest-defic/
Moerover, hwo can you possibly say that the health care plans being proposed are unproven? Every other nation in the world has universal health care of one form or another. The US spends more per person on health care than every other nation in the world yet we rank 47th in the world in mortality rates and 43rd in the world in infant mortality rates. (want the studies, let me know). How is this NOT proof that covering health care costs universally help to keep costs down for everyone?
The bills in the house and senate are not talking about blowing up the US system, just insuring the remaining 40 million Americans of who are not covered. The govt currently insures 42 million Americans on Medicaid, what more proof do you need that the government can capably insure this number of people.
All of my posts, except for the last one, are an attempt to draw attention to the fact that if you don’t insure these people, they simply clog the ER for free care. They have a right to do this because the great conservative, Ronald Regan, signed into law a bleeding heart bill called EMTALA that mandates that no one in America seeking emergency care is turned away. Hospitals are not reimbursed if an individual cannot pay so currently 55% of all Emergency related costs of a hospital are unreimbursed. The reason the US has out of control costs is because the hospitals will have to shut their doors if they don’t raise all their other prices to make up for this short fall. Ensure these people and costs will stop spiraling upward at triple or quadruple the normal rate of inflation and maybe we can avoid having the 51st star on the American Flag be a red one before our kids and grand kids celebrate the American TriCentennial.
It’s ridiculous to think that a you can only embrace an idea once it was proven by others and that the republican party is not about innovation and solving real issues.
In conclusion, in response to you telling me to “Grow up!!!”, I prescribe that you instead “Grow a Pair!!!”
ForestHillResident –
If you think your incoherent verbose “wall of text” is effectively convincing, you are self-deluded.
1. The HR 3200 does nothing to reduce the cost of health care, it is about government takeover and control of health care through the socialization of health insurance. HR 3200 would cause taxes to increase and rationing to ensue.
2. You obfuscate with your cost-shifting issue via EMTALA/COBRA in Hospitals and ERs. This issue is more about 9.7 million illegals and the uninsured by-choice who do not pay and clog our ERs. The Medicaid folks who fill up the ERs are a problem as well however the below cost reimbursement is the cost-shifting culprit.
3. Conservatives believe in the Constitution, limited government, states rights, free trade and individual responsibility.
You concluded your last mind numbing rant by suggesting that Cisco “grow a pair”, well I suggest that you get your head out of your behind and realize that your disingenuous and obfuscating posts are the product of a failed liberal/progressive ideology.
Joe
forest hill
the free market system is already paying for the uninsured, hospials raise bed rates and I believe the state of Maryland pays shock trauma system moneys from auto registration fees to fund unreinbursed care from those with now insurance.
We are a nation of 330 million, and 40 are uninsured, so lets blow it up for everyone else, because you don’t want to pay the market rate for your care? I bet most insured people are happy with their health care program. Most uninsured are seeking a free ride.
Lunatic Fringe…Unhinged
It seems to me that liberal/progressives are perplexed by regular folks expressing themselves at town halls and political events. And yes I said regular folks who have discovered what President Obama’s campaign rhetoric was really about.
The majority of Americans do not want a government takeover of health care and health insurance, they do however want reform that opens up real competition and absent some government option that would incrementally destroy private insurance options.
What I found curious at the Kratovil protest yesterday were the few “distractors” carry signs with inane messages such as “I’m Here for the Chicks” “I Want Free Cheese” and What’s all the Yelling About” . I spoke with two of these cowardly individuals, one of whom volunteered he was 19, about their signs and asked them that if they were for President Obama’s health care reform why didn’t they have signs that endorsed HR 3200 and the President instead of their insipid and stupefying missives.
And since I did see these two teenagers going in and out of Frank Kratovil’s office it seems that they may be associated with Frank’s staff and/or supporters. Shame on you Mr. Kratovil and your staff if you are responsible for encouraging these “distractor” shills in the crowd to discredit legitimate expressions of free speech.
Joe
I see…and what was Obama’s campaign rhetoric really about? A government takeover of health care so that they can institute a socialist one-payer system, require you to join the government plan and do mandatory government doctor visits, kill all the old conservatives (euthanasia), and abort all pregnancies? I’d jump right over to your side if this were the case.
Dave –
Is the best you can do is to make outrageous statements to confuse this important matter? Shame on you!
Joe
Shame on me? How about shame on everyone claiming that the proposed reforms include mandatory government health care (the truth being that of course you can keep your own plan) with government doctors telling you what to do, euthanasia, government money for abortions, or that it is socialist?
You claimed that “regular folks…have discovered what President Obama’s campaign rhetoric was really about.” What did you mean?
Did you notice the slap the AARP gave to Obama? Obama gets up and lies by saying “we have the AARP onboard because they know this is a good deal for our seniors.” He added, “AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare.”
The AARP quickly stated “indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.”
Lies, Lies, and more Lies.
Speaking of Lies……Forest Hill – of the 40 million uninsured in America, how many are illegal aliens? You know they are counted in that number. How many are people who make a decision not to purchase insurance because they chose to spend their money on cable televion, cell phones and fancy cars? How many are wealthy and choose not to purchase insurance but to rather self-insure?
47th in the world in mortality rate? Please break this number down for me, please educate me. This would have nothing to do with homocides and drug use would it? 43rd in the world in infant mortality rate? Again, educate me. This would not have to do with over 40% of births in American being born out of wedlock, would it?
The nuclear family has all but disappeared in the inner cities. That there are no negative ramification of young men and teenagers fathering as many babies as they want and taking no moral or financial responsibility for their actions. When a 14 year old girl has a baby, it is celebrated not looked down upon. People have been trained to know that the government will provide housing, food, and other public assistance.
Again, it comes back to personal responsibility.
Dave –
There are great many troubling issues with HR 3200 and what people are concerned about is the “slippery slope” that this bill represents.
It is clear that HR 3200 establishes a government insurance option to compete with private options and yes you can keep your private insurance, until such time as your employer may eliminate their private plan offering and you have no choice but to be in the government plan. Over time private options will likely disappear leaving a de facto single-payer.
Regarding mandatory senior End of Life Counseling every five years is most troubling since it is not clear what it would mean to seniors and it is likely not some benign administrative routine.
On President Obama’s “change you can believe in” and regular folks don’t like is obvious but I will endeavor to explain it to you. Evidence of his “changes” are Government Bailouts, Cap and Trade, Employee Free Choice Act and HR 3200. We don’t cotton to these “changes”.
Dave we disagree on these matters, but I think there is huge difference between us; I know what I’m talking about and you are lazy on the issues and facts. And while you are entitled to your opinion you are not entitled to your own facts.
Joe
Well said Communicator keep up the good work.
So we should be more ashamed of 2 nineteen year old kids having some fun at the Cardin town hall meeting than the fool who showed up at a town hall meeting in NH with a loaded gun strapped to his leg or that unfortunate and confused individual who challenged Spector. These are the regular folks you reference?They are the lunatic fringe.
How about the crazies who scream “I want my America Back”? Which America would that be? The one before civil rights legislation?
Tami –
You should really slow down and carefully read a post before you respond to it.
1. It was a political event at Kratovil’s Bel Air office.
2. It was two teenagers one of whom said he was 19.
3. The teenage boys when asked if they were Obama, Kratovil and HR 3200 supporters said yes, but didn’t want to put it on a sign. They may have been associated with Kratovil’s staff or supporters since they were seen going in and out of his office.
4. I was at the Kratovil event and the people I met were regular folks who for the most part have never been politically active. These people are not polished activists or political agitators with glib messages. They are concerned about a government takeover health care, the Constitution and the direction Obama is taking the country.
5. An example of the “Lunatic Fringe” would be Code Pink and they were not at the Kratovil event as far as I know.
Joe
Same difference.
Tami –
What in the heck do you mean by saying “same difference”?
Is your position so weak that when your are faced with logic and facts you fold up like a lawn chair?
Would some free cheese help?
Joe
Joe,
“Free Cheese” – now that is funny! Keep up the good fight Joe. I love how the media is trying to “label” anyone who is against this socialist movement as angry, violent, racist, and part of a a mob. Obama is a fraud! He said he would lead from the middle, provide public access to legislation before a vote, and not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.
Perlosi (California Lefty Wacko) writes a $800 Billion stimulus bill that no one reads. Waxman (California Lefty Wacko) writes a cap and trade bill that few read.
The Banking crisis is being overseen by flaming Barney Frank – one of the key figures in creating the crisis. His Justice Department drops the Philadelphia voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers. He abuses bankruptcy protocol and takes care of the United Auto Workers Union in the Chysler and GM debacles. He tries to hire tax evaders for his staff, Daschle, Richardson, Gaetner (oh thats right Tim paid his taxes AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT).
Anyone who cares about this Country should be angry. Chris Mathews, Keith Oberman, etc.. and all the other hard core lefties can take their Big Elitist Government and shove it up their XXX!
being against the Obama plan does not make one a racist, after all he is white too. if this health care plan goes through, it will bankrupt all of us. If some people with no insurance go bankrupt, that is just though.
Joe are either of the two scenarios possible:
a) the two boys as constituents of the congress man availed themselves of the opportunity to go into his office in Bel Air despite their immature attitude and are not actually democratic staffers or Kratovil aides or plants?
or….
b) Despite the fact that this is not likely could they have been plants of opponents of HR 3200 to appear immature and then intentionally be seen going into Kratovil’s office several time to create the preception that Kratovil is in over his head and all “liberals” are stupid immature brats?
Are either of these plausible explinations as well and is a equally as likely as your explination?
Joseph Caruso
You have told more than one person to ‘carefully read’ your posts. Perhaps it’s the writer’s inability to convey his point as opposed to the reader’s ability to read.
Joe,
Tami’s reaction is common among liberals. Bill Maher is the best at it. When a liberal is challenged with facts they do not like or do not want to acknowledge, they make a smart ass comment and try to deflect the conversation off subject because they do not have an intelligent response.
Tami is exibiting the same behavior.
Tami says “lunatic fringe” because she does not agree with the protestors. When the left is protesting against war, capitalism, the military, or anything else she calls it patriotism. “Same Difference”
Did anyone see Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s Town Hall Meeting video. This pompous, elitist woman answered her cell phone and continued to talk on the phone while one of her constituants asked her a question. The look of indifference on Lee’s face is unbelievable. That video sickens me.
This is the attitude of the left, “we are smarter than you”, “we can spend your money more responsibly than you”, etc. It is so clear that these town hall meetings are nothing more than a ruse. The left has no intentions of listening. They have their agenda and they are hell bent on getting it through regardless of the wishes of the people they represent.
We need to let our representatitives and senators know we will remember this at the polls. Call your representative, call your senators. Let them know that even if they represent you in a strong democrat district, (they may think they are untouchable) another democrat can beat them in a primary election. We will not forget!!!
Cdev writes – “Joe are either of the two scenarios possible:
a) the two boys as constituents of the congress man availed themselves of the opportunity to go into his office in Bel Air despite their immature attitude and are not actually democratic staffers or Kratovil aides or plants?
or….
b) Despite the fact that this is not likely could they have been plants of opponents of HR 3200 to appear immature and then intentionally be seen going into Kratovil’s office several time to create the preception that Kratovil is in over his head and all “liberals” are stupid immature brats?
Are either of these plausible explinations as well and is a equally as likely as your explination?’
Well Cdev, I don’t know? Maybe you could call Kratovil’s Bel Air office and find out the details regarding the teenage “disruptors”? You may discover that the mission of these young Americans was to make legitimate and reasonable protesters seem silly with the messages on their signs. It is possible that these boys may share the same dismissive attitude displayed by Rep. Sheila Jackson and Rep. David Scott.
Joe
Joe you did not answer the question are either a or b possible (a of course being more probable then b).
Cdev –
“I don’t know” is an answer and you don’t know either. So instead of increasing speculation why don’t you call Kratovil’s office and ask them about this matter?
Joe
Cdev,
Or just make something up. This way you will not deviate from the Liberal Modus Operandi
Joe,
Where do you get off calling me lazy? That’s just downright disrespectful! Where do you get off saying that I make up my own facts? What have I made up?
Let’s fact check your claim that the elderly will be required to have end-of-life counseling every five years.
This is from an Associated Press Fact Check article.
“Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote ”mercy killing,” or euthanasia?
A: No.
Q: Then what’s all the fuss about?
A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.
The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.”
—
This ALLOWS Medicare to pay for these VOLUNTARY sessions if you CHOOSE to have them with YOUR doctor. NOTHING is REQUIRED!
—
“Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?
A: No. It would BLOCK funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option. (my emphasis added)
Q: Who supports the provision?
A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors’ lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.
Q: Should the federal government be getting involved with living wills and end-of-life questions — decisions that are highly personal and really difficult?
A: It already is.
The government requires hospitals to ask adult patients if they have a living will, or ”advance directive.” If the patient doesn’t have one, and wants one, the hospital has to provide assistance. The mandate on hospitals was instituted during a Republican administration, in 1992, under President George H.W. Bush.”
Joe, you are also entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts!
Dave –
HR 3200 (pages 425-430) certainly does not say that End of Life Counseling is optional and I take the position since it is not explicitly stated as “optional” or “by choice” that if instituted will be “required” and “mandatory”.
And while you may object to my assertion that “I know what I’m talking about and you are lazy on the issues and facts” it is not disrespectful. It’s not like I called you name or said something ugly about your mother (I’m sure she is a fine woman and I am sensitive to her probable disappointment of you her progeny).
My best to you and I hope you can gain your mom’s respect.
Joe
Dave
Continue to take the high road and do not stoop to responding to Joe’s weak ego. I suspect that he suffers (as does his hero W) from not having been his father’s favorite.
Joe,
My mother certainly is a fine woman and she is proud of me, my accomplishments, my faith, my family, and my political views. You didn’t say anything ugly about her previously, but why bring her into it now? Very classy…
You’re right that pages 425-430 in HR 3200 don’t explicitly state that the end of life counseling sessions are mandatory or optional. I have read these pages and more.
These pages however, are describing a “treatment” that Medicare will cover. The pages describing how Medicare covers an open-heart surgery or emergency room visit wouldn’t explicitly state that they are optional, either. Just because it is a treatment that Medicare covers most certainly doesn’t mean that I am required to have open-heart bypass surgery or visit the ER every five years!!!
Again, let me state that this is something that Medicare will cover. This is something that can empower patients who choose to use it. Because your insurance covers it in no way means that you have to use it!!!
Thoroughly debunked by the AP and on snopes.com, the site that explains urban legends and other rumors:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp
The funny thing about the Town Hall Meetings is that the folks there are an
“angry mob” “unpatriotic” “unamerican” , However, when I see the news covering Iran, they are “protesters” Could someone, please tell me that Obama is not trying to ramrod this legislation through. He is a good talker, but please, give us all a break. The transparency talk is bull, particularly when each party blindly votes on stuff that they don’t even know about, except what the leadership tells them. The house was ready to meet his deadliine of August for a bill. These town meetings even though not so civil are giving some of these politicians a jolt to wake up. I know we independents voted for change, as well, but along with that would be transparency. The problem once again is that the transparency is that we can see through the politics. Please people don’t forget this when it is time to vote—We need to get the old guard out and make politicians accountable. I watched Keith Olbermann show the other night and was amazed. Don’t get on Rush Limbaugh for being conservative, the liberal side does just fine with the smearing and propaganda. We are not sheep, Unfortunately, the middle is closer to the truth but we have Rush or Keith.
Dave –
It bears repeating that the fact of the matter is HR 3200 (pages 425-430) certainly does not say that End of Life Counseling is optional and I take the position since it is not explicitly stated as “optional” or “by choice” that if instituted will be “required” and “mandatory”.
You can editorialize it all you want, however people should have concerns about the implementation and interpretation of this section of the House bill. It is that simple Dave!
Tami –
It is unfortunate that my confidence and ability to effectively debate are intimidating to you. The health care debate is an important matter that requires careful study and thoughtful consideration by our elected representatives and the people. I am simply doing my duty as a citizen and vigorously participating in the debate.
And if all you can do is trot out that I appreciate President George W. Bush as a way of impugning my integrity then impugn away!
Joe
Joe,
It bears repeating that End of Life Counseling is included in the bill as an additional treatment that Medicare will cover, just as other treatments are listed in law. That is not editorializing. That is a cold, hard fact. There is absolutely nothing mandatory about this treatment, just as other treatments are not mandatory.
There is not a single place anywhere that states any patients will be forced to do anything regarding End of Life Counseling. The only requirement is that if you want this counseling, Medicare is forced to pay for one session every five years, as long as that session DOES NOT include anything about suicide or assisted suicide.
Claims of mandatory counseling, euthanasia, etc. are simply scare tactics.
Dave –
HR 3200 does not say End of Life Counseling is optional. You cannot say with full confidence that it is the choice of the patient and will not be required by the government.
I would also appreciate it you would cease with disingenuous characterizations suggesting I’ve said anything about “euthanasia” when I have not, shame on you.
Joe
Joe (and now the Communicator since you jumped in),
I am not asking for a concrete what happened. I am asking do you believe that it is POSSIBLE that either of the two explinations I suggested are plausible?
This is a simple YES or NO. I am not going to find the answer by calling Kratovil’s office. I am interested in your opinion. I know playing the victim is easier and you may not be accstomed to people solicitng your opinion. Or as I suspect in the case of the communicator you will not find your answer in the carefully prepared talking points from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and friends.
Admittedly a or the suggestion in post 306 by Joe are more PROPABLE then b. That said I think you two made my point for more which was that the suggetion that the 19 y/o boys where Kratovil/Obama plants was purley speculative and had no basis in fact because it was equally as possible they could have been citizens excercising their right to meet with their congressman!
So now that I have explained the question and my rational I would like your answer
Are either of the two hypotheticals I suggested POSSIBLE explainations?
Joe,
In fact I can say that it will not be required by the government unless there is specific language stating that it will be required!
Betsy McCaughey’s claim that end-of-life counseling would be mandatory is rated “Pants on Fire” by PolitiFact:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/betsy-mccaughey/mccaughey-claims-end-life-counseling-will-be-requi/
The chain e-mail that The Communicator posted earlier in this discussion is also rated “Pants on Fire:”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/
In case anyone thinks PolitiFact is some left-wing group, check out their recent “Pants on Fire” rulings. Claims from all sides are rated based on the facts.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/
Cdev –
Here is what I reported and believe –
“What I found curious at the Kratovil protest yesterday were the few “distractors” carry signs with inane messages such as “I’m Here for the Chicks” “I Want Free Cheese” and What’s all the Yelling About” . I spoke with two of these cowardly individuals, one of whom volunteered he was 19, about their signs and asked them that if they were for President Obama’s health care reform why didn’t they have signs that endorsed HR 3200 and the President instead of their insipid and stupefying missives.
And since I did see these two teenagers going in and out of Frank Kratovil’s office it seems that they may be associated with Frank’s staff and/or supporters. Shame on you Mr. Kratovil and your staff if you are responsible for encouraging these “distractor” shills in the crowd to discredit legitimate expressions of free speech.”
The above requires no further speculation. If Kratovil’s office staff wants to weigh in and clarity any aspects regarding these “distractors” or folks want to call Kratovil’s office and inquire be my guest.
Joe
What did they say when you questioned them? Did they admit to being supportive of HR 3200? Why did they said they had such immature signs? Could they have taken delight in making fun of you? Remember they have the same constitutional right to make a fool of themselves.
Again, I get that you deduced that the work for Kratovil because they walked into his office and exited his office; something you could have done if you wanted to. My question for you was not what you believe but is it POSSIBLE that you are incorrect and that the two individuals either:
a) showed up to do what they did and seized the opportunity to go into Kratovil’s office for reason’s such as they wanted to meet with him, see what polotics is all about, excercise their right to meet with their congressman, had to go to the bathroom?
or (less likely)
b) planted by other right wingers who wanted to make it appear to people that “liberal socialist democrats” planted people there to make a fool out of those protesting?
are either of those two explinations POSSIBLE?
STOP DODGING THE QUESTION!
Cdev –
I have clearly articulated what transpired. I am not going speculate further and if you want to learn more you should seek your answers elsewhere and a good first place to start is Rep. Kratovil’s office.
Joe
Tami,Cdev, Dave and Forest Hill,
I have an idea on how to save millions, no probably billions of dollars on heathcare and I am genuinely interested in your opinion.
The INS should post an agent in every emergency room around the clock, 24/7. The illegal aliens will not seek coverage (because after all, they are here illegally and are breaking our laws) in fear of being arrested. Then maybe a large percentage of them will return to their homelands once they realize that free healthcare is no more. What do you think?
The Communicator,
If you’re trolling for a fight to distract from the issue at hand, I’d rather stay on the topic of health care. If you want a legitimate discussion on how to solve the immigration issue, I suggest we do so on another post. It is my understanding that immigration reform will be coming up again as a major topic of discussion near the end of the year.
I suppose I could answer your question anyway, but I hesitate to do so since I know it will distract from the facts I pointed out in my last post. Paying agents to sit in emergency rooms around the clock would waste quite a bit of money. How would they check to see if someone’s here legally? Stop every person coming in and ask for papers (since, you know, I would think to grab my birth certificate in the middle of an emergency)? Just stop the ones that look Latino/Latina?
Joe you speculated as to why they were there in the first place I simply would like you to acknowledge that it is possible there are other rational reasons, beside the rational reason you suggested, that fit the facts you layed out for us. Simply put are the reasons I suggested POSSIBLE! You seem to inherently believe that anyone who disagrees with you must be a Kratovil plant and servents of the democrats.
I speculate you would like to believe that all the moderates hate this idea. Sorry to say as an independent who is registered republican. You are incorrect. Do I think this bill is going to solvewe all the problems with health care….NO do I believe it is better then nothing at all….YES. I am willing to let the dialouge aoccur and engadge in the dialouge without rciting talking points given to me and reach my own conclusion.
I further asked you about the detials of your conversation with these two young men you have only volunteered that they said they are 19 and nothing more. This would not be speculation but a first hand account of Fact so would you at least answer my questions about that if you will not answer my first questions about the possibility of alternate motives of them since you seem to only engadge in speculation when it is convenient and suits your point.
Communicator that seems like a good idea. My opinion on illegal aliens is that yes they need to go. I think that might help. I also think we should punish those who provide them with jobs. First offense 100,000 fine per illegal. Second offense forfiet all holdings of the buisness. If you dare open a buisness and employee illegals again……10 years incarceration for each illegal and forfiet your buisness again. Of course the illegals will go back and they will have less incentive to make the trip. I could go on but that is another issue entirely!
As I type this ABC 2 reports the senate is going to remove the end of life provision anyway.
Let”s go back to the claim that this will make a defacto single payer system because the private plans will go out of buisness.
Let us use mail as an example. The govt will deliver mail via USPS. A public option. Some say it is efficient others say it is not efficient. It seems the fact is in your need for it. It works for some and not for others. Despite that we still have private options. Originally we had stage coach options etc. Now we have Fed Ex and UPS along with other shipping options for larger items depending on your needs. The thing USPS did was it forced the private options to offer quality service and at a reasonable price. It spurred competition. The same might be true with insurance. The govt. Option will not be the best for everyone. If you want the better service from your private policy from BCBS then keep it they will have to be efficient and compete for your buisness. Those with NO insurance will have an affordable option, maybe not the best quality but a good value. Doctors will get paid for their service and not required to provide services for no money because you can not afford to pay. You will pay with your insurance.
Communicator –
I don’t think HIPPA would allow it and I wouldn’t want to mix health care with immigration issues.
Illegal immigrants cost us a great deal of money each year and they should never be covered under any health care bill.
Joe
Cdev –
The teenage “distractors” said they were Obamacare supporters and that they were there for the chicks and wanted to know what all the yelling was about.
Joe
Cdev,
The post office has a monopoly on first class mail. It is illegal for a private company to compete with them. UPS and FedEx compete on packages and overnight deliveries and for lack of a better phrase, they eat the Post Office’s lunch. This is a perfect example of how governemnt run system is not efficient, productive or profitable. The Post Office has lost $4.7 billion so far this year. If the Post Office were a private company, they would have already been out of business.
So they never confirmed Joe what you speculated that they work for Kratovil. You just made that assumption (logically I will add) and discounted any other possibilities. Some call that making things up!
But without them Fed Ex and UPS would be free to charge what ever they want and offer bad sservice. Beside the fact that they still exist with a public option goes to prove that we will not have a defacto single payer system with a public option. The private insurers will just have to adapt and become better. Those that don’t will fail but the survivors will be much better off.
the post office does not cost the taxpayer any money, they have to post draft, passport processing and other mandates that the private industry does not have to do. Additionally, they are a prescence in rural communities, where the truly private companies don’t have to service.
the private market has cut into their revenue, but the post office will just have to adjust to market forces, and i think they will. the market should dictate the cost of delivery of first class mail, not the govt as is currently set up. In fact, the USPS has been running at a deficit because regulations require an office in most towns no matter what kind of traffic there is. the private market doesn’t have to adhere to such regulation.
I don’t think this is a fair comparisson, it would be like a private army would be better that the US Army? I don;t see anyone attempting that comparisson.
I am a conservative, but lets keep it real, govt has to do some things that are not driven by price or market forces.
I don’t think that the post office keeps FedEx and UPS “honest” but I do admit that first class mail, given the nature of delivery (as pointed out by Cisco) to all areas, especially the rural areas would be difficult to compete with. I will also point out that The Postal Service is listed as a duty of the federal government in the Constitution.
I am not suggesting privitazation of the post office. My point was, the post office is not efficient and comparing it to UPS or FedEx is not a true “apples to apples comparison. I also want to state, that just because it is a federal government responsibility, doesn’t mean that the people running the post office shouldn’t strive to run it as efficiently as a private company.
In regards to my placing an immigration officer in every emergency room comment, Dave I was not trolling for a fight, but ( I guess a poor attempt) it was more of a follow up to my comment to Tami, pointing out that of the millions of “uninsured”, illegal aliens are included in that number and they should not. I was also pointing out the amount of money spent on healthcare for illegal aliens.
For the record, I have no problem at all with immigration. I just want people to follow the law and enter the country legally. The fact of the matter is illegal immigrants cost this country (California probably more than other states) billions of dollars in healthcare. But including them in the grand total of “uninsured” in America is disingenuous.
An update on the “Is end-of-life care mandatory?” issue. It’s not:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/13/sarah-palin/palin-claims-obama-misled-when-he-said-end-life-co/
—
Anyway, I agree that undocumented immigrants, who make up about a quarter of the uninsured people in America, are a burden on our health care system. By law, they must be treated when they come to an emergency room, etc. Therefore, I don’t think it is disingenuous to include them in the number of uninsured in America.
However, this is also the law for when anyone comes into an emergency room, so there are quite a few American citizens and legal immigrants without insurance burdening the system as well. As a priority, let’s get them insured (the citizens and legal immigrants) so that those of us with private insurance don’t continue to have our rates raised because of how much free care the hospitals and doctors are forced to give away.
While I don’t think it’s disingenuous to include undocumented immigrants in the number of uninsured, since all of the uninsured are burdening the system, I do think it is disingenuous to imply that this health care reform will suddenly insure 46 million (or whatever the number is) new people who previously didn’t have insurance. The reforms will not insure undocumented immigrants:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free-health-care-illegal-immigrants-health-bill/
—
Since we seem to constantly be discussing things that aren’t actually in the bill, here’s what’s in it:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/13/health-care-reform-simple-explanation/
As to the idea of posting agents at ED’s: Aside from the whole II argument the issue arises with the parent who brings a child to an ED for care. A child born here to an II has citizenship rights and will not be deported even if a parent is. Since that child can’t legally be placed into the care of an illegal family member they are placed in foster care. This is an extremely expensive option to the state and feds (matching funds) not to mention damaging to the children.
As with other situations, why should a child in need of medical care be denied it because his or her parent is (pick one) illegal, lazy, drug addicted,clueless. I would argue the same for those on TCA, whch I am sure you would argue vehemently against, the funds are for the children, not the adult.
Looks like the Republicans added the end-of-life bit, then called it “government death panels” trying to make Obama, etc. look bad, and have now forced their own proposed bit to be dropped. Obviously just smear tactics and nothing to do with truth.
“Right now, the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course. The provision requiring that Medicare pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling was introduced by Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican — yes, Republican — of Georgia, who says that it’s “nuts” to claim that it has anything to do with euthanasia.
And not long ago, some of the most enthusiastic peddlers of the euthanasia smear, including Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, and Mrs. Palin herself, were all for “advance directives” for medical care in the event that you are incapacitated or comatose. That’s exactly what was being proposed — and has now, in the face of all the hysteria, been dropped from the bill.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/opinion/14krugman.html
Dave –
Mr, Krugman’s liberal/progressive opinion notwithstanding Sen. Isakson seems differ.
Sen. Isakson: Health care bill’s end-of-life provision not my idea
Georgia senator says Obama wrongly credited him with being part of controversial legislation
“This is what happens when the president and members of Congress don’t read the bills,” Isakson said Tuesday. “The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies.
“I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats’ bill,” Isakson said. “I categorically oppose the House bill and find it incredulous that the White House and others would use my amendment as a scapegoat for their misguided policies.”
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/805316.html
If anyone bothers to click the link to the story you just pasted from, and if they read the second page of the article, they will see that Sen Isakson did in fact propose an amendment to do the same thing that the House bill proposes. I have yet to figure out the difference in how it would be applied in the real world.
Dave –
You seem to have great difficulty in understanding that HR 3200 End of Life Planning provisions are objectionable and Sen. Isakson had nothing to do with the House Bill since he is in the Senate.
Joe
And you seem to have trouble understanding that he introduced a provision in the Senate bill that is extremely similar to the House one. Was Obama wrong in stating that the House bill came from Isakson? Yes. Does Isakson want end-of-life planning provisions? Yes. Did Palin and Gingrich want it just a year or two ago before they were fighting Obama? Yes.
Dave –
Again the point is HR 3200 (pages 425-430) certainly does not say that End of Life Counseling is optional and I take the position since it is not explicitly stated as “optional” or “by choice” that if instituted will be “required” and “mandatory”.
And now Obama et al are backing away from it. They know they were wrong and people are against HR 3200 End of Life Counseling as provide in this bill.
Joe
P.S. The more Obama talks about his health care vision the more regular folks don’t like it.
What about this excerpt from the MMA of 2003 signed by Bush and a republican controled congress?
“House Bill
Coverage of certain physician’s services for certain terminally ill individuals would be authorized. Persons entitled to these services would be individuals who have not elected the hospice benefit and have not previously received these physician’s services. Covered services would be those furnished by a physician who is the medical director or employee of a hospice program. Services would include evaluating the individual’s need for pain and symptom management, counseling the individual with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the individual regarding advanced care planning. Payment for such services would equal the amount established for similar services under the physician fee schedule, excluding the practice expense component. The provision would apply to consultation services provided by a hospice program on or after January 1, 2004.
Senate Bill
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement provides coverage of certain physician’s services for certain terminally ill individuals. Beneficiaries entitled to these services are those who have not elected the hospice benefit and have not previously received these physician’s services. Covered services are those furnished by a physician who is the medical director or employee of a hospice program. The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary’s need for pain and symptom management, including the individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning. Payment for such services equals the amount established for similar services under the physician fee schedule, excluding the practice expense component. The provision would apply to consultation services provided by a hospice program on or after January 1, 2005. ”
This is not mandatory conseling it is OPTIONAL. So do we have “death squads” NO will the “death squads” be expanded NO because it is an optional service that not all will use like getting your tonsils out!
This part of the bill, while maybe being backed away from, was introduced by both Democrats (in the House) and Republicans (in the Senate). It was inspired by movements in the last two years to push something similar into law. This push was led by Republicans and backed by Johnny Isakson, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin, among others.
This was not an Obama idea and it was thought of as a good thing by all until some conservatives figured out they could twist it to try to smear health care reform as a whole.
pro death advocates (liberals) or pro choice as you prefer to call yourselves would have no problem with Kavorkian style medicine. I think to now blame conservatives for your misguided health plan directives and your attempt to deflect from the death panel gate will in the end, give your health plan the early death it deserves.
So Cdev is going to compare hospice care to ambiguous an unidentifiable seniors”‘ End of Life Care” counseling in HR 3200, where there is no comparison.
And Dave is simply a prevaricator plain and simply.
Joe
P.S. Blind liberal/progressive partisanship is pathetic.
I would hardly call creating an advance directive, DNR’s and wanting to be an organ donor “kavorkian style” medicine although I heard that on Rush on Thursday? Was that where you got that line?
Cdev
I don’t listen to Rush. I thought of it by myself, but I guess if it applies, then more than one smart person can see the correlation. We conservatives think along the same lines on most things, because our values define how we live and think.
Maybe you should get away from listening to Rush and just talk to conservatives in general and you’ll get the same feeling, we don’t need the NAACP, AARP or some union to tell us how to think. PC correctness is part of your daily checkstop before you can state your opinion on something, or you need your liberal party heads to spread the talking points instead of formatting thoughts on your VALUES.
Cisco I am a resigistered Republican who thinks of himself as an independent. I simply register GOP as it is the bigger local party and a GOP primary vote is what determines the winner of the election locally. I do not need a union to get talking points but when you talk as uneducated about the actual contents of the bill as you are it makes me think you get talking points instead of reading the bill!
Cdev
I don’t need to “educated” to believe what I believe. I don’t need to read the bill because I am oppossed to govt takeover, management, or regulation of my health care needs and wants.
this health care bill is pure “evil”, One provision in the plan calls for financial disclosure of personal financial information to determine how much I should pay for health care under the new Obama plan. I find this clause and many others repulsive to the american way of life.
I
Cisco that is correct, you are free to remain ignorent and unknowledgable. If you never read the bill or parts of it you are not qualified to say what is and is not in it! SO who filled you in on what is and is not in the bill?
cdev,
i don’t care for any parts of the bill, the whole premise of govt takng care of my health care needs is a false one.
As far as you being an independent? gutless. pick a side or get out of the game.
cisco,
unlike you I do not need a party to make a decision for me. It is disingenuous to suggest this bill supports “Kavorkian style medicine” The govt will not take care of your health care simply offer a plan that is affordable if you can not afford one. Read the bill. As you make statements about it and haven’t done some basic reading your ignorance shows!
I’m afraid that several folks simply don’t want to understand the core and very basic principal which guides many of us. Like most I am registered with a party, but that has little to do with the fact that I was able to get a first class education that enabled me to look up my own stuff. I have read the DRAFT document that is being discussed. Unfortunately I am human and because of my base beliefs, am more than a little skeptical about the entire thing. More importantly I have read the Constitution, Federalist Papers, and have studied constitutional law.
I say all of this so that Dave, cdev and others might try to understand us when we say that we are opposed to any form of federal health care reform. It is not the business of the Congress or the President to have anything to do with our health care. Disregard the individual paragraphs and sentences, activist judges will eventually read them in the worst possible way. Disregard the Town Hall meetings, the telepromptered speeches by a great orator. I want to make my own decisions without some bureaucrat from Washington offering any assistance. I planned my life in such a way as to enter my senior years in such a manner as to live as long as God lets me without having to worry about finances. I was able to do this as the son of a share cropper because at that time anyone could be as good or bad as he or she wanted to. Seat belt, and seat belt laws were not the “law of the land”. No one told me to wear a helmet on a tricycle. Decent, loving parents provided all the guidance I needed. If I strayed from the lines too far and my parents weren’t around to spot it Mr. Smith down the street was and it was corrected on the spot. Yes those were simpler times, but the confusion and hustle bustle nanny state didn’t evolve because that needed correcting. It evolved because a bunch of feel good jerks felt a need to take power.
Anyone who thinks that this health care thing is about what’s good for us and our country is either a fool or very poorly educated by the very system I’m talking about. Learn how to think, not what to think and you too can actually discuss this whole thing intelligently. This is not about health care, it’s about the power of the dollar!
cdev
I don’t need to read a will I won’t support. Is as basic as it gets, govt does not need to be involved in my health care. I don’t see why I need to read the bill.
Expcept, that there isn’t a bill yet. its not on the floor and it hasn’t yet been approved. There are provisons and varitations on it on various subcommittees, and from what I have seen, the intrusiveness of govt, the inability of govt to handle most things,.
Dude, you need to just be off “you didn’t read the bill” nonsense. I could read it, but it won’t change my mind. this law is wrong. If you need health care eiher you purchase it or go on to medicaid, which has no pre-exesting condition.
Dave Y., I respect your difference of opinion. You are taking the time to read and make an informed decision. Obviously our informed decisions are different and that is the great thing about this country. We are entitled to have differing opinions.
Cisco you are so ignorant of things it is not funny. there is a bill in the house it has a number . Yes it is in comittee still but it is what it is. You can be against the concept and not read the bill but only a moron would think they can intelligently debate the contents of the bill without haveing read a basic summary. It is obvious from your uninformed statements that you have a basic lack of the contents and are simply regurgetating propaganda!
Cdev
I have tried to be civil with you. What part of “this is not an area that govt should not be involved in ” don’t you understand. I have formed my own opinion based on my values, which I don’t care to repeat to you.
Your argument loses any credibility once you start calling disenters to your plan morons and unintelligent.
cisco –
Have no fear you are neither a a moron nor are you unintelligent and H.R. 3200 is a government takeover of health care and health insurance.
H.R. 3200 in my opinion would lead to nationalization/socialization of private health insurance. The so called “government option” will cause employers to drop private insurance forcing people into government-run health insurance. So it’s not your choice to keep your current private insurance, it’s your employer’s choice. And when the government artificially initially under-prices its health insurance program the private insurers go out of business and when the government premiums are insufficient to cover the costs of care taxes and premiums will increase.
We need health care and insurance reform by increasing private insurance competition and reduction of government intervention.
You’d have to be a moron and unintelligent to believe that a government program will be on budget and save money since it has never happened before.
Joe
Cisco it is first off not my plan. Next I did not call you a moron. I said only a moron would think he could debate the merits of the bill without having read a basic summary. You are ignorant of the fact there is even a bill. I respect your right to believe that govt. should not be involved in healthcare but you then claim that the bill contains certian provisions and you admittedly have not read it. That makes you ignorrant of the facts. I have been civil with you as well I respect your right to your opinion, as I do Joe’s and anyone elses opinion. I may think it is incorrect but that is the great thing about this country; we can disagree and still maintain our freedoms. I just think you are so blinded by partisanship you will not look at the facts objectively. This evidenced by you patently false statement in posts 357 and 364!
cdev,
I stand by by posts, which are not false. Kavorkina style medicine may have been said by others also, but If it quacks like a duck…….
Cdev,
You called Cisco a moron and anyone else who disagrees with you. The fact that you cannot understand, fundamentally, that anything the government is involved, turns to shit. There will never be a perfect system, where there are unlimited medical resources for people consume. That is not the world in which we live, it simply does not exist.
Joe is right, once there is an artifically priced (lower priced) government option, then employers will drop their plans and people will have no other choice than the government option. Doctor’s will make less, less will be invested in R&D (companies can’t recoup their investments) and we are no longer enjoying medical advances.
The fact of the matter is, man has been on the earth for tens of thousands of years and modern medicine arrived about 40 years ago. The advances in medicine over the past 40 years is absolutely astonoshing. Both of my parents would be dead today without modern medicine. Instead, they live relatively healthy, happy lives. As I’ve said before, the system is not perfect, but it is the absolute best. Why do you think so many people come to the United States when they are sick? It is because we have the best healthcare care in the world.
Communicator READ
“You can be against the concept and not read the bill but only a moron would think they can intelligently debate the contents of the bill without haveing read a basic summary”
THAT IS WHAT I SAID! Either read what is said and stop saying I called someone something I did not.
……..So modern medicine arrived in 1969? How do you pinpoint that? Are vacines not part of modern medicine, throat cultures, antibiotics and many other procedures.
Cdev,
True conservatives don’t need to read a health care bill that’s thousands of pages long (that by itself should tell most people that it won’t work). real changes with lasting effect would be to reduce mandates that increase a basic policy’s price, and tax incentives that allow deduction of health insurance premiums. add, to that real tort reform that reduces frivoulous medical liability cases and open competition across state lines.
Anything that lets the free market compete would reduce premiums and allow more people to obtain health care. the govt option creates a subsidized plan that competes with the market place, and would cause private or employer paid insurance obsolete.
For your info, i have read the most important parts of the bill and they should make most people mad as heck that our govt is going to require financial disclosure as part of getting health insurance and govt to determine my health care decisions. for the record you are now stating falsehoods with your quote
“THAT IS WHAT I SAID! Either read what is said and stop saying I called someone something I did not.”. if I was a fancy pantsy liberal like you (i know that you are registered republican) I woudl be upset about your name calling, but that is the only thing you have left as your arguments just don’t make sense.
This discussion has become entirely useless.
I agree. Just B S back and forth
Cdev, your parsing of the language is pathetic. Without using these exact words in this precise order, you called him a moron. Plain and simple for non-morons to see.
Joseph Caruso is, once again, completely correct. When there is a “government option”, employers will find it easier to simply drop their plans and have their employees take the goverment one. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to imagine the possibility of the government plan, once it has forced higher priced plans to fold, to start running a deficit because it was artificially priced too low and need further infusion of taxpayer dollars, which would come from increases in premiums and higher taxes.
cisco I guess you read it in the last 24 hours because at 9 PM last night you said
“I don’t need to read a will I won’t support. Is as basic as it gets, govt does not need to be involved in my health care. I don’t see why I need to read the bill.
Expcept, that there isn’t a bill yet. its not on the floor and it hasn’t yet been approved. There are provisons and varitations on it on various subcommittees, and from what I have seen, the intrusiveness of govt, the inability of govt to handle most things,.
Dude, you need to just be off “you didn’t read the bill” nonsense. I could read it, but it won’t change my mind. this law is wrong. If you need health care eiher you purchase it or go on to medicaid, which has no pre-exesting condition.”
Please note you also said there was no bill, which is a flat out lie and shows a lack of basic civics. Please stop flip floping and tell the truth.
I respect ones right to disagree. Some of you so called “conservatives” seem to think it is your job to convert me. Some respect my right to believe what I do. But I never called you a moron. I simply said that a moron would believe they could debate the contents of the bill without having read at least a summary so if you think that was you oh well I am sorry but that is it! I never said cisco is a moron!
Cdev –
I for one am not trying to convert you, however I am saying you are wrong.
Joe
Cdev,
You inferred that anyone that hasn’t read the bill and would argue about it was a moron and something about being unintelligent. That is what you said and others here agree.
The bill (whether your read it or not, if in commitee or on the floor) is a bad idea. We disagree on the merits of such need for govt intervention. Case closed as far as I am concerned!!!
I now hear that Obama is beginning to backtrack and his people are now saying that a public health insurance plan may not be needed to acheive health care reform? I have said before that reducing regulation, mandates, and offering incentives to lower the cost of health care would be more effective, hopefully they are listening to the people!!!
Cdev, you said
Cisco you are so ignorant of things it is not funny. there is a bill in the house it has a number . Yes it is in comittee still but it is what it is. You can be against the concept and not read the bill but only a moron would think they can intelligently debate the contents of the bill without haveing read a basic summary. It is obvious from your uninformed statements that you have a basic lack of the contents and are simply regurgetating propaganda!.
this reminds me of “I smoked it, but I didn’t inhale” and “it depends on the meaning of yes” and “I never had sex with that woman……”
I know……..you didn’t call anyone anything……..
Bite me.
Cisco READ
I said that you can be against the concept of the bill but if you have not read it you are not competant of debating provisions of the bill, which you are trying to do with statements such as “Kavorkian style medicine.” I did not say unintelligent. I used the word ignorant, meaning uninformed. I chose that word specificlly. I chose my words carefully for this reason.
I read that same thing too and have said we do not need a public option since the begining. This is good but less regulation is bad. It has the potential to result in a similar fiasco as when we deregulated banking or deregulated electric.
Cdev,
I said, “about 40 years ago” modern medicine arrived. My point was to look at the advancements in medical technology and pharmaceuticals in the last 40 years. Yes I know immunizations were done prior to that (actually, smallpox innoculations were being practiced in the 18th century) and a host of other medical procedures, which are now old and antiquated. There have been more advancements in medicine over the last 40 years than there have been over the course of human existance. The involvement of government healthcare, with artifical pricing, significantly reducing “evil profits” from the marketplace will eliminate most of the dollars being invested into medical R&D. The people with the money (or what they have left since Obama wants to tax the rich even more than they already pay) will find other investments outside of the medical world.
Cdev,
The problem wasn’t that electricity was deregulated. The problem is it was regulated. You see, in Maryland we paid for 10+ years artifical, government mandated electric pricing. We, as consumers, had no idea the true cost of electricity in the open market. Because the pricing was artifically set by the government, other companies could not enter the marketplace as competition, because they simply could not compete. When the government regulation ended, it appeared that there was a huge increase in electricity pricing. I admit, there was a huge increase, but only because we felt it all at once. Had we realized these increases over the same 10 year period, we would have accepted it as inflationary increases. Or, perhaps, if there was no government regulation, and the pricing was set by the open market and competition, we probably would be paying less than we are today for electricity.
Again, the governemnt gets invoved, artifically sets pricing with legislation and we blame the electric company instead of our myopic legislatures who constantly strive to do the “right” thing. By getting involved, one thing usually happens, Pandora’s Box is opened with many unintended consequences. The funny (or not so)thing is, our legislatures do not learn from their mistakes.
This is simple economics and anyone who has ever studied economics, realizes that government involvement into the marketplace usually leads to disaster.
As far as the banks, you make the statement that since banks were deregulated, blah blah, blah….. Yes the banks were deregulated but there were still rules and laws to follow. You act like banks could do whatever the hell they want.
You said it, your words, not mine “less regulation is bad”. You may call yourself a conservative, but I think you are nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Your ideals are dangerous.
I’ll admit I don’t know too much about the history of utility deregulation (or about the scientific authenticity of this survey…), but it does appear that those in the Baltimore region have bills that are the highest, or among the highest, in the nation. We certainly aren’t the most expensive housing market, etc., so that may not add up.
I meant to paste this link in my last post:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/consuminginterests/blog/2009/07/survey_baltimoreans_pay_highes.html
Dave,
I am not sure if our pricing is higher than other areas. If it is higher in our region, it is because there is no competition.
Dave,
You cannot compare the housing market to the cost of utilites. The two are unrelated. The amount od money people are willing to pay for a piece of residential real estate has nothing to do with the cost of utilities. That’s like saying the cost of gasoline is higher in our region but at the same time the average cost of an automobile is less expensive than other parts of the country.
Oh, I totally agree…it just seems odd that we would have the highest utility bills in the nation. Of course, that survey sure seems VERY unscientific, so I’m not putting much stock in it.
Dave,
If you remember, it was Michael Busch and Mike Miller who voted for the regulations, then went burzurk, when the the artifical pricing expired and they realized how much the increase was going to be. O’malley, of course jumped on the band wagon. All of the legislatures blamed BG&E but they created the mess to begin with.
Still seems odd we produce more power then we use and we have the highest cost? Part (not all) of the problem is BGE is overcharging.
Cdev,
Who is “we” when you say “we” produce more power than we use? Do you own Constellation Energy?
It is not yours or mine, it belongs to the the company and the shareholders. Or because they produce energy and you find it to be a value to you, now you think you are entitled to energy? I think you have, what too many other Americans have – a sense of entitlement.
If Constellation Energy is overcharging,(and I am not sure that they are or what you are basing this on, other than recent price increases that have more to do with artificial government pricing being lifted, than the marketplace) if there was true competition, then there would not be a monopoly or an oligopoly. But you see, because the government got involved, no other companies could enter the marketplace and complete, at least not profitably.
If ABC company came into the marketplace and sold energy at a more competitive price than Constellation Energy, Constellation Energy would have to lower their pricing to compete. But because our representatives and senators in Maryland created this government mandate years ago, we have no competition and probably higher pricing than would be possible in a free market.
You see, the same would happen in healthcare. Price fixing and “cost controls” would be a disaster. Whether the government is a single vendor or fixing prices through legislation, it will not lead to a better solution for the public.
May I ask a question —
We already have state by state medicaid programs in place. I took advantage of that program numerous years ago. This program is already in place, already administered, accepted, vetted, etc. It is for any person making under a certain dollar figure per year.
With that said, what about a federal subsidy to the state for each state to offer that same program at a sliding scale fee. So, for example, you make a family income of $30k per year (which if memory serves me is where the program ends) you can purchase into the program for $50/month, or some other reasonable fee.
Wouldn’t that make more sense than reinventing the wheel, placing MORE government programs with MORE administrative requirements in place? Am I the only person who has considered something like this? Would a situation like this be a win/win? Offer insurance to people at a very low cost using existing channels? And yes, I realize that the increased claims would require additional staff, but not an entire organizational structure.
Just looking for a problem solving point of view to help point these energies somewhere potentially useful?
Some health care debate sanity.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350810610869756.html
We is the many production facilities in the state of MD.
I now they belong to constelation which got sold to them at a DEAL by the state.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2009/Senate/Maps/Aug17-s.html#1
Another source which is making me rethink. The Neatherland system sounds good.
Cdev –
Well if you got your way and we embraced the Netherlands’system it would require state mandates to go away and free market interstate commerce/selling of health insurance.
Joe
Question,
There are state progams in place today for the citizens of each respective state who qualify for medicaid because of a limited income. There is no reason to create a federal governemnt program to duplicate these efforts. This would lead to more waste and inefficiencies.
Although there are some who need this help, most of the uninsured fall into the illegal alien, wealthy who do not need insurance, or people who have the income, but choose not to spend their money on insurance but other goods and servcies.
The federal governement does not have the answer and is not the answer. The answer is a free market place with few limitations, which includes people being able to purchase policies from companies in states in which they do not reside. This would be a great start.
For example, a person in PA can buy a more comprehensive, less expensive health insurance policy than someone living in NJ. Why? Other then the NJ insurance commissioner not approving the sale of the policy, I see no reason. Again, the policy is a better policy than what is available and less expensive. The only thing prohibiting that person from buying that policy is a state border.
Paul Krugman (NY Times) apologizes for mistake on Isakson last Friday:
“Correction: In Friday’s column I mistakenly asserted that Senator Johnny Isakson was responsible for a provision in a House bill that would allow Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling. In fact, he is responsible for a provision in a Senate bill that would allow a different, newly created government program to pay for such counseling.”
Cdev,
Do us a favor and move to the Netherlands. I’ve been there, you would like it. Plenty of delusional people who want something for nothing.
Communicator did you read the link?
Joe and that looks like a good compromise. It looks like a possible solution to the problem. I have said from the beginning that I don’t know the answer. All I know is that the status quo is not working and that is what I disagree with you all on. I do find it interesting we have all four models (British, Canadian, Dutch and Swiss) in this country.
Cdev –
You do realize that you are suggesting a private option, less government and free market solution to increasing competition and choice by allowing interstate sale of health insurance?
Joe