State Children's Health Insurance Program

[Ben Willaert]

Can someone explain the State Children’s Health Insurance Program that Obama just signed?

It is government health insurance for kids that don’t qualify for Medicaid. The funding for this is coming from a $.61 per pack tax increase on cigarettes. I know we love to make smokers the fall guys for everything, but what happens when too many of them quit?

Wouldn’t it be safe to say the majority of smokers are low income in the first place? This doesn’t look like only raising taxes on the wealthy to me. In fact, this is raising the taxes of the low class to fund a program for the middle class.

[Dan Conner]

Can someone explain the State Children’s Health Insurance Program that Obama just signed?

It is government health insurance for kids that don’t qualify for Medicaid. The funding for this is coming from a $.61 per pack tax increase on cigarettes. I know we love to make smokers the fall guys for everything, but what happens when too many of them quit?

Wouldn’t it be safe to say the majority of smokers are low income in the first place? This doesn’t look like only raising taxes on the wealthy to me. In fact, this is raising the taxes of the low class to fund a program for the middle class.

I don't know about where the revenue is proposed to come from for SCHIP, but I think it would fit your template for responsibility. If you want to smoke and potentially incur additional health care costs for it, that are shared by everyone, then there should be an additional cost for it. That would help reduce avoidance of responsibility. Remember all of our health care costs are raised by the additional cost of smoking. If people quit smoking it's a win-win. SCHIP can be financed in many other ways. Certainly you don't propose that a very young person that hasn't had an opportunity to incur responsibility to pay with their health. Kids need to be raised in a healthy environment. That's the least society can do.

I don't think smokers have been made to be the fall guys for everything. Smoking should exact a cost for a very risky and espensive habit.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Ben
Here are details of the bill that was sent to Obama for his signature. This information comes from the Free Press Web site under "Roll Call Votes" It is updated every monday with votes from the previous week. You can also look back at previous votes and issues. I find it to be very useful

CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE: Voting 290 for and 135
against, the House on Feb. 4 sent President Obama a bill (HR 2)
expanding State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
coverage from 6.6 million children to about 11 million children.
The bill would renew SCHIP for five years at a cost of $60 billion,
up nearly $35 billion from current levels, and raise federal tobacco
taxes from 39 cents per pack to $1.00 per pack to pay the added
costs. The bill would enable children of legal immigrants and legal
immigrants who are pregnant to qualify immediately for SCHIP
coverage, ending a five-year wait requirement for both groups.

SCHIP is a federally funded, state-run discretionary spending
program designed mainly for children from families that are not
poor enough to receive Medicaid yet unable to afford private
health insurance.

Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., called the bill "a smart investment in
children, in their health and in their success at school and in life. It
provides critical dental and mental health care for children,
prenatal care to make sure every child has the best chance at a
healthy start."

David Dreier, R-Calif., said that under the bill, "potentially people
who are in this country illegally will have access to (SCHIP). We
are…actually incentivizing people to move off of private insurance
onto government insurance, and…creating an opportunity for those
who are wealthy and adults to be beneficiaries of this program."

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

[Dan Conner]

Ben
Here are details of the bill that was sent to Obama for his signature. This information comes from the Free Press Web site under "Roll Call Votes" It is updated every monday with votes from the previous week. You can also look back at previous votes and issues. I find it to be very useful

CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE: Voting 290 for and 135
against, the House on Feb. 4 sent President Obama a bill (HR 2)
expanding State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
coverage from 6.6 million children to about 11 million children.
The bill would renew SCHIP for five years at a cost of $60 billion,
up nearly $35 billion from current levels, and raise federal tobacco
taxes from 39 cents per pack to $1.00 per pack to pay the added
costs. The bill would enable children of legal immigrants and legal
immigrants who are pregnant to qualify immediately for SCHIP
coverage, ending a five-year wait requirement for both groups.

SCHIP is a federally funded, state-run discretionary spending
program designed mainly for children from families that are not
poor enough to receive Medicaid yet unable to afford private
health insurance.

Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., called the bill "a smart investment in
children, in their health and in their success at school and in life. It
provides critical dental and mental health care for children,
prenatal care to make sure every child has the best chance at a
healthy start."

David Dreier, R-Calif., said that under the bill, "potentially people
who are in this country illegally will have access to (SCHIP). We
are…actually incentivizing people to move off of private insurance
onto government insurance, and…creating an opportunity for those
who are wealthy and adults to be beneficiaries of this program."

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Thanks for the info Joe.

[Ben Willaert]

I don't know about where the revenue is proposed to come from for SCHIP, but I think it would fit your template for responsibility. If you want to smoke and potentially incur additional health care costs for it, that are shared by everyone, then there should be an additional cost for it. That would help reduce avoidance of responsibility. Remember all of our health care costs are raised by the additional cost of smoking. If people quit smoking it's a win-win. SCHIP can be financed in many other ways. Certainly you don't propose that a very young person that hasn't had an opportunity to incur responsibility to pay with their health. Kids need to be raised in a healthy environment. That's the least society can do.

I don't think smokers have been made to be the fall guys for everything. Smoking should exact a cost for a very risky and espensive habit.

I understand smokers have raised health care costs, but what about the obesity and diabetes? When too many smokers quit or cigarettes are illegal, can we shift this tax to fast food and sugar? If taxes are going to be increased more on smokers, why not apply them directly to the people or businesses affected. Funding government children’s health care should be coming from somewhere else, if at all.

[Dan Conner]

I understand smokers have raised health care costs, but what about the obesity and diabetes? When too many smokers quit or cigarettes are illegal, can we shift this tax to fast food and sugar? If taxes are going to be increased more on smokers, why not apply them directly to the people or businesses affected. Funding government children’s health care should be coming from somewhere else, if at all.

You are arguing over nothing. The point is, children need health insurance. It doen't matter where the money comes from. Taxes from cigarette are as good s any other. It might be a win-win if it causes people to quit smoking. If we care about the future of our country, and I know you said you care about our country, we must take care of the children. They are the future.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

The only thing I can add to that is this: children, because they are usually young and healthy, don't cost the health care system a great deal of money. Several Republicans voted for this also....In my opinion the income level they raised is probably a bit high....I liked the Republican idea to make sure the poorest families hear about this and state's have to set up outreach to make sure we reach them...(Republicans wanted that to be a mandate, Democrats didn't) ..

If kids get preventive care, and can get the ear infection cleared up, the won't be as high a cost if they dont and have to go to ER...,which by the way, by law, we cannot reject someone from ER. We have to take them, even if they don't have insurance. That's part of what hospitals will tell you is "charity care"

[Dan Conner]

The only thing I can add to that is this: children, because they are usually young and healthy, don't cost the health care system a great deal of money. Several Republicans voted for this also....In my opinion the income level they raised is probably a bit high....I liked the Republican idea to make sure the poorest families hear about this and state's have to set up outreach to make sure we reach them...(Republicans wanted that to be a mandate, Democrats didn't) ..

If kids get preventive care, and can get the ear infection cleared up, the won't be as high a cost if they dont and have to go to ER...,which by the way, by law, we cannot reject someone from ER. We have to take them, even if they don't have insurance. That's part of what hospitals will tell you is "charity care"

Joe, you might be right, but where is reference about Republicans voting for what? There should be no income level for chiildren. Do you mean to say that if parents have $10 to much in annual income, but can't afford health insurance, that their kids go without preventative medical care? Also, where is your reference that ALL hospitals have to treat people in ER's? I don't know if that is required of all hospitals, particularly private ones. If it is, then why have people been turned away from ER treatment. Remember, there was just a case of a homeless person sent out of the hospital with only a hospital gown on and he died on the street? Also, I've heard of other cases where the hospital refused emergency help because no insurance or Medicaid, but I would like to see evidence pointing out otherwise.

[Ben Willaert]

http://law.freeadvice.com/malpractice_law/hospital_malpractice/hospital-patients.htm
A quick google search showed when a hospital can and cannot turn patients away. Public can’t, private can unless they started treating, then they can’t stop.

http://www.mncn.org/bp/schip.pdf
He is MN SCHIP program. The income limit is $34,340 for a family of 3. Yes, if they make $34,350 they would be turned down. What, you didn't think there was a cap? Unfortunately we are running out of smokers to fleece anymore.

An interesting side note would be that the WIC program in MN just had to reduce their income limit by a bunch ($10,000 per year range). From what I know, they signed a contract with Similac formula, which seems to be more harsh on babies, so now they have to pay 100% cost for Enfamil formula for a lot of babies. That put WIC way over budget. Families had to be cut to get the expenditures back down.

[Dan Conner]

http://law.freeadvice.com/malpractice_law/hospital_malpractice/hospital-patients.htm
A quick google search showed when a hospital can and cannot turn patients away. Public can’t, private can unless they started treating, then they can’t stop.

http://www.mncn.org/bp/schip.pdf
He is MN SCHIP program. The income limit is $34,340 for a family of 3. Yes, if they make $34,350 they would be turned down. What, you didn't think there was a cap? Unfortunately we are running out of smokers to fleece anymore.

An interesting side note would be that the WIC program in MN just had to reduce their income limit by a bunch ($10,000 per year range). From what I know, they signed a contract with Similac formula, which seems to be more harsh on babies, so now they have to pay 100% cost for Enfamil formula for a lot of babies. That put WIC way over budget. Families had to be cut to get the expenditures back down.

Well, great Ben, you verified what I was saying to Joe. Private hospitals can refuse emergency cases, as I thought. Poor smokers, we have licenses for hunting, permits for building, fees for parks, licenses for cars, etc., etc. Smokers shouldn't feel singled out. Many people already have lots of fees. They might not realize it, but someone is doing them a favor.

Didn't think I knew there was a cap? You have to read things more carefully. I said what does one do when they exceed that $34,340 by $10? They have no health insurance and the child goes without care. $34,340 isn't a lot of money to be able to purchase health insurance, unless it's furnished by the employer, and there are getting fewer employers who furnish it now.

What are you trying to say...not to infant formula? Sometimes I think you need to go to a part of the country where there are no services and needs. Then, I would propose that you wouldn't have to pay taxes. You know where people live that received services when they were young, but who don't think others "earn it." I think you have to walk a mile in their shoes.

[Tony Cornish]

Too complicated of a subject to answer in short quotes. I'd rather make it affordable for all rather than pay for it for all.

Tony

[Ben Willaert]

Well, great Ben, you verified what I was saying to Joe. Private hospitals can refuse emergency cases, as I thought. Poor smokers, we have licenses for hunting, permits for building, fees for parks, licenses for cars, etc., etc. Smokers shouldn't feel singled out. Many people already have lots of fees. They might not realize it, but someone is doing them a favor.

Didn't think I knew there was a cap? You have to read things more carefully. I said what does one do when they exceed that $34,340 by $10? They have no health insurance and the child goes without care. $34,340 isn't a lot of money to be able to purchase health insurance, unless it's furnished by the employer, and there are getting fewer employers who furnish it now.

What are you trying to say...not to infant formula? Sometimes I think you need to go to a part of the country where there are no services and needs. Then, I would propose that you wouldn't have to pay taxes. You know where people live that received services when they were young, but who don't think others "earn it." I think you have to walk a mile in their shoes.


Sorry, I did misread your question about income limits. I figured you were addressing Joe’s post, but in a forum setting questions are usually answered by anyone. I am not sure why you are resorting to snide remarks towards me. I feel I have been nothing but respectful towards you and your ideas. I am sorry we don’t see eye to eye, but it seems I at least have been open minded enough to look into your side of the story.

As for WIC, I was pointing out the inefficiencies of this government program. Because Similac came in with the low bid last year, the state had to go with them for the families that qualified for WIC. The problem came when the Similac was too harsh for many babies. Doctors prescribed Enfamil and the state had to pay 100% of the cost for Enfamil because they had no contract with Enfamil. The WIC program went over budget and as a result had to trim down the families that qualified.

Believe it or not, I actually am in favor of WIC. I see it as being adult education in their kid’s nutrition and helps get healthy food for their kids to eat. It’s too bad the bureaucracy of state programs ties their hands from making good business decisions. In this case, it appears the state could pay a private company to provide this service and that company could operate it much more efficiently.

[Dan Conner]

Sorry, I did misread your question about income limits. I figured you were addressing Joe’s post, but in a forum setting questions are usually answered by anyone. I am not sure why you are resorting to snide remarks towards me. I feel I have been nothing but respectful towards you and your ideas. I am sorry we don’t see eye to eye, but it seems I at least have been open minded enough to look into your side of the story.

As for WIC, I was pointing out the inefficiencies of this government program. Because Similac came in with the low bid last year, the state had to go with them for the families that qualified for WIC. The problem came when the Similac was too harsh for many babies. Doctors prescribed Enfamil and the state had to pay 100% of the cost for Enfamil because they had no contract with Enfamil. The WIC program went over budget and as a result had to trim down the families that qualified.

Believe it or not, I actually am in favor of WIC. I see it as being adult education in their kid’s nutrition and helps get healthy food for their kids to eat. It’s too bad the bureaucracy of state programs ties their hands from making good business decisions. In this case, it appears the state could pay a private company to provide this service and that company could operate it much more efficiently.

Ben I'm sorry if I sounded rude, but I am concerned about what our country is becoming. We self-righteously sit in judgement of others, and don't want to help--just judge them. For those who are Christians, doesn't the bible say something like judge not lest thou be judged? Also, isn't there a passage that says not to worry about the sliver in someone else's eye until you pull the log out of your own eye? I have not known of one person whose been improved though unrelenting criticism. In fact, isn't constructive criticism when we point out a deficiency and then suggest an improvement. Just being critical is easy and doesn't require must thought.

I'm glad you're for WIC. Then, I'm sure you're for health care for all children, otherwise what a waste of formula. If we care for the children, it has to mean in a more wholistic way. That has to mean a quality education as well. I'm concerned our country is dumbing down. There has to be increased empahsis on the importance of quality education.

[Ben Willaert]

I am most definitely for the best health care for children. I just think capitalism gives us the best opportunity to do that. I feel government bogs itself down with unnecessary red tape that ends up doing more harm then good, no matter the intentions. In a true free market, the corrupt businesses would be taken out by better, socially responsible businesses. I hope that is what is happening right now. With all the moral, educated, intelligent workers that are laid off right now, I want them to take a chance and create new businesses to return us to the great country we were and should be. That is what I believe would be the best for each and every one of us. It is fine for the government to provide a safety net and education, but when they get into actually providing everything for us is where I think we would all be worse off.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Ben and Dan

Here's a nice summary of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, that requires all hospitals that receive Medicare payments to assess and treat if necessary people who can't pay. This is from the Congressional Research Service. I would use this as a source versus a law firm randomly found on the internet.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4u_V-7SJc04J:aging.senate.gov/crs/medicare20.pdf+EMTALA+%2B+CRS&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

The requirement is for hospitals that take Medicare patients to provide the service..

Minnesota Hospital association confirms this, and notes that hospital emergency rooms post the details of the law and patients rights in their facilities.

The law was passed in 1986.

Ben, your reference to the SCHIP program was for 2007...so the income limits could be old...the new income limits as least what states can go up to is $66,000 for a family of four. that was listed in the report from our Roll Call syndicate.

[Dan Conner]

I am most definitely for the best health care for children. I just think capitalism gives us the best opportunity to do that. I feel government bogs itself down with unnecessary red tape that ends up doing more harm then good, no matter the intentions. In a true free market, the corrupt businesses would be taken out by better, socially responsible businesses. I hope that is what is happening right now. With all the moral, educated, intelligent workers that are laid off right now, I want them to take a chance and create new businesses to return us to the great country we were and should be. That is what I believe would be the best for each and every one of us. It is fine for the government to provide a safety net and education, but when they get into actually providing everything for us is where I think we would all be worse off.

Ben, where do you get that capitalism is best for giving health insurnace to children. We have capitalism and children don't have health insurance. Your argument rebuted itself. If capitalism was best at providing health insurance to childres, WE WOULD HAVE IT! I would like for you to describe the red tape that you say would "bog the system down." I know you can't because there is very little "red tape", at least to the patient. Look at the millions of people getting Medicaid. There's no additional "red tape" for the patient there.

Ah, I like what you say about being in a true "free market" that corrupt businesses would be "taken out." That begs the answer -- WE DON'T HAVE FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!" We have government sanctioned monopolies and large businesses and corporations that spend countless millions buying our congressmen and senators. The game is rigged, and believe me, not in your favor.

Well, I'm glad you are willing, at least temporarily, to lend a helping hand via a "safety net" and education. Also, I'm glad you like the entrepreneurial spirit. So do I, but there is nothing in socialism that discourages it. Again, I refer you back to the Scandinavian countries. They have a fourishing entrepreneurial spirit. There are many many small owner run businesses, and ther is an added committment to their workforce and the community. Our problem is not spoiling people by doing everything for them, it is that we have spoiled businesses by doing everything for them. Large businesses and corporations need to be far more responsible and contributing to society. They too have responsibilities.

[Ben Willaert]

I posted this on another thread by mistake: The red tape is on the side of the government program. There are many ways our government programs are forced to make poor business decisions because of politics. The problem is the government doesn’t seem to mind taking a loss. How can private health care compete with government health care that can run in the red? I’ve read SCHIP needs 22 million MORE smokers in order to fund that program. It is set up to fail, but all failure means is that money will be sent in from somewhere else or those receiving the benefits will be trimmed down.

My example of the cut backs with WIC is another example of red tape. WIC’s hands are tied with the contract with Similac because Similac is the low bid even though it may be an inferior product. The bid is lower then Enfamil but it costs WIC more money in the end. A private company doesn’t have to take the low bid. It can go with whatever product it chooses to differentiate itself with.

Yep, we don't have free market capitalism, but we should.

[Dan Conner]

I posted this on another thread by mistake: The red tape is on the side of the government program. There are many ways our government programs are forced to make poor business decisions because of politics. The problem is the government doesn’t seem to mind taking a loss. How can private health care compete with government health care that can run in the red? I’ve read SCHIP needs 22 million MORE smokers in order to fund that program. It is set up to fail, but all failure means is that money will be sent in from somewhere else or those receiving the benefits will be trimmed down.

My example of the cut backs with WIC is another example of red tape. WIC’s hands are tied with the contract with Similac because Similac is the low bid even though it may be an inferior product. The bid is lower then Enfamil but it costs WIC more money in the end. A private company doesn’t have to take the low bid. It can go with whatever product it chooses to differentiate itself with.

Yep, we don't have free market capitalism, but we should.

Ben--

You are again making all sorts of statements and drawing conclusions, without offering any evidence, or even giving one example. Red tape on the side of the government program? Many times our government is forced to make poor business decisions because of politics? The government doesn't mind taking a loss? You say these things are so pervasive, but you don't offer ONE example. As far as governemnt not minding to take a loss - this is a muddled conclusion. The government doesn't operate in a profit/loss structure like business. There is not "profit or loss" in government. The closest example I can think of to your definition is the United States Post Office, but that is now private (business). Coincidentally, they have been showing bigger and bigger losses since they have become private. Profit and loss is a term used for business and is irrelevant for government. The is no "profit/loss" element to government.

When you say government makes poor business decisions because of politics - I would certainly hope so. Government represents all people and human rights, not profit/loss. I would think that most people would not want government to operate like a business. Business is only concerned about making money. If people can be helped in the process fine, but the main intent is to make money. Government is mainly concerned about helping people and defending our nation, if they can do that without costing too much fine, but they are still about helping people and defending the nation. When you talk about private health care providers competing with government - they can't. The government doesn't take a "profit" out of the business. However, there are many instances where the government works in concert with business. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is an example. Airlines are assessed a fee to help pay for the FAA. However, the FAA is mainly concerned about safety of flight. That might help the business, but it is mainly done to protect lives of people (voters, constituents, or whatever). I would not trust business with that function.

Your explanation of WIC, Similac, Enfamil needs further investigation. Without knowing the particulars, I know you are wrong because I know better of the government bidding process. Government doesn't have to take the lowest bidder, and they don't in many cases. Sometimes a bidder will offer additional features in their product, besides cost, that gets the bid. Also, bidders must perform to contract requirements, or the contract can be voided. Also, the government usually puts clauses in their contracts that they can cancel at any, or some point, with notice. So, government can get out of contracts if they want. There is probably more to the story than you have told, but you didn't explain it in more detail. I can tell you that government can almost always get a product at a cheaper price, than another company, because of the enormous volume they deal with. Remember, businesses are looking at profit, and there is no profit in no sales.

Your statement that we should have free enterprise? It might surprise you that most businesses wouldn't favor that either, because many of them would be forced out of business. Also, there is no "free enterprise." Until you take big business out of its influence on government, it will cost you plenty.

[Ben Willaert]

I would imagine the post office still has the same business model it did while it was a government entity. That would explain its failure. Productivity should be rewarded, not seniority.

Dan- Lets say the U.S. adopts the socialist policies you promote. What happens when a cancer patient wants to use a cutting edge medication that other socialist countries would deny because of the financial burden to the rest of society? Would the U.S. ignore the financial burden and allow all citizens the freedom to use any treatment, no matter the cost; or would the government have to deny the use of many medications used in the U.S. today?

This question comes straight from an interview I heard on MPR awhile back where a man was asked if he felt cheated because his social health care system denied him a drug that could extend his life. He went on to talk about how people in the U.S. are too hung up on extending their lives by a few days. He understood and felt he was doing society a service by not taking the expensive treatments.

I don’t want businesses to be comfortable. I want them to compete and give the consumer the best product they can. Comfortable businesses have room for corruption. Lets keep on getting rid of trade restrictions. Let supply and demand show us where to go.

[Dan Conner]

I would imagine the post office still has the same business model it did while it was a government entity. That would explain its failure. Productivity should be rewarded, not seniority.

Dan- Lets say the U.S. adopts the socialist policies you promote. What happens when a cancer patient wants to use a cutting edge medication that other socialist countries would deny because of the financial burden to the rest of society? Would the U.S. ignore the financial burden and allow all citizens the freedom to use any treatment, no matter the cost; or would the government have to deny the use of many medications used in the U.S. today?

This question comes straight from an interview I heard on MPR awhile back where a man was asked if he felt cheated because his social health care system denied him a drug that could extend his life. He went on to talk about how people in the U.S. are too hung up on extending their lives by a few days. He understood and felt he was doing society a service by not taking the expensive treatments.

I don’t want businesses to be comfortable. I want them to compete and give the consumer the best product they can. Comfortable businesses have room for corruption. Lets keep on getting rid of trade restrictions. Let supply and demand show us where to go.

Ben, you make way too many assumptions. I'll tell ya what I'll do. I have the DVD Sicko", and I'll loan it to you, if you give it back. There, you'll be able to compare the medical service of the US with Canada, England, France, and even Guantanamo. There are lots of testimonials from people who live in those countries about the specifics of their coverage and care. I have relatives who live in Canada and there is no way they want to trade their health care for ours. Face it, US health care sucks! If you want the DVD, let me know and I'll get it to you. I think you are standing in a farmyard of pig doo-doo up to your armpits and people have been telling you that that is beautiful. So, you accept it as beautiful. Try looking somewhere else.

[Dan Conner]

I would imagine the post office still has the same business model it did while it was a government entity. That would explain its failure. Productivity should be rewarded, not seniority.

Dan- Lets say the U.S. adopts the socialist policies you promote. What happens when a cancer patient wants to use a cutting edge medication that other socialist countries would deny because of the financial burden to the rest of society? Would the U.S. ignore the financial burden and allow all citizens the freedom to use any treatment, no matter the cost; or would the government have to deny the use of many medications used in the U.S. today?

This question comes straight from an interview I heard on MPR awhile back where a man was asked if he felt cheated because his social health care system denied him a drug that could extend his life. He went on to talk about how people in the U.S. are too hung up on extending their lives by a few days. He understood and felt he was doing society a service by not taking the expensive treatments.

I don’t want businesses to be comfortable. I want them to compete and give the consumer the best product they can. Comfortable businesses have room for corruption. Lets keep on getting rid of trade restrictions. Let supply and demand show us where to go.

Oh great, the post office is clinging to their old ways. I guess capitalism and private enterprise is never at fault with you. I guess you feel GM, Ford, Chrysler, Citbank, US Bank, Washington Mutual, Best Buy, Merrill Lynch, Golman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Bernie Madoff, Sun Country Airlines, Northwest Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Airlines, etc., etc., etc., must all have been government agencies as well. And what MODELS are they using because they are failing big time! Same as the post office? Was it seniority that got rewarded there too?

I don't think many businesses are comfortable these days, so I guess you won there, but collapsing capitalism seems like a strange way for you to do it. They are competing now...for their life. I'm sorry about getting rid of more regulation. You are going to be a very disappointed and unhappy person. There is going to be a whole lot more regulation coming down in the future. The business/bank/customer fun days are over. All are going to be far more regulated in the future. Get used to it!

P.S. What the heck do you think when the US health system denies someone a life saving drug/surgery/treatment? It happens all the time. So what's the point?

[Ben Willaert]

Spend a day over in Rochester and I wonder how many leaders you will see from those countries. From my experience with arthritis I see the U.S. having the most cutting edge medications. The biologics like Enbrel are the best in the world, but cost $1600 a month. That is why 2/3 of all sales are here in the U.S., I’m sure socialist countries deny their citizens from using them.

You call me out about objective sources on the other thread and then you want me to watch Michael Moore?

Private enterprise can be at fault, but that is the beauty of capitalism, new business can rise to take its place.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Spend a day over in Rochester and I wonder how many leaders you will see from those countries. From my experience with arthritis I see the U.S. having the most cutting edge medications. The biologics like Enbrel are the best in the world, but cost $1600 a month. That is why 2/3 of all sales are here in the U.S., I’m sure socialist countries deny their citizens from using them.

You call me out about objective sources on the other thread and then you want me to watch Michael Moore?

Private enterprise can be at fault, but that is the beauty of capitalism, new business can rise to take its place.

France - which happens to have the best health care system (and it's socialized), prescribes Enbrel, as do other countries with socialized medicine. So I would assume you are just speculating when you say you are sure socialist countries deny cutting edge rx's to citizens. Can you site evidence to the contrary? Are you speaking of countries with socialized medicine or socialized countries? Cuba is socialist and Enbrel is prescribed there too.

Frankly I am tired, so tired, of Michael Moore being demonized. He is fighting for the common man, yet the common man thumbs his nose... CRIPES! Can you give me a reason why you dislike the man?