Government-run healthcare

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Here's a fascinating article about how a small country pays for its health care but also makes decisions that people don't like, a.k.a. a $60,000 cancer treatment that saved the author's life.

It raises the specter of what health care might look like if we change the syste to cover everyone and limit private participation....

It's intriguing because the government, and even political leaders, did get involved in what treatment a patient got because it was a dollars and sense issue and the government was in charge of keeping costs down.

While it's focus is on New Zealand for one example, it extrapolates that to how things might look in U.S., and also explores Canada and U.K.

What was interesting is that politicians were running on platforms of approving this medicine or that....Medicine did truly become a political issue in a government run program.



Here's the intro.

The cancer drug Herceptin saved the author’s life. It also cost $60,000. Would health-care reform put it, and other expensive new drugs, out of reach?

It's from the Atlantic, a longtime very credible public affairs magazine that offers its pages to all sides of the political spectrum. It's read by many washington elite and looked to by policy makers.

Here's the link

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/postrel-drugs

[Bob Jentges]

I read the article; it was excellent!

Some problems I see with government run universal health care include:

1) In order to maintain the excellent quality we have now and to continue
with necessary research to advance even further would place an
unsustainable financial burden to the tax payers under a government run
program.

2) Limiting tax payer contributions to the system in an attempt to control
costs to the tax payers would in turn limit what the program would provide
coverage for. What was not covered could place a severe financial
burden on the individual that needed the treatment.

I do not want a government bureaucrat, well intended as they might be, the one that determines whether to "err on the side of the patient safety or on the side of cost" with respect to coverage. The who, what, and when is best left to the individual patient and his/her doctor.

[Dan Conner]

I think this is a short article comparing health care in the US, Canada, and Britain.

http://healthfieldmedicare.suite101.com/article.cfm/american_canadian_british_health_care_systems

Health care seems roughly comparable in all three countries, but takes a far lesser percentage of GDP in Canada and England. That might be of interest for people who don't want to spend money.

[Dan Conner]

Here's another article comparing American and British health care. I cut a paragraph from the article I thought was eye-opening:

http://www.lafayette.edu/news.php/view/7923/

"Many students come to the course with the presumption that America has the best health-care system in the world. They learn that we have the best health care technology, but that in terms of outcomes – using measures like infant mortality, all mortality, and morbidity – many other health-care systems do better than America,” he explains.

“Further, they do this spending a lot less than we do. We have the best health care system for persons with lots of money, but we do not focus on the health of the overall population, which is how health care is done in Britain.”

[Ben Willaert]

We get outdone because we don’t have good preventative health care, but that is changing.

Our health care insurance companies are finally starting to get into preventative health care as the way to save/make money. The drug companies have ruled the health care industry with their drug fixes. Prevention makes insurance more profitable because they don’t have to pay out as much money for expensive drugs. From quit smoking plans, to diet plans, to stress plans, insurance companies are offering many more preventative services to their clients then ever before. As the education and prevention take hold and we become healthier, insurance rates will go down. Along with rates going down, insurance companies will still be able to make a profit to fund new services. Capitalism at work.

[Dan Conner]

We get outdone because we don’t have good preventative health care, but that is changing.

Our health care insurance companies are finally starting to get into preventative health care as the way to save/make money. The drug companies have ruled the health care industry with their drug fixes. Prevention makes insurance more profitable because they don’t have to pay out as much money for expensive drugs. From quit smoking plans, to diet plans, to stress plans, insurance companies are offering many more preventative services to their clients then ever before. As the education and prevention take hold and we become healthier, insurance rates will go down. Along with rates going down, insurance companies will still be able to make a profit to fund new services. Capitalism at work.

WOW! I'm glad you have a handle on our health care system. The funny thing is that health care providers and insurance companies have been working on preventative health care for over a decade, but now you say the fog has lifted and we have all had an epiphany? Also, now you say the health care industry is ruled by the pharmaceuticals? Before you were saying they were the model of innovation focused on making out lives nirvana. Now you are saying they are the problem? Which is it?

No matter what you say, Britain and Canada are better served and for a lot less.

[Ben Willaert]

"They learn that we have the best health care technology, but.....


I didn’t say the drug companies are a problem, I said they make the most money. Your quote above even says we have the best health care technology. That would be awesome if we could combine preventative care and the best technology in the world.

Preventative care is where our society is lacking. Our kids are growing up on pizza, fast food and what ever the schools think they will eat. You want the government to do something for us; it should be revamping the school lunch program. We could even put a $.61 tax on Big Mac’s to pay for it.

My insurance has been with Medica for over 6 years now. I have noticed a real bump up in their preventative education in the last couple of years. Blue Cross has started running more ads on tv as well. Although, it doesn’t really matter when they started, the point is we are working on preventative care which is exactly where we lag behind. We don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water.

[Dan Conner]

I didn’t say the drug companies are a problem, I said they make the most money. Your quote above even says we have the best health care technology. That would be awesome if we could combine preventative care and the best technology in the world.

Preventative care is where our society is lacking. Our kids are growing up on pizza, fast food and what ever the schools think they will eat. You want the government to do something for us; it should be revamping the school lunch program. We could even put a $.61 tax on Big Mac’s to pay for it.

My insurance has been with Medica for over 6 years now. I have noticed a real bump up in their preventative education in the last couple of years. Blue Cross has started running more ads on tv as well. Although, it doesn’t really matter when they started, the point is we are working on preventative care which is exactly where we lag behind. We don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Yes, you did say drug companies were the problem. You said, "Our health care insurance companies are finally starting to get into preventative health care as the way to save/make money. The drug companies have ruled the health care industry with their drug fixes." That seems to state pretty strongly to me that you are saying drug companies have slowed preventative health care.

Also, I'm tired of you always accusing others of being lazy, having poor diets, etc. Yet, you are the same person who wanted to add more bars downtown and wanted us to stop picking on smokers? That isn't an appropriate solution to poor diets, is it? You even want the government to take, what you would say is our responsibility, for revamping the school lunch program. Isn't that "socialism?" You are asking to take responsibility for what others should do for themselves? Then, you propose to tax Big Mac's - how does that square with your tax equity? You said before you didn't want to tax smokers anymore, but it's OK to tax Big Mac eaters? Besides, isn't this taking hard earned money from Big Mac users to distribute to others?

I don't agree that starting TV ads is any remarkable achievement in preventative health care. Considering the expense of TV ads, it might mean more to devote the money to preventative care. Maybe it's more of a PR effort and substance? Believe me, preventative health care goes far beyond TV ads. I think Britain and Canada would agree with that. However, ads are sure easy.

I read your resply as too contradictory to your prior statements. You criticize kids and lower income people for work ethic and diets, but you propose to add to an already serious national problem with alcohol? You propose additional taxes on food, but complain about taxes on smokers. Then, you tout the miracles of innovation in our drug industry, but say they have been a problem with preventative health. I have a hard time discussing the issues with you because they seem to morph and contradict each other. Most of all, you propose to add a tax on Big Mac's because they are bad for you? That is the epitomy of socialism. It appears you are trying the "nanny" state.

[Ben Willaert]

I read your resply as too contradictory to your prior statements. You criticize kids and lower income people for work ethic and diets, but you propose to add to an already serious national problem with alcohol? You propose additional taxes on food, but complain about taxes on smokers. Then, you tout the miracles of innovation in our drug industry, but say they have been a problem with preventative health. I have a hard time discussing the issues with you because they seem to morph and contradict each other. Most of all, you propose to add a tax on Big Mac's because they are bad for you? That is the epitomy of socialism. It appears you are trying the "nanny" state.

I am not sure where I singled out low income as having poor diets. Pretty sure obesity is having drastic consequences on every class. Also not sure where I said low income people HAVE poor work ethic, but we shouldn’t encourage poor work ethic by providing alternatives to work that have more benefits then actually working.

I don’t see how I am proposing adding to the alcohol problem in the U.S. I am just saying, allow businessmen the freedom to open bars and patrons the freedom to patronize them. Bars pay taxes and so do the customers. Bars also pay for liquor licenses. Paying extra for police forces has paid off for Las Vegas. I wouldn’t mind not paying income taxes.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108543.html
“Las Vegas has a favorable business climate: taxes are relatively low, and there are neither city nor state income taxes. This is because gambling and sales taxes, paid by tourists, have allowed the city and state governments to avoid personal and corporate income taxes.”

Sorry, the Big Mac tax was tongue in cheek.

Again, drug companies aren’t a problem to the health care industry. Drugs are where the money was at, so everyone piled on board. Not a problem, just no one addressed the preventative side until recently. Maybe we believed we could create a drug to solve anything and everything. That isn’t the case, so now there is money to be made in preventative care. My quote "The drug companies have ruled the health care industry with their drug fixes." "ruled" = made the most money, not dictated what happens.

Actually one of my primary reasons for being on this forum is so that I can develop and confirm my views. I’m still pretty green. I have no problem being open to new ideas. Your right, many times I do not fall in line on the republican, democrat or even conservative, liberal views. I go with what I think is best for my family, my country and my fellow man. Most of the time though, I think it is best to encourage people to be their best, instead of providing for or controling them.

[Dan Conner]

I am not sure where I singled out low income as having poor diets. Pretty sure obesity is having drastic consequences on every class. Also not sure where I said low income people HAVE poor work ethic, but we shouldn’t encourage poor work ethic by providing alternatives to work that have more benefits then actually working.

I don’t see how I am proposing adding to the alcohol problem in the U.S. I am just saying, allow businessmen the freedom to open bars and patrons the freedom to patronize them. Bars pay taxes and so do the customers. Bars also pay for liquor licenses. Paying extra for police forces has paid off for Las Vegas. I wouldn’t mind not paying income taxes.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108543.html
“Las Vegas has a favorable business climate: taxes are relatively low, and there are neither city nor state income taxes. This is because gambling and sales taxes, paid by tourists, have allowed the city and state governments to avoid personal and corporate income taxes.”

Sorry, the Big Mac tax was tongue in cheek.

Again, drug companies aren’t a problem to the health care industry. Drugs are where the money was at, so everyone piled on board. Not a problem, just no one addressed the preventative side until recently. Maybe we believed we could create a drug to solve anything and everything. That isn’t the case, so now there is money to be made in preventative care. My quote "The drug companies have ruled the health care industry with their drug fixes." "ruled" = made the most money, not dictated what happens.

I didn't indicate you said the low income have poor diets, even though enough poverty will probably yield a poor diet. However, if you better read what was said, you previously said YOUNG PEOPLE have poor diets and that a tax on Big Macs might be called for. I pointed out that you like to judge young people. You have done that on several of your replies. I don't think we need more people to judge them, or anyone else, for that matter. Instead, I think we need to be more concerned about helping them. Pointing fingers ain't going to help and it's too easy to do. I think WE can all look at our less than perfect diets. Besides, you probably wouldn't want young people to judge some older person's bar habits.

This brings me to another of your points. You have judged many people for not adequately saving leading up to this financial crisis. You looked harsely at some people's spending habits. Well, some of them might look harshly at the habit of others frivolously spending money at bars and WOW recreational centers. My point is that before we critically judge the habits of others, we better have closely looked at our own. We all "waste" money in some way. You and I are blessed to have the money to waste.

I'm glad you are concerned about obesity. You are right about adverse impacts, but if you are concerned about that, then you should be concerned about smoking. I had a doctor tell me that if one is to choose between being fat or smoking, pick being fat. It's less harmful.

You insinuated the poor have poor work ethics because when you railed about distributing money to low income people you said it would encourage them to be lazy. You also said the rich work hard and they should be able to keep their money (even though the vast majority of the wealth in the country is inherited). You have also said that people who haven't saved deserve their plight, but you forget some people don't make enough to save. There were other things you said to indicate you thought the poor were lazy, and probably foolish. Besides, who are we to assess what encourages work or not. We've got welfare now. Judgemenatalism sure doesn't encourage one to work. Does the existence of welfare encourage you to stop work? Other European countries have a lot more public assistance and I can't remember reading anything that shows they are less productive. Again, Scandinavia has very generous public assistance AND their standard of living far exceeds ours. Isn't that what we all strive for...an improvement in standard of living for everyone that makes a contribution?

Why are you talking about the freedom to open bars and the freedom to visit them? I don't know of a case in the US where people are not allowed to visit bars, unless the bar has flagrantly disregarded the law and their responsibility to the community and that bar has been closed by the community. As for the freedom to open bars...cities issue liquor permits for that. The purpose is to control the number of drinking establishments in the community, as well as using it as an administrative tool to ensure positive behavior. Much of its cost is taken up administering the license. Why shouldn't bars be required to get a license? Cosmetologists are, plumbers are, electricians are, doctors are, lawyers are, general businesses are. They aren't the only ones required to have a license. Certainly, Mankato shouldn't be turned into a Hurley, WI, where there are more bars than any other business. That's why Hurley has a long history of crime and violence.

Las Vegas? I think you better look at how successful Las Vegas is. It is probably in worst shape than any (except for Michigan cities, like Detroit)other city. They are having an economic collapse because of the housing crisis and the fact that people can't afford to go to Las Vegas anymore. It's easy to use Las Vegas when it was "let the good times roll", but now it isn't doing so good. So, I think you need to find another comparison.

When you say you wouldn't mind paying taxes for police, who said you get to choose? Taxes are desseminated where the community feels they will do the most good. We don't get to pick and choose. And citizens get to vote for candidates that best represent their attitudes about fiscal prudence. You might be on the short end of the rope, because a vast majority of people DON'T want to pay taxes for more police in Las Vegas or for bars. That is what I have been trying to say all along. We pay taxes for the general benefit of the WHOLE community, not just for your pet projects. Taxes go for street maintenance, business stimulus, street lights, sewer, water, parks, etc. I can't imagine a time when each person would be able to direct their own individually paid taxes. If more police in Las Vegas is what the plurality of constituents want, then the government is most likely going to give it.

When it comes to taxes, all businesses and people in the community pay taxes. When a small special interest group, like bars, is able to direct their taxes only toward policing their establishments, then they are NOT contributing to other community responsibilites. We all have to contribute to mutually benefiting community infrastructure and projects. Bars aren't exempt from that. It is our roads those people are using to get to that bar.

I'm sorry, but I read you flip-flopping on the pharmaceutical issue. You said they were a problem with medical costs and level of care. "Ruled" doesn't mean make the most money to me. It means a form of domination. I think you were right the first time, when you said the pharmaceuticals have held up improvement in our health care system. They price many out of the system. Many elderly are dying prematurely because they can't afford the drugs that could help extend and add to their quality of life. I am not convinced our health system is still working in a preventative manner. The health system money made, and to be made, is too conducive to a short-term look, not the long-term preventative look.

[Ben Willaert]

Our kids have been growing up with poor diets because of lack of nutritional education on them and their parents. Our fast paced society makes fast food more appealing despite its negative effects. Not criticizing, pointing out a problem that needs to be addressed. Again, I was kidding about the tax.

Not judging people for reckless spending, just saying we need to address that issue if we don’t want the current crisis to happen again.

Your doctor might want to look into the fact that obesity is becoming the biggest threat to our health. Our country has a lot more obese people then smokers. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/31/earlyshow/health/main3434821.shtml

Providing people with an alternative to work that will make them comfortable, will discourage them from working. Not judging anyone. If you want to provide for my family, I will gladly sit on the couch all day and play with my kids. Society would miss out on my contribution though (you may like that ;-)).

I am sorry your tax dollars are being spent on policing the downtown area. Like you said, you’re going to have to vote in someone to do something about that. I am happy Mankato has worked so hard at developing the downtown area. By the way, just so you know, I don’t personally consume alcohol, but I do enjoy the social scene.

We may be thinking of preventative health care differently. I see it as educating people in moderation and living a healthy lifestyle with check ups. I am getting the sense your idea of preventative health care is banishing everything that could be bad for you.

I don’t think I am flipping as much as you are misinterpreting the motives for my stances. Maybe I don’t describe them well enough yet. Part of it could also be my own evolution.

[Dan Conner]

Our kids have been growing up with poor diets because of lack of nutritional education on them and their parents. Our fast paced society makes fast food more appealing despite its negative effects. Not criticizing, pointing out a problem that needs to be addressed. Again, I was kidding about the tax.

Not judging people for reckless spending, just saying we need to address that issue if we don’t want the current crisis to happen again.

Your doctor might want to look into the fact that obesity is becoming the biggest threat to our health. Our country has a lot more obese people then smokers. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/31/earlyshow/health/main3434821.shtml

Providing people with an alternative to work that will make them comfortable, will discourage them from working. Not judging anyone. If you want to provide for my family, I will gladly sit on the couch all day and play with my kids. Society would miss out on my contribution though (you may like that ;-)).

I am sorry your tax dollars are being spent on policing the downtown area. Like you said, you’re going to have to vote in someone to do something about that. I am happy Mankato has worked so hard at developing the downtown area. By the way, just so you know, I don’t personally consume alcohol, but I do enjoy the social scene.

We may be thinking of preventative health care differently. I see it as educating people in moderation and living a healthy lifestyle with check ups. I am getting the sense your idea of preventative health care is banishing everything that could be bad for you.

I don’t think I am flipping as much as you are misinterpreting the motives for my stances. Maybe I don’t describe them well enough yet. Part of it could also be my own evolution.

Great Bob, who are sounding like a "nanny" the more I hear from you. I'm glad you want to address the diets of young people. That's a good start. I'm also glad you want to address reckless spending and obesity - more good things.

I don't feel you are the appropriate judge of what other people would do when they have an alternative to work. I have more faith in people. I think most people want to contribute and feel proud they have contributed. It's too bad you don't. Regardless, I don't think you have been appointed judge in that case. People have a right to a helping hand when they are down, if we care about returning them to produictivity. Pointing fingers sure don't cut it. If you can judge them for that, what about people who judge others frequently sitting in bars? I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate that either. Oh, and by the way, why do bars accept your presence, if they know you're not a paying customer? Sounds like a "mini-nanny state."

Preventative health care is more than education. Look at all those who smoke despite years of dire warnings about the harm it does to their health. It would be a tremendous waste of money if only education is used as preventative health. Check-ups? I don't think you are understanding what I have been saying for a long time now. People can't even afford medications and now you say they should just go in and get a check-up? I don't understand your reasoning.

I'm not the one banishing anything. You've been the one talking about diets spending, etc. I propose to give and empower people, not judge and deny them. I wonder if you would be singing the same song without health care. Reading your replies, I don't think you know what it is like without it, and you don't care.

Ben, maybe you need to tell me what your motives are for wanting to deny others. I sure don't understand it. Hopefully, you are not placed in that situation. If you are, I think there would be a quick 180.

[Dan Conner]

Here's a fascinating article about how a small country pays for its health care but also makes decisions that people don't like, a.k.a. a $60,000 cancer treatment that saved the author's life.

It raises the specter of what health care might look like if we change the syste to cover everyone and limit private participation....

It's intriguing because the government, and even political leaders, did get involved in what treatment a patient got because it was a dollars and sense issue and the government was in charge of keeping costs down.

While it's focus is on New Zealand for one example, it extrapolates that to how things might look in U.S., and also explores Canada and U.K.

What was interesting is that politicians were running on platforms of approving this medicine or that....Medicine did truly become a political issue in a government run program.



Here's the intro.

The cancer drug Herceptin saved the author’s life. It also cost $60,000. Would health-care reform put it, and other expensive new drugs, out of reach?

It's from the Atlantic, a longtime very credible public affairs magazine that offers its pages to all sides of the political spectrum. It's read by many washington elite and looked to by policy makers.

Here's the link

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/postrel-drugs

Well, if it's as this lady said, New Zealand doesn't seem to be a good model to follow, but I can never remember anyone picking New Zealand as a model to emulate.

[Ben Willaert]

Great Bob, who are sounding like a "nanny" the more I hear from you. I'm glad you want to address the diets of young people. That's a good start. I'm also glad you want to address reckless spending and obesity - more good things.

I don't feel you are the appropriate judge of what other people would do when they have an alternative to work. I have more faith in people. I think most people want to contribute and feel proud they have contributed. It's too bad you don't. Regardless, I don't think you have been appointed judge in that case. People have a right to a helping hand when they are down, if we care about returning them to produictivity. Pointing fingers sure don't cut it. If you can judge them for that, what about people who judge others frequently sitting in bars? I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate that either. Oh, and by the way, why do bars accept your presence, if they know you're not a paying customer? Sounds like a "mini-nanny state."

Preventative health care is more than education. Look at all those who smoke despite years of dire warnings about the harm it does to their health. It would be a tremendous waste of money if only education is used as preventative health. Check-ups? I don't think you are understanding what I have been saying for a long time now. People can't even afford medications and now you say they should just go in and get a check-up? I don't understand your reasoning.

I'm not the one banishing anything. You've been the one talking about diets spending, etc. I propose to give and empower people, not judge and deny them. I wonder if you would be singing the same song without health care. Reading your replies, I don't think you know what it is like without it, and you don't care.

Ben, maybe you need to tell me what your motives are for wanting to deny others. I sure don't understand it. Hopefully, you are not placed in that situation. If you are, I think there would be a quick 180.

Again, not judging people; just pointing out that the wealthy are not the only ones at fault in our current crisis. How can we learn from our mistakes if we don’t identify all our mistakes in the first place? It’s not a time to point fingers and blame anyone. It’s time to get back on the right track. Give people the help they need to get back on their feet. That includes not rationalizing what got them into trouble in the first place, otherwise we are destined to repeat those same mistakes.

Tell me, how is government health care more equipped to handle problems like poor diet and obesity?

And yes, I have been there. I've made some poor decisions in life and am battling my way forward.

[Dan Conner]

Again, not judging people; just pointing out that the wealthy are not the only ones at fault in our current crisis. How can we learn from our mistakes if we don’t identify all our mistakes in the first place? It’s not a time to point fingers and blame anyone. It’s time to get back on the right track. Give people the help they need to get back on their feet. That includes not rationalizing what got them into trouble in the first place, otherwise we are destined to repeat those same mistakes.

Tell me, how is government health care more equipped to handle problems like poor diet and obesity?

And yes, I have been there. I've made some poor decisions in life and am battling my way forward.

Of course the wealthy are not the only ones at fault for our crisis, but they were the main enablers. Besides, they are the professionals that are paid to know better. If a patient has cancer and the doctor operates on the wrong organ and the patient dies, you can blame the patient for getting the cancer, but the doctor was responsible for screwing up the surgery and causing the death. The professionals are supposed to know what income someone needs to get a certain loan amount. They know the verification procedures, and they know when underwriting the loan, whether it is an acceptable risk. Many times the borrower does not know that.

I disagree that someone like a Wall Street broker who makes a 9 figure salary and who accepts all sorts of questionable loans is no more at fault than the borrower. If not, then why is there a loan application process? We don't need bankers to process a loan if anything goes. I don't think you can blame 7 year-old kids for a chaotic classroom when they don't know better, but the teacher is the professional and should be responsible for classroom decorum.

What I am saying is that you are inappropriately pointing the finger at the bit players here. The major attention needs to be focused on banking executives that allowed, encouraged, and greatly profited form the mortgage mess. What the heck else are they paid those big bucks for?

I don't think you need to point out the fact that people have made mistakes. They will be living with them. They are the ones who will be responsible for their mistakes. The guy on the street will pay a price with homelessness, poverty, loss of health care, and despair. What the public is rightfully so angry about is that banking and investment executives don't seem to be taking any responsibility for their actions. Pay and bonuses are still going great and they are angry that anyone is asking that they sacrifice a little pay for this mess. It gets back to your responsibility thing. They aren't responsible.

I agree it's time to get back on track, but I also believe it is time to point fingers. We have to know and understand how and why we got into this mess, if we are to prevent it from happening again. Also, people who broke the law need to be punished to serve as a deterent for the future. We have to understand where we were in order to understand where we want to be.

I don't understand when you say don't point fingers. You've been pointing fingers at the poor, people who don't or can't work, people who "waste" money, and people who are inclined to be lazy. However, you stand as a staunch defender of the rich and powerful, who were best positioned to recognize, prevent, and or stop the mess we're in. If that's the best we get from them, then why do we need them? Maybe they flatter themselves with their importance and measure it via a paycheck. Well, I think it's a good idea to expect a lot from people who are paid a lot.

Government can give a helping hand to lift people from that despair and give them hope that recovery is a possibility. That means giving them the tools to subsist, raise their families, and allow a level of health care that allows them to live as long a life as anyone else. Then, spend the money necessary to train them for new careers, and possibly employ them so they can have that feeling they "earn" what they get. Remember, the WPA and CCC? I am glad to see you recognize the need to help people get back on their feet. That's the human and beneficent thing to do. We are all people here, not refuse to be discarded in tough times.

[Bob Jentges]

I have not been involved in this discussion since my initial post of 2/18/09 in response to Joe's opening thread. But in scanning through various Forum items I note that in this one Dan mistakenly addressed one of his posts to "Bob" (me) rather than Ben who's quote preceeded his (Dan's) post. That reminded me of some comments in articles I have read on the issue recently:
1) Canada (who Dan often cites as an example) has a serious shortage of
doctors due to low pay.
2) Canada's average wait between a referral from a primary care doctor and
treatment by a specialist is 18 weeks.
3) Canada's waiting lists for surgeries and other necessary treatments are in
the area of 800,000.
4) Sweden (who Dan also cites as an example) has waiting lists so long that some patients have sought treatment with veteranians.

At least as relevant as the above few examples is that under government run universal health care people wind up with coverage that is in the best interest of the government, rather than their own. Their is no shopping for the type coverage that might best suit them and their families, individually.

One option that could have a positive effect on our present system and make private coverage more affordable is Tort Reform. If doctors, hospitals, and other health providers did not think it was necessary to conduct numerous tests to protect them against potential malpractice lawsuits, rather than just those that in their professional opinion were warranted to diagnose the problem, costs could probably be reduced significantly. Some things to consider are:
1) Eliminate class action lawsuits.
2) Drastically limit punitative damages.
3) Place reasonable caps on awards for pain and sufferring.

Certainly these suggestions are not the total solution to reducing health care costs, but I think they might go a long way toward that, and still leave the individuals health care between the individual and their doctor.

[Ben Willaert]

Nope, I’m not pointing fingers at the low class. I am saying we can’t rationalize all our problems are caused by the wealthy. Otherwise, you are right; we will be living with the consequences, but the problem is we will not understand the mistakes that were made. It is easy to blame the rich for our situation and then ignore our own mistakes. I’m not calling for accountability as in punishment; I am calling for identifying and learning from our mistakes.

If you do want to point fingers, I personally think most of the blame falls on middle class mortgage brokers that were manipulating both the customers and the banks. I know two myself that started swindling right out of college and have built themselves a nice nest egg by coercing both sides of the system. They knew what the borrowers wanted to hear and knew what the bank wanted to hear. All they had to do was sweep the risks under the rug. But all that is beside the point. We need to be smarter then that. We can’t be preyed upon like that. That is where identifying and learning from our mistakes comes in.

There is a big difference between unemployment benefits and your proposition of full blown socialism. It is fine to pick someone up when they are down, but we shouldn’t be looking to provide for everyone all the time. That is how we loose potential. Socialism puts a cap on everything in order to make everyone equal. In order to ensure equality the cream of the crop must be brought down to the rest of us.

I understand you want to help people, but you scoffed at my proposition of education on preventative health care. I am wondering what the alternative is. What is government health care going to do to fight obesity that private health care can’t or isn’t?

[Bob Jentges]

Ben, any thoughts on the idea put forth in my 8:18 AM post this morning about Tort Reform and it's possible effect on health care costs?

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Bob. I've always heard and read some studies that lawsuits are very small cost regards health care costs, but defensive medicine, again can be expensive. I believe there has been bipartisan support for limiting lawsuit damage awards at the federal level, which free press edit board has actually been in favor of.
AT the state level, former Sen. John Hottinger, and attorney, actually helped minnesota pass tort reform that does limit damage awards. He didn't get a lot of publicity about it, but it surprises people when they hear that.

[Ben Willaert]

I found, what I feel, is an excellent article on malpractice suits and reform.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/malpractice.html/#2
Disclaimer: I didn’t check to see what type of bias this website has, but I find the article is logical and coming from educated and informed sources.

Maybe instead of tort reform more effort should be made to increase safety in the first place. I’m not sure that malpractice actually deters accidents. Making improvements to the procedures would seem to go a lot further. I know the Mankato Clinic thinks it can save a lot of mistakes just by switching to computerized records.

[Bob Jentges]

Ben, after he left the Clinton Administration and before he joined the Obama Administration John Podesta headed the Center for American Progress. I believe George Soras and MoveOn.org was/is a major contributor to the organization.

Reasonable tort reform would not only relate to medical malpractice cases, it should also have an effect on medical costs related to many other accident claims i.e. car, falls, dog bite, etc., etc., etc. Overall, if tort reform could have a positive effect on reducing the cost of medical expenses in the entire spectrum of tort liability claims it would seem to stand to reason that free market competition for business among insurance companies would reduce (or at least stabelize) what policyholders pay for insurance premiums.

Joe, as you probably know, John Hottinger was essentially a personal injury plaintiff lawyer. Nothing wrong with that, but it would seem unusual that he would sponser any tort liability reform that would limit damage awards in tort liability lawsuits. If he did, good for him.

I have been retired for about 10 years but the only tort liability reform I can recall that might have been passed into law while he was in the State Legislature that would have limited damage awards was the Noneconomic Damages Reform Act of the mid 1980's. I think that limited damages for pain & suffering, loss of consortium, mental anguish, etc., etc., etc., to $400,000. Another that comes to mind during that approximate time frame would be Punitive Damage Reform which made it more difficult establish a punitive damage cause of action, but did nothing to cap or limit punitive damage awards. Although that reform does not directly deal with medical costs, it does effect the risk that insurers must consider when establishing insurance premiums.

Reasonable tort reform certainly is not the silver bullet that will bring health care costs to a reasonable amount, but it might be one piece to the puzzle.

[Ben Willaert]

Reasonable tort reform would not only relate to medical malpractice cases, it should also have an effect on medical costs related to many other accident claims i.e. car, falls, dog bite, etc., etc., etc. Overall, if tort reform could have a positive effect on reducing the cost of medical expenses in the entire spectrum of tort liability claims it would seem to stand to reason that free market competition for business among insurance companies would reduce (or at least stabelize) what policyholders pay for insurance premiums.


I understand your point, but I get wary of caps on anything. I served on a jury once that had to award pain and suffering damages and I felt we were very fair about it. There was a consensus before we even started deliberating. We awarded pain and suffering damages, but nothing close to the extreme amount of money the plaintiff’s attorney asked for. Every case is different though. What may be appropriate for one case could be completely inappropriate in another. I want to trust my peers in the jury to make the right decision. Ultimately our jury decisions will set the precedent for cases settled out of court too.

[Dan Conner]

Ben, after he left the Clinton Administration and before he joined the Obama Administration John Podesta headed the Center for American Progress. I believe George Soras and MoveOn.org was/is a major contributor to the organization.

Reasonable tort reform would not only relate to medical malpractice cases, it should also have an effect on medical costs related to many other accident claims i.e. car, falls, dog bite, etc., etc., etc. Overall, if tort reform could have a positive effect on reducing the cost of medical expenses in the entire spectrum of tort liability claims it would seem to stand to reason that free market competition for business among insurance companies would reduce (or at least stabelize) what policyholders pay for insurance premiums.

Joe, as you probably know, John Hottinger was essentially a personal injury plaintiff lawyer. Nothing wrong with that, but it would seem unusual that he would sponser any tort liability reform that would limit damage awards in tort liability lawsuits. If he did, good for him.

I have been retired for about 10 years but the only tort liability reform I can recall that might have been passed into law while he was in the State Legislature that would have limited damage awards was the Noneconomic Damages Reform Act of the mid 1980's. I think that limited damages for pain & suffering, loss of consortium, mental anguish, etc., etc., etc., to $400,000. Another that comes to mind during that approximate time frame would be Punitive Damage Reform which made it more difficult establish a punitive damage cause of action, but did nothing to cap or limit punitive damage awards. Although that reform does not directly deal with medical costs, it does effect the risk that insurers must consider when establishing insurance premiums.

Reasonable tort reform certainly is not the silver bullet that will bring health care costs to a reasonable amount, but it might be one piece to the puzzle.

While you are discussing tort reform, you should be discussing intercompany/corporate litigation. There is far more litigation between companies than there is between people and companies. So, for equity sake, tort reform should also occur for companies suing eath other. In fact, since companies are wanting tort reform, they should lead by example and reduce the ridiculous number of suits where companies are suing each other.

Right now, tort reform is a bunch of double talk. Companies don't want to be sued by the public, but they want the same unfettered rights to sue each other. Another thing that could help in the process is for the large multi-national companies to make better products, thereby avoiding product liability. Obviously, faulty peanut butter companies have not faded away. You might change your mind about some of it, if the wrong organ is removed from you. Another thing, the rise in the number of claims in medicine might very well be occurring because of deteriorating care, not a sue happy public. If I pay $50,000 for a pace maker, it better work right! Ben is more consistent here.

[Dan Conner]

Ben, after he left the Clinton Administration and before he joined the Obama Administration John Podesta headed the Center for American Progress. I believe George Soras and MoveOn.org was/is a major contributor to the organization.

Reasonable tort reform would not only relate to medical malpractice cases, it should also have an effect on medical costs related to many other accident claims i.e. car, falls, dog bite, etc., etc., etc. Overall, if tort reform could have a positive effect on reducing the cost of medical expenses in the entire spectrum of tort liability claims it would seem to stand to reason that free market competition for business among insurance companies would reduce (or at least stabelize) what policyholders pay for insurance premiums.

Joe, as you probably know, John Hottinger was essentially a personal injury plaintiff lawyer. Nothing wrong with that, but it would seem unusual that he would sponser any tort liability reform that would limit damage awards in tort liability lawsuits. If he did, good for him.

I have been retired for about 10 years but the only tort liability reform I can recall that might have been passed into law while he was in the State Legislature that would have limited damage awards was the Noneconomic Damages Reform Act of the mid 1980's. I think that limited damages for pain & suffering, loss of consortium, mental anguish, etc., etc., etc., to $400,000. Another that comes to mind during that approximate time frame would be Punitive Damage Reform which made it more difficult establish a punitive damage cause of action, but did nothing to cap or limit punitive damage awards. Although that reform does not directly deal with medical costs, it does effect the risk that insurers must consider when establishing insurance premiums.

Reasonable tort reform certainly is not the silver bullet that will bring health care costs to a reasonable amount, but it might be one piece to the puzzle.

Bob, before you point out personal injury attorneys, you better look at corporate/business, patent attorneys. There are far more of them. The tort reform you mentioned was major. Now, we need to limit the monetary judgements between companies. Tort reform, as you presented it, is hypocritical, one-sided, and very whiny.

Isn't it amazing that "free-market" advocates want to intervene in the market place and limit suits for businesses? Remember, you are a capitalist, and you say the market should determine things like supply/demand. Or, maybe what you are really trying to say is that business should be able to do what they what, but let's limit what others can do. Heaven knows, business is watching out for the publics best interest. That's why we have no pollution, carcinogens, cancer, smoking, poisoned foods? I think tort reform should come in the form of making it easier for people to sue companies for damages, not harder. Right now, companies can tie people up for many years, in an effort to make the cost for the person unsustainable, before a case is tried. You should watch a very recent movie about the guy who sued Ford Mortor Company, years ago, over the interval wiper. It's a true story.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I have not been involved in this discussion since my initial post of 2/18/09 in response to Joe's opening thread. But in scanning through various Forum items I note that in this one Dan mistakenly addressed one of his posts to "Bob" (me) rather than Ben who's quote preceeded his (Dan's) post. That reminded me of some comments in articles I have read on the issue recently:
1) Canada (who Dan often cites as an example) has a serious shortage of
doctors due to low pay.
2) Canada's average wait between a referral from a primary care doctor and
treatment by a specialist is 18 weeks.
3) Canada's waiting lists for surgeries and other necessary treatments are in
the area of 800,000.
4) Sweden (who Dan also cites as an example) has waiting lists so long that some patients have sought treatment with veteranians.

At least as relevant as the above few examples is that under government run universal health care people wind up with coverage that is in the best interest of the government, rather than their own. Their is no shopping for the type coverage that might best suit them and their families, individually.

One option that could have a positive effect on our present system and make private coverage more affordable is Tort Reform. If doctors, hospitals, and other health providers did not think it was necessary to conduct numerous tests to protect them against potential malpractice lawsuits, rather than just those that in their professional opinion were warranted to diagnose the problem, costs could probably be reduced significantly. Some things to consider are:
1) Eliminate class action lawsuits.
2) Drastically limit punitative damages.
3) Place reasonable caps on awards for pain and sufferring.

Certainly these suggestions are not the total solution to reducing health care costs, but I think they might go a long way toward that, and still leave the individuals health care between the individual and their doctor.

Hi Bob! :)

1) Canada (who Dan often cites as an example) has a serious shortage of
doctors due to low pay.
The problem isn't a shortage of physicians, but rather a "licensing bottleneck" as the Association of International Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario puts it.

That is to say, we need to improve fast-tracking of doctors who are already here rather than spending $1 billion to lure international doctors into our system and away from the communities they are currently serving. This doesn't imply lack of doctors due to low pay. If anything it indicates there are many available but for other reasons, they aren't getting licensed fast enough.

While there may be individual cases of long waits, or even veterinarian visits abroad, studies conclude that the US rates low comparatively to countries with socialized medicine -
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx

I know plenty of people that can tell you horror stories about their experience in the US medical system. An example would be someone denied lifesaving treatment because it exceeds their policy limits. Or denial of treatment because of a pre-existing condition. So a bad story that gets headlines isn't enough to base opinions on. The article I list above sites a broad study. Also the WHO rates the US #37 in healthcare, with France being #1 and Sweden #23 (apparently treatment by vets is better than no treatment at all :))- http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

While common sense tort reform may be a good idea, I am reluctant to agree unconditionally. I think lawsuits give the common man recourse against huge insurance conglomerates and pharmaceutical companies that CLEARLY do not have our interest at heart. I do agree that doctors do need protection in some form, maybe limits on the $ amount.

[Bob Jentges]

Hi Bob! :)

1) Canada (who Dan often cites as an example) has a serious shortage of
doctors due to low pay.
The problem isn't a shortage of physicians, but rather a "licensing bottleneck" as the Association of International Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario puts it.

That is to say, we need to improve fast-tracking of doctors who are already here rather than spending $1 billion to lure international doctors into our system and away from the communities they are currently serving. This doesn't imply lack of doctors due to low pay. If anything it indicates there are many available but for other reasons, they aren't getting licensed fast enough.

While there may be individual cases of long waits, or even veterinarian visits abroad, studies conclude that the US rates low comparatively to countries with socialized medicine -
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx

I know plenty of people that can tell you horror stories about their experience in the US medical system. An example would be someone denied lifesaving treatment because it exceeds their policy limits. Or denial of treatment because of a pre-existing condition. So a bad story that gets headlines isn't enough to base opinions on. The article I list above sites a broad study. Also the WHO rates the US #37 in healthcare, with France being #1 and Sweden #23 (apparently treatment by vets is better than no treatment at all :))- http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

While common sense tort reform may be a good idea, I am reluctant to agree unconditionally. I think lawsuits give the common man recourse against huge insurance conglomerates and pharmaceutical companies that CLEARLY do not have our interest at heart. I do agree that doctors do need protection in some form, maybe limits on the $ amount.

There are very few things that I would agree to "unconditionally" and rest assured preventing tort lawsuits is not one of them. During my working years I dealt with tort lawyers almost every day. Many of my best friends were tort lawyers and some of those friendships continue today, even after ten years of retirement. My impression has been that all but the most radical of lawyers agree some type of tort reform might be in order, they just differ on the specifics. Additionally, I think your comment "...huge insurance conglomerates and pharmaceutical companies that CLEARLY do not have our interest at heart" is over the top.

With respect to your criticism of the "US medical system", I have had the unfortunate experience of spending many, many hours at Mayo Clinic related to treatment my wife was receiving for a very rare type of cancer. During my walking around time I noticed a very large percentage of the people there for treatment, or with others who were receiving treatment, were foreigners. If our health care is so bad I wonder why they came here for treatment. Maybe none of them were from France or Sweden, I do not know. But I would be willing to go out on a limb and suggest few, if any, U.S. citizens travel to France or Sweden specifically for medical treatment.

I doubt the accuracy of your suggestion that some were "denied lifesaving treatment" because the cost "exceedes their policy limit" of insurance coverage. My work also brought me in contact with many, many health providers. None of them gave me the impression they would deny someone treatment because of inability to pay. It would be unethical for them to do that. The same holds true for your comment about a "pre-existing condition". To the contrary, I know people whose doctors thought they needed expensive diagnostic tests that Medicare would not pay for and who did not qualify for Medicade, where the providers absorbed the cost so the tests/treatment could proceed.

While I am at it, it might be better for economic recovery if some would stop the broad brush demonization of CEO's, banks, investors, big anything, etc. It may make the jealous and those that do not understand what makes the U.S. economy work feel better temporarily, but what happens when the golden goose decides it has had enough and goes out of business or leaves. Who will provide the jobs. We need to try to install confidence so individuals and busineses consume things so we can get back on track.

I tried to temper my opinions; I hope you take them that way.

[Dan Conner]

There are very few things that I would agree to "unconditionally" and rest assured preventing tort lawsuits is not one of them. During my working years I dealt with tort lawyers almost every day. Many of my best friends were tort lawyers and some of those friendships continue today, even after ten years of retirement. My impression has been that all but the most radical of lawyers agree some type of tort reform might be in order, they just differ on the specifics. Additionally, I think your comment "...huge insurance conglomerates and pharmaceutical companies that CLEARLY do not have our interest at heart" is over the top.

With respect to your criticism of the "US medical system", I have had the unfortunate experience of spending many, many hours at Mayo Clinic related to treatment my wife was receiving for a very rare type of cancer. During my walking around time I noticed a very large percentage of the people there for treatment, or with others who were receiving treatment, were foreigners. If our health care is so bad I wonder why they came here for treatment. Maybe none of them were from France or Sweden, I do not know. But I would be willing to go out on a limb and suggest few, if any, U.S. citizens travel to France or Sweden specifically for medical treatment.

I doubt the accuracy of your suggestion that some were "denied lifesaving treatment" because the cost "exceedes their policy limit" of insurance coverage. My work also brought me in contact with many, many health providers. None of them gave me the impression they would deny someone treatment because of inability to pay. It would be unethical for them to do that. The same holds true for your comment about a "pre-existing condition". To the contrary, I know people whose doctors thought they needed expensive diagnostic tests that Medicare would not pay for and who did not qualify for Medicade, where the providers absorbed the cost so the tests/treatment could proceed.

While I am at it, it might be better for economic recovery if some would stop the broad brush demonization of CEO's, banks, investors, big anything, etc. It may make the jealous and those that do not understand what makes the U.S. economy work feel better temporarily, but what happens when the golden goose decides it has had enough and goes out of business or leaves. Who will provide the jobs. We need to try to install confidence so individuals and busineses consume things so we can get back on track.

I tried to temper my opinions; I hope you take them that way.

The remark about insurance companies not having the best interest of patients is not over the top. It is true. There have been numerous incidents where insurance companies have denied care, and then relented once the case went public. It has long been accepted that insurance companies take premiums in a bet they will not have to pay. That's just part of the business. They are no different than most other business - they are business to make money. Referring to your anecdotal statement of knowing attorneys...so do I, and I am not aware of any attorney saying reducing patient abilities as a remedy. Besides, if insurance companies care so much about patients, why do they want to take rights away from patients? If insurance companies are so worried about tort reform, they can start with their own business and reduce suits between businesses. There is far far more money exchanging hands in intercompany suits. Limit those suits first, then come back to the consumer. If pharmaceuticals were so concerned about the patient, why did they work so hard to prevent patients from getting prescriptions form overseas providers, at a cheaper price. Canada had the same drug/quality as our drugs. Don't pedal that stuff about the great caring insurance/pharmaceutical company. Bunk.

[Liz Ratcliff]

There are very few things that I would agree to "unconditionally" and rest assured preventing tort lawsuits is not one of them. During my working years I dealt with tort lawyers almost every day. Many of my best friends were tort lawyers and some of those friendships continue today, even after ten years of retirement. My impression has been that all but the most radical of lawyers agree some type of tort reform might be in order, they just differ on the specifics. Additionally, I think your comment "...huge insurance conglomerates and pharmaceutical companies that CLEARLY do not have our interest at heart" is over the top.

With respect to your criticism of the "US medical system", I have had the unfortunate experience of spending many, many hours at Mayo Clinic related to treatment my wife was receiving for a very rare type of cancer. During my walking around time I noticed a very large percentage of the people there for treatment, or with others who were receiving treatment, were foreigners. If our health care is so bad I wonder why they came here for treatment. Maybe none of them were from France or Sweden, I do not know. But I would be willing to go out on a limb and suggest few, if any, U.S. citizens travel to France or Sweden specifically for medical treatment.

I doubt the accuracy of your suggestion that some were "denied lifesaving treatment" because the cost "exceedes their policy limit" of insurance coverage. My work also brought me in contact with many, many health providers. None of them gave me the impression they would deny someone treatment because of inability to pay. It would be unethical for them to do that. The same holds true for your comment about a "pre-existing condition". To the contrary, I know people whose doctors thought they needed expensive diagnostic tests that Medicare would not pay for and who did not qualify for Medicade, where the providers absorbed the cost so the tests/treatment could proceed.

While I am at it, it might be better for economic recovery if some would stop the broad brush demonization of CEO's, banks, investors, big anything, etc. It may make the jealous and those that do not understand what makes the U.S. economy work feel better temporarily, but what happens when the golden goose decides it has had enough and goes out of business or leaves. Who will provide the jobs. We need to try to install confidence so individuals and busineses consume things so we can get back on track.

I tried to temper my opinions; I hope you take them that way.


Ooo - a fiesty one, I like that :)

I find it ironic that you can't believe a story about someone being denied life saving treatment by an insurance company but choose to believe the Swedish veterinarian story... do you have anything to back that up?

Here are links to stories of people denied life saving treatment...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nataline_Sarkisyan
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/24/115039/455/421/481639
http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/12538706/detail.html
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/your_story/i-want-live

And for the record I was denied treatment for a pre-existing condition, so I can tell you that it does happen.

I don't doubt that foreigners come to Mayo. It has a wonderful reputation, so foreigners that can afford to make the trip here do. Unfortunately many of our own citizens can't afford treatment there. I would wager that most foreigners that spend time there are somewhat affluent, not your average Joe... And in the case of France, I do believe you have to be a French citizen to receive federally funded healthcare. Here is an unbiased write up on the French healthcare system - http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/french.html

And as far as I am concerned the American economy would be nothing with out the working class... I don't support the trickle on economic theory. We have tried that and it has failed miserably. It is time to try the bubble up method. It stands to reason that if the working class prosper, the wealthy will too! I think capitalism and socialism would make a nice combo. So don't demonize the working guy/gal... we want prosperity for all. For the record, no jealousy here. I am quite content with my happy simple life. :) PEACE!

[Liz Ratcliff]

clarification - Content with my happy simple life, but not content with social injustice and human suffering.

[Bob Jentges]

The remark about insurance companies not having the best interest of patients is not over the top. It is true. There have been numerous incidents where insurance companies have denied care and then relented once the case went public. It has long been accepted that insurance companies take premiums in a bet they will not have to pay. That's just part of the business. They are no different than most other business - they are business to make money. Referring to you anecdotal statement of knowing attorneys...so do I, and I am not aware of any attorney saying reducing patient abilities as a remedy. Besides, if insurance companies care so much about patients, why do they want to takes rights away from patients? If insurance companies are so worried about tort reform, they can start with their own business and reduce suits between businesses. There is far far more money exchanging hands in intercompany susits. Limit those suits first, then come back to the consumer. If pharmaceuticals were so concerned about the patient, why did they work so hard to prevent patients from getting prescriptions form overseas providers at a cheaper price. Canada had the same drug/quality as our drugs. Don't pedal that stuff about the great caring insurance/pharmaceutical company. Bunk.

Y

You seem to be back to your old self this morning, Dan.

Based on my approximate 33 years experience in the insurance business I disagree with almost everything you said in your post. But for the sake of brevity I will address just three.

First, insurance companies do not "deny care". They may deny coverage based on the terms of the unilateral insurance contract the policyholder entered into with the insurer, but they do not deny care. If the policyholder disagrees with that denial of coverage they can sue the insurer for coverage and the court will decide. That is why there are lawyers and courts.

Second, insurance companies, through the Department of Commerce/Commissioner of Insurance are among the most regulated businesses in the state, from approving premium rates charged to handling of claims. If insurers do not follow those regulations the state can revoke their licence. Dare I say that has happened very infrequently.

Third, if an insurance company "relented once the case went public" it was almost always for public relations reasons, rather than because the initial decision was wrong. I personally never agreed with that approach and neither did most of the people in the state bureaucracy I knew. They no more approved of insurance companies paying claims that were not covered than they did not paying claims that were covered.

Thats no "Bunk"!

[Bob Jentges]

Ooo - a fiesty one, I like that :)

I find it ironic that you can't believe a story about someone being denied life saving treatment by an insurance company but choose to believe the Swedish veterinarian story... do you have anything to back that up?

Here are links to stories of people denied life saving treatment...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nataline_Sarkisyan
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/24/115039/455/421/481639
http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/12538706/detail.html
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/your_story/i-want-live

And for the record I was denied treatment for a pre-existing condition, so I can tell you that it does happen.

I don't doubt that foreigners come to Mayo. It has a wonderful reputation, so foreigners that can afford to make the trip here do. Unfortunately many of our own citizens can't afford treatment there. I would wager that most foreigners that spend time there are somewhat affluent, not your average Joe... And in the case of France, I do believe you have to be a French citizen to receive federally funded healthcare. Here is an unbiased write up on the French healthcare system - http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/french.html

And as far as I am concerned the American economy would be nothing with out the working class... I don't support the trickle on economic theory. We have tried that and it has failed miserably. It is time to try the bubble up method. It stands to reason that if the working class prosper, the wealthy will too! I think capitalism and socialism would make a nice combo. So don't demonize the working guy/gal... we want prosperity for all. For the record, no jealousy here. I am quite content with my happy simple life. :) PEACE!

Liz, I refer you to my 11:48 AM reply to Dan Connor. There is a difference between being denied treatment and being denied coverage.

[Dan Conner]

There are very few things that I would agree to "unconditionally" and rest assured preventing tort lawsuits is not one of them. During my working years I dealt with tort lawyers almost every day. Many of my best friends were tort lawyers and some of those friendships continue today, even after ten years of retirement. My impression has been that all but the most radical of lawyers agree some type of tort reform might be in order, they just differ on the specifics. Additionally, I think your comment "...huge insurance conglomerates and pharmaceutical companies that CLEARLY do not have our interest at heart" is over the top.

With respect to your criticism of the "US medical system", I have had the unfortunate experience of spending many, many hours at Mayo Clinic related to treatment my wife was receiving for a very rare type of cancer. During my walking around time I noticed a very large percentage of the people there for treatment, or with others who were receiving treatment, were foreigners. If our health care is so bad I wonder why they came here for treatment. Maybe none of them were from France or Sweden, I do not know. But I would be willing to go out on a limb and suggest few, if any, U.S. citizens travel to France or Sweden specifically for medical treatment.

I doubt the accuracy of your suggestion that some were "denied lifesaving treatment" because the cost "exceedes their policy limit" of insurance coverage. My work also brought me in contact with many, many health providers. None of them gave me the impression they would deny someone treatment because of inability to pay. It would be unethical for them to do that. The same holds true for your comment about a "pre-existing condition". To the contrary, I know people whose doctors thought they needed expensive diagnostic tests that Medicare would not pay for and who did not qualify for Medicade, where the providers absorbed the cost so the tests/treatment could proceed.

While I am at it, it might be better for economic recovery if some would stop the broad brush demonization of CEO's, banks, investors, big anything, etc. It may make the jealous and those that do not understand what makes the U.S. economy work feel better temporarily, but what happens when the golden goose decides it has had enough and goes out of business or leaves. Who will provide the jobs. We need to try to install confidence so individuals and busineses consume things so we can get back on track.

I tried to temper my opinions; I hope you take them that way.

First, I don't want to get into who knows the most attorneys and who is better friends with them, but I will tell you the feelings of your alleged attorney friends is not universally felt. I don't know if it is close to a plurality. I am also related to attorneys. Your reference to attorneys you don't agree with, as "radical", is poor judgement and name calling, especially based on such flimsy anecdotal evidence. Don't call names without proving your point. It's real easy for you to call attorneys radical with no evidence. Your statement of the other writer's comments being "over the top" is uncalled for and over the top. Frankly, I totally agree her. Were pharmaceuticals concerned about patients when they spent millions and millions of dollars to entice Congress to outlaw patients form getting the same drugs from Canada for less than 1/2 the price? They actually sufficiently bribed Congress to cheat people. It was almost socialist. I hear them say they care, but I witness them not caring. As far as insurance is concerned, I think you better talk to a few thousand people in Louisiana and Mississippi affected by Hurricane Katrina. Some still have not been paid by their insurance companies over stupid arguements about whether damage was wind or flood. Meanwhile, those people they care so much about are homeless. Even US Senator Trent Lott had to sue his insurance company for damages. Don't talk about caring insurance companies. I think most people will question that one.

Well, you are wrong about our health care system too. The movie Sicko, even focused on some cases. One, was a woman living in Detroit, who went across the border to Windsor and received medical treatment there. She said others were doing the same. And guess what? These US citizens were receiving treatment FREE, even though they paid no Canadian taxes. Seems like a pretty compassionate country to me. There were lots of Americans there. Also, if you missed Sicko, Michael Moore talked to a whole table full of Americans who now lived in France. Some mainly because of health care. They couldn't even get treatment for their conditions in the US. In another case the HIV treatment in the US was unaffordable. In France it was free. They said many many Americans lived there for health care reasons. Then there was Britain...close to the same. I think you should watch the movie, but you prabably won't - why be confused with contrary facts? I'll loan you a copy, if you want to be informed.

To make a generalization of quality of care in the US based on seeing foreigners walking around the halls of Mayo, is deficient research at best. How do you know these people came from countries with much health care at all. They might have been foreigners living here. There are lots of them, you know. Maybe they were visiting someone else, maybe they were here for a second opinion. There could be many many reasons, but before you can make any claims about our system, you also better examine the systems in France and other European countries. I think you will be amazed. You anecdotal evidence is not worth anything. I think you would be flabberghasted at the number of Americans at overseas hospitals. A very close relative of mine is being treated at a hospital in Tokyo, Japan. I have several relatives living in Canada, and they wouldn't trade their medical system for ours on a bet (more anecdotes).

If you want anecdotal evidence, I can tell you that I saw a doctor in Mankato when I had a burst appendix only a couple of years ago. It was confirmed by white blood count and xray at a clinic. I was sent home for 24 hours to see if it got worse. Then, about 15 hours later, when I could not longer stand the pain, I went to the emergency room at ISJ and waited almost 10 hours before taken into surgery. The surgeon asked why I hadn't come in earlier because my appendix was gangrenous. He said I was close to death. I was in the hospital for several days to get rid of the infection. That was not being well served by our great health system. And it is anecdotal. How about another time when I broke 5 ribs and the treating physician asked to see me after discharge from the hospital and my Mankato Clinic preferred doctor refused the referral, because he didn't want to reimburse the Mayo-Health system out of plan doctor. Then, to top it off, he refused to see me after the hospitalization. Not good care either. That's 2 out of 2 major illnesses where I was let down. Not a good anecdotal batting average. I don't think you should be using your anecdotal evidence because there is more than enough for the contrary position.

I'm surprised, but do you watch the news? Many people have been denied treatment because care exceeded what an insurance company wanted to pay. Sometimes they will use the BS of the condition being pre-existing, which is not true. Other times they will call a procedure experimental and not covered, even though thousands upon thousands of the procedure have been done already. In other cases, they deny the procedure because they say it is overpriced. It's run the gauntlet. One of my children was denied for a pre-existing condition that did not pre-exist. There was little recourse for her because she would have had to sue. Medcal insurance companies have many patients over a barrel. Attorney don't want to take a case from a person of modest means, unless there is a potential of a big judgement. My daughter was screwed because hers only invovled a couple of thousand. And guess what? There were no legal appeal/review procedures allowed by the insurance company, and she couldn't afford to sue. Was that another caring insurance company?

I think it will aid our economic recovery if we focus on CEO and other executive overcompensation like a laser. They need to understand most everyone else in our society works hard for their dollar and that they, as executives, need to be held accountable, even for what they say is all the "responsbility" they have. Most everyone works a lot harder for their earnings than executives do. You are deluding yourself if you think they fuel our economy. Wall Street and other executives have done their best to siphon the gas out of our economic gas tank the last 20 years. You might believe there is only a rare number of people capable of running these companies well. Well, I don't. I feel there is a long line of people, beyond the horizon, that could do just as well. Considering their recent failures, I believe that line even got longer. Current Wall Street executives seem to be long on ego, arrogance, and confidence, but short on abilities and performance. But why should they perform better? They get 7-figure bonuses whether they perform or not. You are right about them being "golden gooses." Unfortunately we are all still waiting for their golden eggs, instead of their old fashioned gooses%$#. And leave? Our country would be far ahead if we had used bail-out money to buy them a one-way plane ticket anywhere out of this country. They are too heavy on the liability side of the ledger. I think we'll get along just fine, even better, without these "captains of industry." I think our country just can't afford their price anymore.

[Dan Conner]

Liz, I refer you to my 11:48 AM reply to Dan Connor. There is a difference between being denied treatment and being denied coverage.

Bob, are you confused? No one cares about coverage, when the policy covers but the patient can't get treatment? People are getting insurance for treatment, not coverage. Looking at a policy seeing you are covered, but not having the insurance company pay is a pretty silly insurance system to me. An insurance company fabricating a pre-existing condition in a patient to avoid paying a claim is crap for service. To me it borders on fraud. People have insurance so TREATMENT will be paid. And don't tell me that is another illustration of a compassionate and caring insurance company.

[Bob Jentges]

I am not going to "Quote" your last post in this thread because I have spent some time trying to read through recent posts to get clear in my mind what is going on here!

You replied to my 9:10 AM post at 10:01 AM.

I replied to that at 11:48 AM.

You last edited your 10:01 AM post at 1:48 PM and then last edited that again at 2;07 PM.

Whether I have accurratly tracked your confusing path or not, I have no intention to respond to your's of 1:48 PM or 2:07 PM.

Although I am certainly not asking you to do it because if you do I doubt I will respond anyway, you have not quoted or responded to my 11:48 AM post. It's time to go outside again and try to clear my head of all this gobbledegook.

[Dan Conner]

I am not going to "Quote" your last post in this thread because I have spent some time trying to read through recent posts to get clear in my mind what is going on here!

You replied to my 9:10 AM post at 10:01 AM.

I replied to that at 11:48 AM.

You last edited your 10:01 AM post at 1:48 PM and then last edited that again at 2;07 PM.

Whether I have accurratly tracked your confusing path or not, I have no intention to respond to your's of 1:48 PM or 2:07 PM.

Although I am certainly not asking you to do it because if you do I doubt I will respond anyway, you have not quoted or responded to my 11:48 AM post. It's time to go outside again and try to clear my head of all this gobbledegook.

Well, I am responding. I have written a post and then I edit it for TYPO's. There were not enormous changes that should worry you. I also had to edit one because it was too long.

I don't know why I have to explain this to you, but I can understand why you feel incapable of adequately responding. You probably don't have a good rejoinder.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, are you confused? No one cares about coverage, when the policy covers but the patient can't get treatment? People are getting insurance for treatment, not coverage. Looking at a policy seeing you are covered, but not having the insurance company pay is a pretty silly insurance system to me. An insurance company fabricating a pre-existing condition in a patient to avoid paying a claim is crap for service. To me it borders on fraud. People have insurance so TREATMENT will be paid. And don't tell me that is another illustration of a compassionate and caring insurance company.

Good grief! While I was preparing my 2:28 PM post I note you edited your post again at 2:17 PM and also quoted my 11:55 AM reply to Liz and posted to that at 2:24 PM. I read your last post as not only gobbledegook, but pure nonsense!

You have it exactly backwords. Insurance policies provide coverage for medical treatment; they do not provide medical treatment. If a person thinks his/her insurance policy privides coverage for medical treatment but that insurance company will not pay the claim after said treatment, their is the option to sue to see who is correct. Finally, I find it next to impossible for an insurance company to fabricate a pre-existing condition and use that alledged fabrication to deny payment of a claim and have is hold up in a lawsuit. If the person had a pre-existing and was trying to hide it, the most likely way an insurance company would find out is from the persons medical records/history.

Enough already!

[Bob Jentges]

Well, I am responding. I have written a post and then I edit it for TYPO's. There were not enormous changes that should worry you. I also had to edit one because it was too long.

I don't know why I have to explain this to you, but I can understand why you feel incapable of adequately responding. You probably don't have a good rejoinder.

I can't keep up with your ramblings. Again you made another post before I could get my last post entered in the Forum. You edited one post because "it was too long". I find that humerous. If your post quoted herin is your response to my 11:48 AM post it doesn't address the issues put forth in mine of 11:48 AM. But don't bother---enough already!

[Dan Conner]

Good grief! While I was preparing my 2:28 PM post I note you edited your post again at 2:17 PM and also quoted my 11:55 AM reply to Liz and posted to that at 2:24 PM. I read your last post as not only gobbledegook, but pure nonsense!

You have it exactly backwords. Insurance policies provide coverage for medical treatment; they do not provide medical treatment. If a person thinks his/her insurance policy privides coverage for medical treatment but that insurance company will not pay the claim after said treatment, their is the option to sue to see who is correct. Finally, I find it next to impossible for an insurance company to fabricate a pre-existing condition and use that alledged fabrication to deny payment of a claim and have is hold up in a lawsuit. If the person had a pre-existing and was trying to hide it, the most likely way an insurance company would find out is from the persons medical records/history.

Enough already!

I think you need to get reacquainted with the product because in too many cases they do not pay for what they cover. Unless, you are telling me that coverage is something other than a contractual statement saying they will pay? I think if you had read the prior posts you would have understood that. I take your surprise as an unwillingness to respond. That's OK, I understand. I didn't think I would have to tell you this, but insurance companies don't fabricate pre-existing conditions. They fabricate the reason to avoid paying for the condition. Obviously, you haven't read posts, as I suspected, because I told you that it costs money to sue. When the costs of suing exceed the potential award, a practical person fails to sue. Then the insurance company wins by cheating insurers out of a legitimately covered expense. I paid he bill for my daughter, but I considered the insurance company to be fraudulent. Again, kind of like an insurance company, you miss the fact that my daughter had NO PRE-EXISTING condition. Certianly, it was not giving a hoot about a patient.

It is wrong to say insurance companies care about you. They don't give a damn. They are there to make money, not save patients. And if they can find a reason to deny payment, even if they can play a "game" doing so, they do. My daughter isn't the only patient cheated out of coverage/payment because a insurance company played games. See my long post above, if you care to find out. I think you are being Polyannish if you believe insurance companies haven't played games to avoid paying legitimate claims. "Impossible?" It's about as impossible as pulling a denied stamp out of a drawer and stamping the claim. There are lots of people that have to drop their suits with insurance companies because of the cost pursuing their case...talk to your attorney friends.

[Dan Conner]

I can't keep up with your ramblings. Again you made another post before I could get my last post entered in the Forum. You edited one post because "it was too long". I find that humerous. If your post quoted herin is your response to my 11:48 AM post it doesn't address the issues put forth in mine of 11:48 AM. But don't bother---enough already!I didn't think you could, but it would have served you well to have edited some of your too. I see a few typo's in your post.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Liz, I refer you to my 11:48 AM reply to Dan Connor. There is a difference between being denied treatment and being denied coverage.

Splitting hairs... The point is the insurance companies have refused payment, which leaves the burden with the insured. I used to work in health insurance too (3 different companies)...

[Bob Jentges]

I think you need to get reacquainted with the product because in too many cases they do not pay for what they cover. Unless, you are telling me that coverage is something other than a contractual statement saying they will pay? I think if you had read the prior posts you would have understood that. I take your surprise as an unwillingness to respond. That's OK, I understand. I didn't think I would have to tell you this, but insurance companies don't fabricate pre-existing conditions. They fabricate the reason to avoid paying for the condition. Obviously, you haven't read posts, as I suspected, because I told you that it costs money to sue. When the costs of suing exceed the potential award, a practical person fails to sue. Then the insurance company wins by cheating insurers out of a legitimately covered expense. I paid he bill for my daughter, but I considered the insurance company to be fraudulent. Again, kind of like an insurance company, you miss the fact that my daughter had NO PRE-EXISTING condition. Certianly, it was not giving a hoot about a patient.

It is wrong to say insurance companies care about you. They don't give a damn. They are there to make money, not save patients. And if they can find a reason to deny payment, even if they can play a "game" doing so, they do. My daughter isn't the only patient cheated out of coverage/payment because a insurance company played games. See my long post above, if you care to find out. I think you are being Polyannish if you believe insurance companies haven't played games to avoid paying legitimate claims. "Impossible?" It's about as impossible as pulling a denied stamp out of a drawer and stamping the claim. There are lots of people that have to drop their suits with insurance companies because of the cost pursuing their case...talk to your attorney friends.

Unintelligible.

[Bob Jentges]

Splitting hairs... The point is the insurance companies have refused payment, which leaves the burden with the insured. I used to work in health insurance too (3 different companies)...

I did not work specifically in health insurance, but I think I do know something about insurance contracts in general.

My opinion is that explaining their is a difference between being denied treatment by a medical provider and being denied coverage for that treatment by an insurance company is not "splitting hairs". The choice between the two is obvious to me. I choose treatment over coverage.

But I agree that if an insurance company denied coverage i.e. "refused payment" of a claim for treatment by a medical provider the burden is left with the insured. When that happens the question as I see it is: Was the denial of coverage under the policy contract/refusal to pay the claim for treatment by the medical provider legitimate? If it was not, and the insurer maintained their denial after appeal, the insured should be successful in a Breach of Contract lawsuit against the insurance company.

[Dan Conner]

I did not work specifically in health insurance, but I think I do know something about insurance contracts in general.

My opinion is that explaining their is a difference between being denied treatment by a medical provider and being denied coverage for that treatment by an insurance company is not "splitting hairs". The choice between the two is obvious to me. I choose treatment over coverage.

But I agree that if an insurance company denied coverage i.e. "refused payment" of a claim for treatment by a medical provider the burden is left with the insured. When that happens the question as I see it is: Was the denial of coverage under the policy contract/refusal to pay the claim for treatment by the medical provider legitimate? If it was not, and the insurer maintained their denial after appeal, the insured should be successful in a Breach of Contract lawsuit against the insurance company.

Now you are unintelligible. You are totally splitting hairs to the extent of avoiding her question. Can't you address the questions, or are you incapable? No wonder inssurance companies are screwed up. People around the nation are hollering about their failure to do what they are paid to do and you are distracting the issue over minutea. If you read and if you talk to your "attorney" friends, you should know that for modest sums of money at question it is not practical to sue, even on a contingency, but it sure is enough to cause a patient financial hardship.

You might know a little about insurance, but you know little about legal suits.

[Bob Jentges]

Now you are unintelligible. You are totally splitting hairs to the extent of avoiding her question. Can't you address the questions, or are you incapable? No wonder inssurance companies are screwed up. People around the nation are hollering about their failure to do what they are paid to do and you are distracting the issue over minutea. If you read and if you talk to your "attorney" friends, you should know that for modest sums of money at question it is not practical to sue, even on a contingency, but it sure is enough to cause a patient financial hardship.

You might know a little about insurance, but you know little about legal suits.

FYI Dan, not that it matters to you or anyone for that matter, my job title was Lawsuit Suprerintendent!

[Dan Conner]

FYI Dan, not that it matters to you or anyone for that matter, my job title was Lawsuit Suprerintendent!

You're right, it doesn't matter. Not that it matters to you, but my close cousin is a retired executive vice president of St. Paul Companies, now Travelers. He was head of the domestic insurance for them.

My son is an attorney, now working out of Tokyo. So, I don't know if you are trying to impress, but I'm now cowed. If you were superintendent, you would be more aware of companies leveraging their money and power to tangle cases up in the courts for years, when the man-on-the-street can't affrod it. Many times smaller attorneys can not afford it either.

It is well documented health insurance companies almost randomly deny some claims, only with the expectation they won't be litigated. There were insurance company representatives that testified to such in front of Congress and under oath. What I found particularly Polyannish about your view was the fact that insurance companies care about us? Come on. There are way too many illustrations of quite the opposite. You know it is actions that count, not words.

Your position only shows me that you have a decided bias in favor of the insurance company, not equity.

[Dan Conner]

FYI Dan, not that it matters to you or anyone for that matter, my job title was Lawsuit Suprerintendent!

Besides, your puffery has still not addressed Liz's point of view. Are you avoiding the subject. You didn't address mine either, you just insult.

[Bob Jentges]

You're right, it doesn't matter. Not that it matters to you, but my close cousin is a retired executive vice president of St. Paul Companies, now Travelers. He was head of the domestic insurance for them.

My son is an attorney, now working out of Tokyo. So, I don't know if you are trying to impress, but I'm now cowed. If you were superintendent, you would be more aware of companies leveraging their money and power to tangle cases up in the courts for years, when the man-on-the-street can't affrod it. Many times smaller attorneys can not afford it either.

It is well documented health insurance companies almost randomly deny some claims, only with the expectation they won't be litigated. There were insurance company representatives that testified to such in front of Congress and under oath. What I found particularly Polyannish about your view was the fact that insurance companies care about us? Come on. There are way too many illustrations of quite the opposite. You know it is actions that count, not words.

Your position only shows me that you have a decided bias in favor of the insurance company, not equity.

I find it rather ironic that my wife's first cousin (since retired) may have worked at ST. Paul Co's Corperate Headquarters at the same time as your "close cousin".

I was not trying to impress, I was simply responding to your unfounded remark that I "know little about legal suits". In any event, I am sorry that you are "now cowed".

To repeat myself but only for the purpose of responding to your above post I was a Superintendent, but only for one company. Therefore I will only address how I tried to move lawsuits along toward a prompt resolution. I would see to it that as soon as the Discovery aspect of the suit was complete we would file a Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness to have the case placed on the active court calendar. We almost always did that before the plaintif did. After that it was up to the judicial system as to when the case might actually be called for trial.

Finally, although I understand your reference was specifically to health insurance, I can say with a clear conscience tha I never knowingly played a part in randomly denying a claim with the expectation it would not be litigated!

[Bob Jentges]

Besides, your puffery has still not addressed Liz's point of view. Are you avoiding the subject. You didn't address mine either, you just insult.

I am not intentionally trying to avoid answering Liz's point of view. I think I have answered. Maybe Liz disagrees and if she does all I can say is I tried. I do not think Liz needs you to act as her mouthpiece. In fact, if it were me in a similar situation I would have suggested to the intervener that I could speak for myself.

As for addressing your point of view, after a certain number of exchanges I try to avoid repeating responses to contentions that I consider without merit. If my positions on these matters are not clear to you by now I doubt anything else I could say, except maybe to agree that insurance companies and people who work for insurance companies are evil, would satisify you.

You might be in over your head on this one. It might be time to stop digging. Whether you do or not, I plan to cease responding to you.

[Dan Conner]

I find it rather ironic that my wife's first cousin (since retired) may have worked at ST. Paul Co's Corperate Headquarters at the same time as your "close cousin".

I was not trying to impress, I was simply responding to your unfounded remark that I "know little about legal suits". In any event, I am sorry that you are "now cowed".

To repeat myself but only for the purpose of responding to your above post I was a Superintendent, but only for one company. Therefore I will only address how I tried to move lawsuits along toward a prompt resolution. I would see to it that as soon as the Discovery aspect of the suit was complete we would file a Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness to have the case placed on the active court calendar. We almost always did that before the plaintif did. After that it was up to the judicial system as to when the case might actually be called for trial.

Finally, although I understand your reference was specifically to health insurance, I can say with a clear conscience tha I never knowingly played a part in randomly denying a claim with the expectation it would not be litigated!

Yup, he's pretty close. In fact he's coming here 3/21 to visit. I doubt he would want to talk to you, but I'll ask, if you are so inclined. He has sat on numerous Board of Directors for insurance companies. He sat on the board for General Reinsurance. Probably the larest reinsurance company in the country, but you probably know that. I knew John Ettling, previous CEO for General Re. However, he is now deceased.

My son is a patent attorney who works internationally for one of the largest legal firms in the country. I have ready access to intercompany litigation information. I haven't demeaned your profession at all or the gravititas of your former position. You chose to "hang your shingle out." You aren't the only one privy to insurance and legal information, you know.

Besides, you are still obfuscating points made by Liz and myself about insurance. It doesn't go a long way to bolster your credibility when you try to "cow" people with your credentials and then ignore what they have said. I thought you would stick more to the point of what people are posting on the website. I would just as soon get away from the personal. I'll make you a deal. I will if you do. Let's stick to the issue here. We are people all worth listening to. Liz has many valid points, I think I do, and I'm sure you do, but we aren't contributing to the exchange of ideas when we accuse someone of being "unintelligible" or try to "cow" people with a former job title. I'll stack mine with yours, but I just don't see the merit of that. Were you implying Liz doesn't know what she's talking about? She's talking from experience. She related that. I've talked from experience, as well. Your title did nothing to change that experience. It would have helped if you had used experience in an effort to try to rectify a wrong, instead of intimidate the person telling about it.

[Dan Conner]

In addition to my above post, I am attaching a sentence of your last message. Not only is it in error, but I detect a degree of paranoia in it:

"If my positions on these matters are not clear to you by now I doubt anything else I could say, except maybe to agree that insurance companies and people who work for insurance companies are evil, would satisify you."

[Bob Jentges]

Yup, he's pretty close. In fact he's coming here 3/21 to visit. I doubt he would want to talk to you, but I'll ask, if you are so inclined. He has sat on numerous Board of Directors for insurance companies. He sat on the board for General Reinsurance. Probably the larest reinsurance company in the country, but you probably know that. I knew John Ettling, previous CEO for General Re. However, he is now deceased.

My son is a patent attorney who works internationally for one of the largest legal firms in the country. I have ready access to intercompany litigation information. I haven't demeaned your profession at all or the gravititas of your former position. You chose to "hang your shingle out." You aren't the only one privy to insurance and legal information, you know.

Besides, you are still obfuscating points made by Liz and myself about insurance. It doesn't go a long way to bolster your credibility when you try to "cow" people with your credentials and then ignore what they have said. I thought you would stick more to the point of what people are posting on the website. I would just as soon get away from the personal. I'll make you a deal. I will if you do. Let's stick to the issue here. We are people all worth listening to. Liz has many valid points, I think I do, and I'm sure you do, but we aren't contributing to the exchange of ideas when we accuse someone of being "unintelligible" or try to "cow" people with a former job title. I'll stack mine with yours, but I just don't see the merit of that. Were you implying Liz doesn't know what she's talking about? She's talking from experience. She related that. I've talked from experience, as well. Your title did nothing to change that experience. It would have helped if you had used experience in an effort to try to rectify a wrong, instead of intimidate the person telling about it.

I appreciate your suggestion we try to tone down the rhetoric, and for the most part your post above did that. However, when I receive correspondence directed to me that I view as insulting, condescending, arguementative, etc. I will respond in kind and I expect you will too.

But I certainly do not think I said nor in anyway did I mean to suggest that "Liz dosen't know what she's talking about". Without going back and reading my post again to be sure, I thought I said I thought Liz could speak for herself; at least that's what I meant to convey. I am usually very careful what I put in writing because as I am sure you know memo's in insurance company files can end up as evidence in court, or maybe even on the front page of a newspaper.

[Bob Jentges]

In addition to my above post, I am attaching a sentence of your last message. Not only is it in error, but I detect a degree of paranoia in it:

"If my positions on these matters are not clear to you by now I doubt anything else I could say, except maybe to agree that insurance companies and people who work for insurance companies are evil, would satisify you."

I am pleased you do not consider insurance companies and the people that work for insurance companies evil. But I think some who might read your previous comments could have reached the conclusion that was your opinion.

Neither do I consider insurance companies or the people who for for insurance companies evil, so I do not see how I could be paranoid about it.

[Dan Conner]

I appreciate your suggestion we try to tone down the rhetoric, and for the most part your post above did that. However, when I receive correspondence directed to me that I view as insulting, condescending, arguementative, etc. I will respond in kind and I expect you will too.

But I certainly do not think I said nor in anyway did I mean to suggest that "Liz dosen't know what she's talking about". Without going back and reading my post again to be sure, I thought I said I thought Liz could speak for herself; at least that's what I meant to convey. I am usually very careful what I put in writing because as I am sure you know memo's in insurance company files can end up as evidence in court, or maybe even on the front page of a newspaper.

That's great. I will try to tone it down as well. However, remember, arguing about "correspondence directed at me that I view as insulting, condescending, arguementative, etc.", is a like arguing about what came first, the chicken and the egg. I have perceived the same as you. I think we need to communicate to each other, in a polite way, when we feel the other is getting too personal. Hopefully, that will serve as a reminder for the other to tone it down.

As far as Liz not knowing what she's talking about - that was a perception I gleaned from what you said. You told her on two prior occasions she was "over the top," along with what I considered demeaning remarks. I think she can do an outstanding job taking care of herself. I wasn't addressing that. I was referring to the language you were using to describe her point of view.

Obviously, you have strong feelings about insurance. However, there is nothing you said I didn't already know. We were trying to address the fact that many/most times people are unable to pursue litigation because of the lengthy time adjudicating a case and the enormous costs of doing so. It makes no sense to spend $10,000 litigating a case for $2,000. That is the conundrum here. It means nothing to tell me of rights that are impractical. I think all she wanted was an acknowledgment these situations occur. They sure have with me. Maybe there should be a neutral party to adjudicate binding decisions on parties. I'm sure there are other solutions as well

Believe me, I also know there are frivolous suits, but if insurance companies want to restrict rights for a class of people, they have to first demonstrate they aren't "gaming" a system. Instances of that are well documented, at least in the health insurance industry.

[Dan Conner]

I am pleased you do not consider insurance companies and the people that work for insurance companies evil. But I think some who might read your previous comments could have reached the conclusion that was your opinion.

Neither do I consider insurance companies or the people who for for insurance companies evil, so I do not see how I could be paranoid about it.

I was talking about several experiences I have had. Apparently Liz had much the same. And I certainly don't believe insurances companies "care for me." I don't expect them to, but I don't expect them to tell me they do, when they really don't. They need to stick to doing their jobs, not BS the public with gimmicky slogans and mottos.

Obviosly, I think well enough of insurance companies that I have a lot of it, but I will expect it to cover, what it said it will, when and if it is needed. I, along with a whole lot of people have heard about the insurance debacle resulting from Hurricane Katrina. I also realize it presented enormous costs for insurance companies, but they took the premiums and now they need to make good on them. Too many people were hurt by insurance companies looking to minimize costs. It's like you said, it's a contract. That means both sides are obliged.

[Bob Jentges]

That's great. I will try to tone it down as well. However, remember, arguing about "correspondence directed at me that I view as insulting, condescending, arguementative, etc.", is a like arguing about what came first, the chicken and the egg. I have perceived the same as you. I think we need to communicate to each other, in a polite way, when we feel the other is getting too personal. Hopefully, that will serve as a reminder for the other to tone it down.

As far as Liz not knowing what she's talking about - that was a perception I gleaned from what you said. You told her on two prior occasions she was "over the top," along with what I considered demeaning remarks. I think she can do an outstanding job taking care of herself. I wasn't addressing that. I was referring to the language you were using to describe her point of view.

Obviously, you have strong feelings about insurance. However, there is nothing you said I didn't already know. We were trying to address the fact that many/most times people are unable to pursue litigation because of the lengthy time adjudicating a case and the enormous costs of doing so. It makes no sense to spend $10,000 litigating a case for $2,000. That is the conundrum here. It means nothing to tell me of rights that are impractical. I think all she wanted was an acknowledgment these situations occur. They sure have with me. Maybe there should be a neutral party to adjudicate binding decisions on parties. I'm sure there are other solutions as well

Believe me, I also know there are frivolous suits, but if insurance companies want to restrict rights for a class of people, they have to first demonstrate they aren't "gaming" a system. Instances of that are well documented, at least in the health insurance industry.

I will not address the Liz issue. Maybe we can agree that how you perceived the "over the top" remark was differrent than how I actually meant it.

I do not like lawsuits. Personally neither I nor anyone in my immediate family have ever been a party to a lawsuit and I hope that continues for as long as I live.

I think I can say that most insurance companies (at least the one I worked for did) would prefer to be able to resolve claims without a lawsuit. But it seems to be human nature that there are some, but probably not too many, disagreements that need to be resolved through a lawsuit. In my experience the unresovable disputes have usually been over what is reasonable compensation for the damages sufferred because that is often subjective, rather than who was at fault or whether or not a loss was covered because the facts, law and/or insurance policy language can usually be objectivly analyzed and evaluated.

It has been a while but I remember their were avenues like binding arbitration and mediation to try to resolve disputes before the lawsuit was filed, or if after, before the case went all the way to trial. In fact I believe Minnesota had a rule that the parties to a lawsuit must submit to non-binding mediation before trial. The mediator was an independent neutral party; an attorney agreed on by both parties to the lawsuit. More often than not the case settled during or shortly after mediation because one or even both parties realized their demands/offers were not reasonable.

[Dan Conner]

I will not address the Liz issue. Maybe we can agree that how you perceived the "over the top" remark was differrent than how I actually meant it.

I do not like lawsuits. Personally neither I nor anyone in my immediate family have ever been a party to a lawsuit and I hope that continues for as long as I live.

I think I can say that most insurance companies (at least the one I worked for did) would prefer to be able to resolve claims without a lawsuit. But it seems to be human nature that there are some, but probably not too many, disagreements that need to be resolved through a lawsuit. In my experience the unresovable disputes have usually been over what is reasonable compensation for the damages sufferred, rather than who was at fault or whether or not a loss was covered. Sometimes the Defendant prevailed; sometimes the Plaintiff prevailed.

It has been a while but I remember their were avenues like binding arbitration and mediation to try to resolve disputes before the lawsuit was filed, or if after, before the case went all the way to trial. In fact I believe Minnesota had a rule that the parties to a lawsuit must submit to mediation before trial. The mediator was an independent neutral party; an attorney agreed on by both parties to the lawsuit. More often than not the case settled during or shortly after mediation because one or even both parties realized their demands/offers were not reasonable.

Great. I hope some form of binding arbitration continues. I don't know if "neutral thrid parties" are all that objective. The reason I say that is because aribtration has long been used used in my employment. Unions and the employers know about the track record of most of the arbitrators, and "biased" ones are thrown out, but in the case of the "guy on the street" he/she has had no opportunity to track the arbitrator's record of decisions. Consequently, they enter the process blind and at a big disadvantage. In these cases, I think a reputable third party, like a non-profit or other government agency, be allowed to pick the arbitrator. Then they can review arbitrator's records for objectivity and balance.

Lawsuits are a last resort. Unfortunately, people being just like business, assess what they put in vs. what they get out. In many cases it doesn't pay to sue. However, that didn't negate the the adverse action taken by the accused. It will be that they just got away with one.

I'm editing this again, just so you know. Check into Hurricane Katrina claims. Many people, to this day, are without payment. Like I said, even US Sen Trent Lott had to sue.

[Bob Jentges]

Great. I hope some form of binding arbitration continues. I don't know if "neutral thrid parties" are all that objective. The reason I say that is because aribtration has long been used used in my employment. Unions and the employers know about the track record of most of the arbitrators, and "biased" ones are thrown out, but in the case of the "guy on the street" he/she has had no opportunity to track the arbitrator's record of decisions. Consequently, they enter the process blind and at a big disadvantage. In these cases, I think a reputable third party, like a non-profit or other government agency, be allowed to pick the arbitrator. Then they can review arbitrator's records for objectivity and balance.

Lawsuits are a last resort. Unfortunately, people being just like business, assess what they put in vs. what they get out. In many cases it doesn't pay to sue. However, that didn't negate the the adverse action taken by the accused. It will be that they just got away with one.

I'm editing this again, just so you know. Check into Hurricane Katrina claims. Many people, to this day, are without payment. Like I said, even US Sen Trent Lott had to sue.

Somehow your 4:55 PM Reply was entered before my 4:51 last edit. I do not think my edit would change your Reply, but you might want to read it just in case.

Regarding Senator Lott's lawsuit in connection with Katrina, I believe he lost!

[Dan Conner]

Somehow your 4:55 PM Reply was entered before my 4:51 last edit. I do not think my edit would change your Reply, but you might want to read it just in case.

Regarding Senator Lott's lawsuit in connection with Katrina, I believe he lost!

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Trent Lott's lawsuit was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum

http://www.insurancecoverageblog.com/archives/first-party-insurance-sen-trent-lott-settles-lawsuit-against-state-farm.html

I thought it was interesting to note that apparently some State Farm employees had pleaded the Fifth Amendment in another case about insuring cases for Katrina, but the judge ruled that case should remain concealed. There was no information about the settlement, but you can be sure it had to be worth Lott's time. Anyway, he didn't lose.

[Dan Conner]

Here's a uTube presentative about trouble people are having with insurance companies. One case was a loss suffered by an insurance agent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2WtS1u_b5g

I have many more references. If you want me to give them to you, let me know.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I did not work specifically in health insurance, but I think I do know something about insurance contracts in general.

My opinion is that explaining their is a difference between being denied treatment by a medical provider and being denied coverage for that treatment by an insurance company is not "splitting hairs". The choice between the two is obvious to me. I choose treatment over coverage.

But I agree that if an insurance company denied coverage i.e. "refused payment" of a claim for treatment by a medical provider the burden is left with the insured. When that happens the question as I see it is: Was the denial of coverage under the policy contract/refusal to pay the claim for treatment by the medical provider legitimate? If it was not, and the insurer maintained their denial after appeal, the insured should be successful in a Breach of Contract lawsuit against the insurance company.

The point I am trying to make is that no treatment/coverage should be denied. In my opinion, health care is a human right. It seems that an affluent country (at least for now) should be able to provide this... Most others do. So whether we are talking about coverage or treatment, it is irrelevant to me - it should be provided to all that need it.

I hope that we as a community and as a country could find some common ground and build a plan from there.

[Bob Jentges]

Here's a uTube presentative about trouble people are having with insurance companies. One case was a loss suffered by an insurance agent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2WtS1u_b5g

I have many more references. If you want me to give them to you, let me know.

I think any more discussion about Katrina hurricane damages on this health care thread would be off topic.

But I thought wrong about Lott losing his suit. You were correct. It was settled for an undisclosed amount.

As my last post in this thread on Katrina I will say that with your intended or unintended prodding I did a little research on the Lott case. Simply saying it was settled does not do the case justice, in my opinion.

Apparrantly Lott claimed his house was destroyed or nearly destroyed by Katrina hurricane winds and then subsequently claimed it was destroyed again by Katrina hurricicane floods. Lott collected for the flood damage under government sponsored National Flood Insurance Program. State Farm contended the hurricane wind damage and hurricane flood damage were the same event and the anti-concurrent provision in the homeowners policy excluded coverage. I think all of the many other insurance companies that had homeowners losses took the same position. Lott sued State Farm and other insurers sued their homeowners carriers.

In Lotts case a federal court judge ruled the anti-concurrent provision in the homeowners policy applied to flood damage but was ambigious with respect to wind damage from the same event. In otherwords what, if any, wind damage was covered in Lott's claim was a fact question to be decided in the underlying lawsuit. After that, Lott's case was settled for an undisclosed amount.

I think at least a few of the sidebar happenings in the suit are remarkable. First, Lott was represented by his famous attorney brother-in-law Dickie Scruggs. Scruggs hired two low level State Farm contract employees who stole documents from State Farm and paid them each saleries of $150,000. Second, Lott called the CEO of a national insurance trade organization and threatened him with "...bringing down State Farm and the industry...". Third, Dickie Scruggs along with his attorney partner son and three other members of the lawfirm were convicted of attempting to bribe a judge in a matter related to the lawsuit. Scruggs is presently serving a five year sentance in federal prison.

I do not know if the issue of the anti-concurrent provision with respect to wind damage from hurricane/flood claims has ever been adjudicated. I find it an interesting question. Sometime I may check into it further.

In closing, I appologize to other readers of this thread for wandering so far off topic. I will avoid that from now on.

[Dan Conner]

I think any more discussion about Katrina hurricane damages on this health care thread would be off topic.

But I thought wrong about Lott losing his suit. You were correct. It was settled for an undisclosed amount.

As my last post in this thread on Katrina I will say that with your intended or unintended prodding I did a little research on the Lott case. Simply saying it was settled does not do the case justice, in my opinion.

Apparrantly Lott claimed his house was destroyed or nearly destroyed by Katrina hurricane winds and then subsequently claimed it was destroyed again by Katrina hurricicane floods. Lott collected for the flood damage under government sponsored National Flood Insurance Program. State Farm contended the hurricane wind damage and hurricane flood damage were the same event and the anti-concurrent provision in the homeowners policy excluded coverage. I think all of the many other insurance companies that had homeowners losses took the same position. Lott sued State Farm and other insurers sued their homeowners carriers.

In Lotts case a federal court judge ruled the anti-concurrent provision in the homeowners policy applied to flood damage but was ambigious with respect to wind damage from the same event. In otherwords what, if any, wind damage was covered in Lott's claim was a fact question to be decided in the underlying lawsuit. After that, Lott's case was settled for an undisclosed amount.

I think at least a few of the sidebar happenings in the suit are remarkable. First, Lott was represented by his famous attorney brother-in-law Dickie Scruggs. Scruggs hired two low level State Farm contract employees who stole documents from State Farm and paid them each saleries of $150,000. Second, Lott called the CEO of a national insurance trade organization and threatened him with "...bringing down State Farm and the industry...". Third, Dickie Scruggs along with his attorney partner son and three other members of the lawfirm were convicted of attempting to bribe a judge in a matter related to the lawsuit. Scruggs is presently serving a five year sentance in federal prison.

I do not know if the issue of the anti-concurrent provision with respect to wind damage from hurricane/flood claims has ever been adjudicated. I find it an interesting question. Sometime I may check into it further.

In closing, I appologize to other readers of this thread for wandering so far off topic. I will avoid that from now on.

Well, while I understand the anti-concurrent provision in casulty insurance, It shouldn't mean that neither pay. It means that one or the other aspect pays. I don't know other specifics of the case. Of course, someone should not be able to collect multiple times what a property is worth. That exclusion is present on most insurance policies. However, there should be an ability to collect once.

Yes, I know about Scruggs. He is very rich Southern attorney who wins without scruples. I didn't know there was a relation between Lott and Scuggs. I have no problems with the pilfered papers at State Farm. If there was nothing damaging to State Farm's case, there should be nothing to worry about. However, if there was information damaging to State Farm and its case, then I would say to Scruggs, to go for it. Certainly two wrongs don't make a right, but if State Farm was no being honest, it was probably righteous retribution. Besides, the problem shouldn't be with Scruggs, it should be with the two employees State Farm hired. I don't know what relevance Lott's call has to do with things. Obviously, he was angry. Maybe rightfully so. I wouldn't blame someone you was cheated at this magnitude for being threatening. I might feel the same. Particularly, if cheated by the insurance company.

I would like to see your reference about the Scruggs prosecution. I believe he was prosecuted a long time ago for criminal actions, well before Hurricane Katrina. It was a felony. He would have been barred from practicing law. I would appreciate it if you would sustantiate what you said., because I think you have some of your information confused. Also, out of court settlements happen because of mutual agreements by the parties. You seem to be offering a lot of negative information about Lott, but there was obviously a lot of negative information about State Farm, or they would have gone to trial and or clear their name. Maybe where there was smoke there was some fire. Anyway, you were originally, wrong about Lott losing.

Related to this thread, I suggest you read the last publication of Time Magazine. The cover story, So, You Think You're Insured? (Think Again) My brother Pat thought so -until he got sick. One family's all-too-common trip through the American health-care maze, by Karen Tumulty. This article anecdotally explains the morass of insurance failings and scams in health insurance. It also explains how people pay for that with their health and, in some cases, wih their lives. Hardly a ringing endorsement of health insurance and the companies.

[Bob Jentges]

Well, while I understand the anti-concurrent provision in casulty insurance, It shouldn't mean that neither pay. It means that one or the other aspect pays. I don't know other specifics of the case. Of course, someone should not be able to collect multiple times what a property is worth. That exclusion is present on most insurance policies. However, there should be an ability to collect once.

Yes, I know about Scruggs. He is very rich Southern attorney who wins without scruples. I didn't know there was a relation between Lott and Scuggs. I have no problems with the pilfered papers at State Farm. If there was nothing damaging to State Farm's case, there should be nothing to worry about. However, if there was information damaging to State Farm and its case, then I would say to Scruggs, to go for it. Certainly two wrongs don't make a right, but if State Farm was no being honest, it was probably righteous retribution. Besides, the problem shouldn't be with Scruggs, it should be with the two employees State Farm hired. I don't know what relevance Lott's call has to do with things. Obviously, he was angry. Maybe rightfully so. I wouldn't blame someone you was cheated at this magnitude for being threatening. I might feel the same. Particularly, if cheated by the insurance company.

I would like to see your reference about the Scruggs prosecution. I believe he was prosecuted a long time ago for criminal actions, well before Hurricane Katrina. It was a felony. He would have been barred from practicing law. I would appreciate it if you would sustantiate what you said., because I think you have some of your information confused. Also, out of court settlements happen because of mutual agreements by the parties. You seem to be offering a lot of negative information about Lott, but there was obviously a lot of negative information about State Farm, or they would have gone to trial and or clear their name. Maybe where there was smoke there was some fire. Anyway, you were originally, wrong about Lott losing.

Related to this thread, I suggest you read the last publication of Time Magazine. The cover story, So, You Think You're Insured? (Think Again) My brother Pat thought so -until he got sick. One family's all-too-common trip through the American health-care maze, by Karen Tumulty. This article anecdotally explains the morass of insurance failings and scams in health insurance. It also explains how people pay for that with their health and, in some cases, wih their lives. Hardly a ringing endorsement of health insurance and the companies.

In violation of my previous remark that I would not address Katrina further in this thread, since you asked to see my reference about the Scruggs prosecution I suggest you Google Dickie Scruggs. You will find numerous hits and links, more than one of which demonstrate that my statement "Third, Dickie Scruggs along with his attorney partner son and three other menbers of the law firm were convicted of attempting to bribe a judge in a matter related to the lawsuit. Scruggs is presently serving a five year sentance in federal prison." is fact. You should also find that Judge Senter did not take kindly to some of Scruggs Katrina Group's methods during the case. For example, he would not admit the stolen State Farm documents as evidence in the case and would not allow the two State Farm contract employees (sisters) that stole the evidence to testify. Comment how you chose and ask whatever questions of me you choose, but I will not comment further on the Katrina matter in this thread.

Now on something that is related to this thread, as you suggested I did read the Karen Tumulty article in TIME. I feel terrible for Patrick Tumulty and all those who are unable to purchase health insurance, as well as those who have health insurance but are under insured.

Without blaming Patrick Tumulty, obviously he purchased the wrong type health insurance policy. He, like many others, are probably not sofisticated enough to ask the right questions when making the purchase and need outside advice. I understand he may have wanted to handle his affairs without help and that is admirable, but obviously he was not capable in this particular instance. Had he asked his sister Karen or had she volunteered, considering her "15 years of experience in covering health policy..., this tragedy may have been able to have been avoided.

I do not know anything about the insurance company involved, or what they did or did not do during the sale/purchase. But one source where the Duties and Liabilities of Agents and Brokers, along with remidies if those duties are breached, are discussed in the website: www.insurancejournal.com/magazine/southcentral/2005/05/23/features/56098.htm.

If there is a bright side to the Patrick Tumulty situation it might be that Patrick's doctor has "agreed to keep treating him even if he couldn't pay". God bless him! I think I addressed situations like that in previous posts. Also, the article suggests other avenues of assistance (charitable and government) apparrantly have been located that can be of some assistance to Patrick with expenses like medications, etc.

[Dan Conner]

In violation of my previous remark that I would not address Katrina further in this thread, since you asked to see my reference about the Scruggs prosecution I suggest you Google Dickie Scruggs. You will find numerous hits and links, more than one of which demonstrate that my statement "Third, Dickie Scruggs along with his attorney partner son and three other menbers of the law firm were convicted of attempting to bribe a judge in a matter related to the lawsuit. Scruggs is presently serving a five year sentance in federal prison." is fact. You should also find that Judge Senter did not take kindly to some of Scruggs Katrina Group's methods during the case. For example, he would not admit the stolen State Farm documents as evidence in the case and would not allow the two State Farm contract employees (sisters) that stole the evidence to testify. Comment how you chose and ask whatever questions of me you choose, but I will not comment further on the Katrina matter in this thread.

Now on something that is related to this thread, as you suggested I did read the Karen Tumulty article in TIME. I feel terrible for Patrick Tumulty and all those who are unable to purchase health insurance, as well as those who have health insurance but are under insured.

Without blaming Patrick Tumulty, obviously he purchased the wrong type health insurance policy. He, like many others, are probably not sofisticated enough to ask the right questions when making the purchase and need outside advice. I understand he may have wanted to handle his affairs without help and that is admirable, but obviously he was not capable in this particular instance. Had he asked his sister Karen or had she volunteered, considering her "15 years of experience in covering health policy..., this tragedy may have been able to have been avoided.

I do not know anything about the insurance company involved, or what they did or did not do during the sale/purchase. But one source where the Duties and Liabilities of Agents and Brokers, along with remidies if those duties are breached, are discussed in the website: www.insurancejournal.com/magazine/southcentral/2005/05/23/features/56098.htm.

If there is a bright side to the Patrick Tumulty situation it might be that Patrick's doctor has "agreed to keep treating him even if he couldn't pay". God bless him! I think I addressed situations like that in previous posts. Also, the article suggests other avenues of assistance (charitable and government) apparrantly have been located that can be of some assistance to Patrick with expenses like medications, etc.

That's fine. Don't comment. It's like I said Trent Lott did not lose his case with State Farm. It was an out of court settlement. You can bring up whatever you want about Scruggs. That's Scruggs. I never mentioned anything about Scruggs. I said that you were wrong about Trent Lott losing. He did not lose.

You got that . Patrick sure did purchase the worng insurance. It was another scamming insurance company. Signing up for consecutive 6-month terms and then treat the illness as pre-existing...kind of a fraud to me. Why didn't they apprise the insured of that. Also, did you read about "post claim underwriting?" Another insurance company trick to look far a reason to deny. It's called rationalization in my book.

Why would the private industry push people to charities on cases where they refuse to do what they were paid to do? Hardly caring about people. Patrick sure did purchase the wrong policy. It seems that anyone purchasing that policy might be wrong. I would have thought that insurance companies who really "care" would have suggested to Patrick he purchased the worng policy. They sure didn't stop accepting his premiums.

I propose that the publicpick up the costs, since the insurance companies don't

[Dan Conner]

I thought The Free Press article, dated 3/12/09, entitled as above, explained in very clear and sucinct terms the U.S. health care dilemma. It states in part:

The U.S. is significantly behind in both the quality and cost of health care when compared to our closest international competitors (Canada, Japan, Germany, U.K., and France). Most importantly, in these tough economic times, the U.S. pays at least 2 and 1/2 times more, per person, than any other advanced country. All of the advanced countries, the U.S. was compared to, had far more government involvement in health care than the U.S.

A more disturbing fact is that the U.S. health care is only about 1/2 as good as the emerging economic competitors of China, Brazil, and India. This study compared actual value - considering cost and performance.

We are not getting our dollar's worth of health care in the U.S., considering the enormous cost. This seems ironic considering the hurculean effort spent by business and health care companies in 1993 to sabotage the Clinton health care proposals. The systems has now been brought to its knees and all sorts of consumers are now asking for change. I thought another telling point of the article was that it never dealth with the human rights, fairness, and equity aspects of universal health care coverage. If that had been factored in the U.S. would have been near the bottom.

I think it is disgraceful that the U.S. is ranked so low for health care in the world. There are third world countries doing a better job. Most importantly, I think it is extreme selfishness that smug people, confident because they have good health insurance, seem content to deny life-sustaining health care to those that don't have it and can't afford it. Not a quality to be proud of.

It is ironic that chief executives from some of the largest companies in America are asking for change. They say our health care system is a liability to our economic performance and world competitiveness. We are spending all sorts of additional money on health care that is taking money away from other areas where it could be invested in the economy. It's notable that now money is the motivator to correct health insurance, but not human rights. Are these the values appropriate for other countries around the world?

[Bob Jentges]

I thought The Free Press article, dated 3/12/09, entitled as above, explained in very clear and sucinct terms the U.S. health care dilemma. It states in part:

The U.S. is significantly behind in both the quality and cost of health care when compared to our closest international competitors (Canada, Japan, Germany, U.K., and France). Most importantly, in these tough economic times, the U.S. pays at least 2 and 1/2 times more, per person, than any other advanced country. All of the advanced countries, the U.S. was compared to, had far more government involvement in health care than the U.S.

A more disturbing fact is that the U.S. health care is only about 1/2 as good as the emerging economic competitors of China, Brazil, and India. This study compared actual value - considering cost and performance.

We are not getting our dollar's worth of health care in the U.S., considering the enormous cost. This seems ironic considering the hurculean effort spent by business and health care companies in 1993 to sabotage the Clinton health care proposals. The systems has now been brought to its knees and all sorts of consumers are now asking for change. I thought another telling point of the article was that it never dealth with the human rights, fairness, and equity aspects of universal health care coverage. If that had been factored in the U.S. would have been near the bottom.

I think it is disgraceful that the U.S. is ranked so low for health care in the world. There are third world countries doing a better job. Most importantly, I think it is extreme selfishness that smug people, confident because they have good health insurance, seem content to deny life-sustaining health care to those that don't have it and can't afford it. Not a quality to be proud of.

It is ironic that chief executives from some of the largest companies in America are asking for change. They say our health care system is a liability to our economic performance and world competitiveness. We are spending all sorts of additional money on health care that is taking money away from other areas where it could be invested in the economy. It's notable that now money is the motivator to correct health insurance, but not human rights. Are these the values appropriate for other countries around the world?

I read the AP article too. I also heard President Obama say recently that he wants a health care plan that will expand coverage and reduce costs. It is very difficult to find fault with such an approach. But the devil is in the details, and we do not have the details yet.

When we are presented with those details if they include an individuals choice to opt out and continue with their private insurance, or based on significant income/wealth agree to be financially responsible for payment of their own health care costs (and such an agreement was enforcable) I think I might favor such a program.

Along with the statistics cited in the article I think the final sentence in the article is worthy of note i.e. "Other countries spend less on health care and their workers are relatively healthier, the report said.". It is just my opinion, but that might indicate the lifestyle of U.S. citizens is one reason other countries workers are "relatively healthier".

[Dan Conner]

I read the AP article too. I also heard President Obama say recently that he wants a health care plan that will expand coverage and reduce costs. It is very difficult to find fault with such an approach. But the devil is in the details, and we do not have the details yet.

When we are presented with those details if they include an individuals choice to opt out and continue with their private insurance, or based on significant income/wealth agree to be financially responsible for payment of their own health care costs (and such an agreement was enforcable) I think I might favor such a program.

Along with the statistics cited in the article I think the final sentence in the article is worthy of note i.e. "Other countries spend less on health care and their workers are relatively healthier, the report said.". It is just my opinion, but that might indicate the lifestyle of U.S. citizens is one reason other countries workers are "relatively healthier".

Of course we can read anything into the facts, but I feel the article is pretty straight forward. Most of us are of European stock, and that is the same group that is now healthier than us. And yes, it might be that our lifestyle contributes to our lack of health. However, it then might also follow that it is our screwy health system that contributes to our unhealthy lifestyle.

I thought it was of particular note that in the movie "Sicko" doctors in Europe were paid incentive payments based on their positive results in getting people to change into more healthy lifestyles. They worked with patients to assist them in getting there. I also thought it was noteworthy that doctors made regualr house calls to ailing patients. There was more one-on-one treatment and mentoring.

I am very skeptical of a voluntary health system. In too many cases, people who have avoided their responsibility of paying health insurance premiums, or carried inadequate insurance, are taken ill with only the taxpayer holding the bag. They can sign all the statements in the world about exercising responsibility to carry health insurance, but they won't. Then, we end up paying anyway. Doctors and hospitals can't be expected to let people die without treatment because the patient hasn't paid for their insurance.

I use auto insurance as an example. There are many many uninsured motorist driving around, even though it is against the law. I think a national health care plan has to be compulsory. The opportunity for low-cost national health insurance is the fact that the risk is spread over the entire population. Allowing a class of people or voluntarism will greatly reduce the risk pool and add to the cost. If we are to keep the cost low, everyone must be covered. Maybe people could be allowed to carry their own supplements to the national coverage?

[Bob Jentges]

Of course we can read anything into the facts, but I feel the article is pretty straight forward. Most of us are of European stock, and that is the same group that is now healthier than us. And yes, it might be that our lifestyle contributes to our lack of health. However, it then might also follow that it is our screwy health system that contributes to our unhealthy lifestyle.

I thought it was of particular note that in the movie "Sicko" doctors in Europe were paid incentive payments based on their positive results in getting people to change into more healthy lifestyles. They worked with patients to assist them in getting there. I also thought it was noteworthy that doctors made regualr house calls to ailing patients. There was more one-on-one treatment and mentoring.

I am very skeptical of a voluntary health system. In too many cases, people who have avoided their responsibility of paying health insurance premiums, or carried inadequate insurance, are taken ill with only the taxpayer holding the bag. They can sign all the statements in the world about exercising responsibility to carry health insurance, but they won't. Then, we end up paying anyway. Doctors and hospitals can't be expected to let people die without treatment because the patient hasn't paid for their insurance.

I use auto insurance as an example. There are many many uninsured motorist driving around, even though it is against the law. I think a national health care plan has to be compulsory. The opportunity for low-cost national health insurance is the fact that the risk is spread over the entire population. Allowing a class of people or voluntarism will greatly reduce the risk pool and add to the cost. If we are to keep the cost low, everyone must be covered. Maybe people could be allowed to carry their own supplements to the national coverage?

It is difficult for me to accept that medical providers in other countries are more proficient than than those in our country. The major percieved problem with health care here as I see it is that it is too costly.

I understand the spreading the risk idea in a voluntary situation like buying health insurance coverage. But as a general principal I do not favor a system that forces anyone to involuntarily contribute toward paying for others health care through additional taxes, assuning that under such a program everyone would contribute toward spreading the risk. Morover, under a compulsary program the possibility exists that the individual could lose control of their personal health issues i.e. the who, what, when of their health care.

In my previous post I suggested high income/wealthy citizens might waive participation in either private or government run health care and agree to be financially responsible for the payment of their own incurred health related medical expenses. You do not seem to favor that because you seem think too often people may not pay leaving the taxpayer with the expense.

But some high income/wealthy people already chose to self-insure. I have no statistics to support it but my sensibilities tell me those people probally pay their bills, at least for the most part. Under my suggestion, in the what I would expect would be very rare situations when those high income/wealthy citizens did not follow through with a binding agreement to be personally financially responsible, it would seem to me if the government stepped in and made payments to the medical providers the government could devise a program to collect back from the delinquient high income/wealthy individual. The IRS has a program to collect owed back taxes; the Department of Human Services has a program to track down "dead beat dads" and collect child support, etc.

Your idea of allowing individuals to carry "supplements to the national coverage" is somewhat like my suggestion individuals be allowed to opt out of national coverage entirely for private coverage. I would obviously prefer the latter because it would seem your approach would mean paying toward two health coverages throughout life, not only after becomming eligible for Medicare. If forced toward your idea it might be more acceptable to some if the private supplement would be primary, rather than secondary as it is now with Medicare. That way those that choose the option could still control their own heath care options i.e who, what, when while contributing to spreading the risk of the cost of national coverage. More socialist than I would prefer, but would still allow the individual to decide on health care with his/her doctor.

[Dan Conner]

It is difficult for me to accept that medical providers in other countries are more proficient than than those in our country. The major percieved problem with health care here as I see it is that it is too costly.

I understand the spreading the risk idea in a voluntary situation like buying health insurance coverage. But as a general principal I do not favor a system that forces anyone to involuntarily contribute toward paying for others health care through additional taxes, assuning that under such a program everyone would contribute toward spreading the risk. Morover, under a compulsary program the possibility exists that the individual could lose control of their personal health issues i.e. the who, what, when of their health care.

In my previous post I suggested high income/wealthy citizens might waive participation in either private or government run health care and agree to be financially responsible for the payment of their own incurred health related medical expenses. You do not seem to favor that because you seem think too often people may not pay leaving the taxpayer with the expense.

But some high income/wealthy people already chose to self-insure. I have no statistics to support it but my sensibilities tell me those people probally pay their bills, at least for the most part. Under my suggestion, in the what I would expect would be very rare situations when those high income/wealthy citizens did not follow through with a binding agreement to be personally financially responsible, it would seem to me if the government stepped in and made payments to the medical providers the government could devise a program to collect back from the delinquient high income/wealthy individual. The IRS has a program to collect owed back taxes; the Department of Human Services has a program to track down "dead beat dads" and collect child support, etc.

Your idea of allowing individuals to carry "supplements to the national coverage" is somewhat like my suggestion individuals be allowed to opt out of national coverage entirely for private coverage. I would obviously prefer the latter because it would seem your approach would mean paying toward two health coverages throughout life, not only after becomming eligible for Medicare. If forced toward your idea it might be more acceptable to some if the private supplement would be primary, rather than secondary as it is now with Medicare. That way those that choose the option could still control their own heath care options i.e who, what, when while contributing to spreading the risk of the cost of national coverage. More socialist than I would prefer, but would still allow the individual to decide on health care with his/her doctor.

I can understand what difficulty you have accepting the inferior medical system in the US, but look how far you have come already. Before you thought our health care system was the best in the world, bar-none. It sounds like you now concede its expense.

I think in time, with enough public information out there, you will also realize it is also not very good medicine. The US system is great for treating acute medical illness and disease, but short on prevention. Also, we rely on drugs as a panacea for all ills. In Europe there is more concern about treating the whole person, with incentives for prevention. I thought it was amazing that France commonly uses doctors making house calls. I think it is the direction of medicine in the US that is wrong. Too much of it is aimed at profitering instead of effective healthcare. I think that with more research you will recognize we are getting our competitive a#@$'s handed to us by most all European countries, in effectiveness and cost.

You talk about losing control in a compulsory system? What do you think we have now? In general, people have totally lost control in our system. It's because healthcare has turned from healing/treating people to a revenue machine. Decisions are made on a profit motive instead of saving people's lives. People are dying because insurance companies refuse to pay for treatments under BS reasons to simply duck payment. Again, I recommend you watch "Sicko" for actually cases of this. I also know of instances both through work and in my relations. In Sicko, there was a piece on an insurance investigator for a health insurnace company who's job it was to search a patient's medical records to look for a reason to deny. He admitted he probably contributed to some dying by improperly denying treatment. There was also a physician claims examiner who testified in front of Congress who admitted she contributed to patient deaths by denying treatments to benefit insurance companies bottom lines. Not good.

I've had several cases of being misdiagnosed because of the speed doctors examine you. It's like the system is now based on how many patients a doctor must see each hour, instead of positive results. I think you have this fear of socialism, and that's fine, but I think you need to set that aside so you can look objectively at the results, you know, the bottom line. Our system just ain't gettin it.

I think the wealthy can do whatever they want to do. They always have. If they want to self-insure, go ahead. However, they need to contribute toward the healthcare system meant for everyone. In Britain, you can go to private hospitals, if you want, but you pay taxes to cover their national health care system. That already exists in many programs already in place in our country today. You know, the rich also have an obligation to do something for our country, instead of just for themselves. Afterall, they had wonderful opportunities here. It's time to pay some of that back.

I'm afraid your idea for voluntary health coverage just isn't going to work. We've been using that system for many many years now and it is failing miserably. In additional to inadequate care, the costs are off the charts. I believe there is going to be a national healthcare coverage of some sort, that is going to be financed by everyone. Spreading the risk is one way to make it cost effective. If people feel the care is inadequate under that system, then they can use whatever they want, but they will help pay for the national system. I didn't support the Iraq War, but I had to help pay for that! I don't even come close to feeling sorry for the wealthy. It's part of being responsible in a society. If you want a list of all the things I, and possibly you, pay for, but don't support, the list would be longer than the website would allow. The rich just need to stop complaining and get over it. Too many have died doing it their way.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, you might want to read the first paragraph of my 7:32 AM post today. It does not say what you suggests it says in the first paragraph of your 9:11 AM Reply, and I do not intend to argue further whether is does or does not.

I tire of being asked to accept Michael Moore's "Sicko" as a credible reference comparing United States health care to that of other countries of the world.

I could go on, but I will not other than to repeat what I said a few posts back i,e. if someone can devise a health care system that provides the individual with choice of provider, timely access to treatment, and expanded coverage at a lower cost I'm all for it.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, you might want to read the first paragraph of my 7:32 AM post today. It does not say what you suggests it says in the first paragraph of your 9:11 AM Reply, and I do not intend to argue further whether is does or does not.

I tire of being asked to accept Michael Moore's "Sicko" as a credible reference comparing United States health care to that of other countries of the world.

I could go on, but I will not other than to repeat what I said a few posts back i,e. if someone can devise a health care system that provides the individual with choice of provider, timely access to treatment, and expanded coverage at a lower cost I'm all for it.

I have reread your 1st paragraph of hte 7:32 post. I believe I have closely restated what you did. While you might make the inane arguement that individual proficiency is not the same medical results, I think that statement is irrelevant and without value, if not related to medical results. Individual "provider" proficiency can certainly be brought into question if they labor in a failing system. I don't ask you to argue any issue, but you continue to do it anyway. Apparently, you like to assess without facts.

I never asked you to "buy into" or accept Michael Moore. It's just that ignorance stays as that without exploring new facts and ideas. I thought it might help broaden your perspective on health care in the US. I think you have already found out several facts you didn't know earlier. I was giving you an opportunity to discover even more. As far as Michael Moore not being credible, I would appreciate information you might have that shows otherwise. I think he has been very credible and a groundbreaker on the healthcare front. You might even say that more and more people and companies are coming around to a point closer to his perspective.

I'm glad to hear you are open to better health care systems. I think we're going to get one. And I think the one we're going to get will be better than the one we have, as most any system would. I think the system will provide for all that you have mentioned, for far less cost. Many countries already have that. I think we can just pick and choose from some of their ideas. Certainly, muddling around with the anti-change crowd ain't cuttin it.

[Steven Schmidt]

Originally Posted by Dan Conner
I never asked you to "buy into" or accept Michael Moore. It's just that ignorance stays as that without exploring new facts and ideas. I thought it might help broaden your perspective on health care in the US. I think you have already found out several facts you didn't know earlier. I was giving you an opportunity to discover even more. As far as Michael Moore not being credible, I would appreciate information you might have that shows otherwise. I think he has been very credible and a groundbreaker on the healthcare front. You might even say that more and more people and companies are coming around to a point closer to his perspective.

Try watching the documentary "Michael Moore Hates America". It may give you a different view of him.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Have you watched Sicko? I just Googled "Sicko Fact Check" and it is pretty well confirmed to be accurate... From CNN - Moore covers a lot of ground. Our team investigated some of the claims put forth in his film. We found that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context. As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film. In fact, most pundits or health-care experts we spoke to spent more time on errors of omission rather than disputing the actual claims in the film.

Bob, I think you should give it a look... You might be surprised... Michael Moore isn't the devil that the right wing makes him out to be... he just cares about people.

[Dan Conner]

Try watching the documentary "Michael Moore Hates America". It may give you a different view of him.

While I haven't seen the documentary, I will make an effort to watch. However, if one goes by the title, I know it is BS. I know Michael Moore better than that. He has paid an enormous price standing up for the little guy. I know that I certainly don't respect the documentary. I guess when they can't refute the message, they attack the messenger...a very old tactic. How much does the writer of that documentary hate America? I choose to follow facts not personal subjective remarks about someone. I will try to watch it, however. I'll also try to find out more about the documentary person.

[Bob Jentges]

I have reread your 1st paragraph of hte 7:32 post. I believe I have closely restated what you did. While you might make the inane arguement that individual proficiency is not the same medical results, I think that statement is irrelevant and without value, if not related to medical results. Individual "provider" proficiency can certainly be brought into question if they labor in a failing system. I don't ask you to argue any issue, but you continue to do it anyway. Apparently, you like to assess without facts.

I never asked you to "buy into" or accept Michael Moore. It's just that ignorance stays as that without exploring new facts and ideas. I thought it might help broaden your perspective on health care in the US. I think you have already found out several facts you didn't know earlier. I was giving you an opportunity to discover even more. As far as Michael Moore not being credible, I would appreciate information you might have that shows otherwise. I think he has been very credible and a groundbreaker on the healthcare front. You might even say that more and more people and companies are coming around to a point closer to his perspective.

I'm glad to hear you are open to better health care systems. I think we're going to get one. And I think the one we're going to get will be better than the one we have, as most any system would. I think the system will provide for all that you have mentioned, for far less cost. Many countries already have that. I think we can just pick and choose from some of their ideas. Certainly, muddling around with the anti-change crowd ain't cuttin it.

You placed the words "buy into" in quotations in the second paragraph of your above quote. I never used that phrase in my 4:46 PM post. If you wanted to quote me on something you could have used the phrase "perceived problem" from the first paragraph of my 7:32 AM post, which you misconstrued. Please do not make it necessary for me to defend things I do not say!

[Steven Schmidt]

While I haven't seen the documentary, I will make an effort to watch. However, if one goes by the title, I know it is BS. I know Michael Moore better than that. He has paid an enormous price standing up for the little guy. I know that I certainly don't respect the documentary. I guess when they can't refute the message, they attack the messenger...a very old tactic. How much does the writer of that documentary hate America? I choose to follow facts not personal subjective remarks about someone. I will try to watch it, however. I'll also try to find out more about the documentary person.

Dan, I have to ask what price has Moore paid? He has become a multi-millionaire, achieved fame, and when he speaks a large number of people take him seriously.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, I have to ask what price has Moore paid? He has become a multi-millionaire, achieved fame, and when he speaks a large number of people take him seriously.

Hi Steve---Although I am reasonably certain Dan Connor will read your above "Quote", just like I am reasonably certain he will read my brief post of 11:11 PM yesterday in this link. But I think his comment about the documentary you referenced i.e. "I certainly don't respect the documentary", while at the same time admitting he has not seen the documentary and does not know who wrote the documentary, is very telling, especially considering his "...attack the messenger...a very old tactic" remark. I have not seen the documentary either nor do I know who wrote it so I can not legitimatly comment on it!

[Dan Conner]

Hi Steve---Although I am reasonably certain Dan Connor will read your above "Quote", just like I am reasonably certain he will read my brief post of 11:11 PM yesterday in this link. But I think his comment about the documentary you referenced i.e. "I certainly don't respect the documentary", while at the same time admitting he has not seen the documentary and does not know who wrote the documentary, is very telling, especially considering his "...attack the messenger...a very old tactic" remark. I have not seen the documentary either nor do I know who wrote it so I can not legitimatly comment on it!

Bob--I don't know about a lot of things that you comment on. You frequently do that.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob--I don't know about a lot of things that you comment on. You frequently do that.

Do what? Please cite just one example so I can review it.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, I have to ask what price has Moore paid? He has become a multi-millionaire, achieved fame, and when he speaks a large number of people take him seriously.

Well, I haven't watched the movie Michael Moore Hates America, but I don't know if you have either. The name of the movie is "Michael Moore Hates America, not "Why Michael Moore Hates America." The movie premiered in Dallas, Texas at the American Film Renaissance film festival, which is the "first conservative film festival in the country." Wikipeadia also pointed out that it was Mike Wilson's first attempt to criticize Michael Moore for his seemingly anti-American positions. Wilson wanted to show anecdotally that America's values are conservative and that they are at odds with Michael Moore. It said that criticizing Moore's alleged hypocrisy is a fixation of Mike Wilson. It summarized the plot symopsis of the movie as "empty." Apparently, this movie was made before Sicko because there was no reference to that movie.

Next, I thought I would look up Mike Wilson in Wikipedia. Wikipedia gave his birthdate and said he lived in Minneapolis, MN. He is divorced after 8 years of marriage, lives with a girlfriend and his daughter by a prior marriage, and a son they conceived together. He said he filmed Michael Moore Hates America because the media reported his movie Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine as fact, when he felt it was opinion. Apparently, Mike Wilson was touting the virtues of conservative values and their prevalence in America.

I think it is pointless to use Michael Moore Hates American as a critique of Sicko because Wilson's movie predates Sicko. Also, the movie's only intention was to criticize Michael Moore, not the issue of the plight of the poor in the Detroit area or the overabundance of firearms in America, or the state of healthcare in America. So, it appears the movie failed at refuting Moore's contention because it only attacked the film maker, not the points he made. Then, the evidence offered was apparently totally anecdotal, with no statistical data to reinforce what was said. It was simply a vast number of interviews dealing with very subjective matter.

Most importantly, I think it should be important that when a movie is launched attacking a film maker as a hypocrit, that the person doing the attacking try to avoid the same, less his credibility be questioned. Mr. Wilson , while touting traditional conservative values, divorced after only 8 years of marriage, lives with a woman, who births an apparent illegitimate child between the two. Hardly conservative from what I know. I wonder if Mr. Wilson's motive was only to make money? I wonder if his movie was financed by wealthy conservative interests in Texas? I wonder if it was produced for political reasons in a Presidential election year? A lot of questions that need to be answered before there is any credibility on Mike Wilson's part. Most impoortantly, he is a major hypocrit for touting conservative values that he doesn't even follow, unless conservatives feel that cohabitating and having children out of wedlock is OK.

I think Mike Wilson has a lot of explaining to do about himself so we can make a better analysis of his movie. Right now he appears to only a political hack, with only a limited ability to mimic someone else's movie.

[Liz Ratcliff]

To all those that feel Sicko is propoganda - whatch it and research it before you go to such great lengths to bash it... then let's hear your opinion. If it doesn't change, fine... at least you can have an educated opinion.

[Ben Willaert]

To all those that feel Sicko is propoganda - whatch it and research it before you go to such great lengths to bash it... then let's hear your opinion. If it doesn't change, fine... at least you can have an educated opinion.

I have watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, although I have not watched Sicko. They were all made by Michael Moore though. Michael is a master of sensationalism who “creates” what ever he wants to, with out of context comments and hand picked “facts”. I cannot believe him anymore then a used car salesman. He is great at selling his theory, no matter how much he has to stretch the truth or gloss over major flaws in that theory. He is the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, just a different format.

[Steven Schmidt]

Wow Dan, you gave the film a bad review, savaged the film's creator, and attacked me by accusing me of never having watched the film. And all that without actually watching the movie!

I never said to use the movie as a critique of "Sicko". I implied you should use the film to gauge the honesty and integrity of Moore and perhaps take his films a bit more dubiously.

Out of curiosity, what did my question that you quoted but never answered at the top of your post have to do with anything you talked about?

You originally asked for information showing that Moore is not credible, then you seemed upset when someone gave it to you. Perhaps you should try to be a little more open minded.

[Dan Conner]

Wow Dan, you gave the film a bad review, savaged the film's creator, and attacked me by accusing me of never having watched the film. And all that without actually watching the movie!

I never said to use the movie as a critique of "Sicko". I implied you should use the film to gauge the honesty and integrity of Moore and perhaps take his films a bit more dubiously.

Out of curiosity, what did my question that you quoted but never answered at the top of your post have to do with anything you talked about?

You originally asked for information showing that Moore is not credible, then you seemed upset when someone gave it to you. Perhaps you should try to be a little more open minded.

Now I'm having a hard time understanding you. What question are you talking about? You should restate it. You never showed me anything disputing Moore's credibility. Even Wikipedia never acknowledged anything disputing Moore. Just because you use a hypocritical far right conservative to attack Moore doesn't do anything to diminish Moore's credibility. I asked you to give facts about Moore being wrong, not the far right hyperbole. There is nothing you have offered to cause anything of Moore to be questioned. In fact, even Wikipedia acknowleged what he said was true. Only in the world of righties is adhominem attacks on someone considered fact, just because it came from a righty. I suppose because he's a millionaire that detracts from his credibility? If so, you must have a real problem with rich people.

Deal with Michael Moore's facts, not his personality. Don't rely on Mike wilson to do your thinking. Think for yourself. Where is Michael Moore wrong? If you have to, ask Mike Wilson.

Believe me Mr. Wilson ain't clean as the driven snow. From what I read, he would better spend his energy of personal attacks on trying to improve himself. There's a lot of room there.

P.S. In case you forget, this whole discussion has been about health care. I've been talking about Michael Moore's movie Sicko. What other movie would you expect me to think you were critiquing? I think you need to stay on topic here.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I have watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, although I have not watched Sicko. They were all made by Michael Moore though. Michael is a master of sensationalism who “creates” what ever he wants to, with out of context comments and hand picked “facts”. I cannot believe him anymore then a used car salesman. He is great at selling his theory, no matter how much he has to stretch the truth or gloss over major flaws in that theory. He is the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, just a different format.

Could you please site some of the inaccuracies in the Michael Moore films? And whether you like him or not, you can't compare him to Rush Limbaugh... a homophobic, chauvenistic, narcissistic, racist, that only cares about #1. Whether you like Michael Moore or not, he goes to great lengths to look out for the common guy. But it seems too many common guys don't know a friend when they see one...

[Liz Ratcliff]

Wow Dan, you gave the film a bad review, savaged the film's creator, and attacked me by accusing me of never having watched the film. And all that without actually watching the movie!

I never said to use the movie as a critique of "Sicko". I implied you should use the film to gauge the honesty and integrity of Moore and perhaps take his films a bit more dubiously.

Out of curiosity, what did my question that you quoted but never answered at the top of your post have to do with anything you talked about?

You originally asked for information showing that Moore is not credible, then you seemed upset when someone gave it to you. Perhaps you should try to be a little more open minded.

Where is the information you gave siting Moore isn't credible? Siting a movie isn't sufficient. Do the research and show us the facts. An opinion bashing Moore isn't "information"

[Dan Conner]

Wow Dan, you gave the film a bad review, savaged the film's creator, and attacked me by accusing me of never having watched the film. And all that without actually watching the movie!

I never said to use the movie as a critique of "Sicko". I implied you should use the film to gauge the honesty and integrity of Moore and perhaps take his films a bit more dubiously.

Out of curiosity, what did my question that you quoted but never answered at the top of your post have to do with anything you talked about?

You originally asked for information showing that Moore is not credible, then you seemed upset when someone gave it to you. Perhaps you should try to be a little more open minded.

What's your point here? If you weren't a critic of Sicko, then what was your point. I don't care about Moore. I cared about his movie Sicko. There were many valuable unrefuted points made in the movie that you haven't addressed. You seem to be unable to address the movie so you attack the man?

You are confused. There was nothing in your moving impugning Moore's integrity. If so, what were they. You seem to only be able to drop veiled innuendos without addressing anything factually. I suggest you learn more about the facts before you attack the man. It you can't refute the facts, then you should reserve judgement. However, if you have evidence of scurilous Moore behavior, then produce it. If you can't it's just more BS.

You want me to change my mind about Moore based on nothing. You are now sounding like an AIG executive. So, come on, make your point and defend it. I shouldn't have to research your points for you...should I?

[Ben Willaert]

Could you please site some of the inaccuracies in the Michael Moore films? And whether you like him or not, you can't compare him to Rush Limbaugh... a homophobic, chauvenistic, narcissistic, racist, that only cares about #1. Whether you like Michael Moore or not, he goes to great lengths to look out for the common guy. But it seems too many common guys don't know a friend when they see one...

Michael Moore is infamous for only showing one side of what ever issue he is attacking. His films have to be taken with a grain of salt that you are not getting the full story. You are only seeing the facts he wants you too. That is how he and Rush are the same, they hand pick ideas to present as the whole truths when they are only part of the story. Here is some reading on the other side:

Bowling for Columbine:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
This is pretty biased against, but it does bring up some problems with Michaels facts

Fahrenheit 9/11:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy
It’s wikipedia, but still has some good points
http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
Again biased, but well researched

Sicko:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2007-06-30-sicko-facts_N.htm
Nice piece of reporting showing both sides of the issues.

I personally find it unethical to only present one side of an issue. As the audience, we deserve the right to decipher the facts for ourselves and don’t need to be spoon fed ideas like the ones he presents. Unfortunately sensationalism sells. Michael Moore is a very rich man now because of it. His disrespect for his audience shows he too only cares about #1.

[Dan Conner]

Michael Moore is infamous for only showing one side of what ever issue he is attacking. His films have to be taken with a grain of salt that you are not getting the full story. You are only seeing the facts he wants you too. That is how he and Rush are the same, they hand pick ideas to present as the whole truths when they are only part of the story. Here is some reading on the other side:

Bowling for Columbine:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
This is pretty biased against, but it does bring up some problems with Michaels facts

Fahrenheit 9/11:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy
It’s wikipedia, but still has some good points
http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
Again biased, but well researched

Sicko:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2007-06-30-sicko-facts_N.htm
Nice piece of reporting showing both sides of the issues.

I personally find it unethical to only present one side of an issue. As the audience, we deserve the right to decipher the facts for ourselves and don’t need to be spoon fed ideas like the ones he presents. Unfortunately sensationalism sells. Michael Moore is a very rich man now because of it. His disrespect for his audience shows he too only cares about #1.

Where were the false facts Moore presented? Don't give me references to do your research work for you. Tell me where he was wrong. I try to research my facts, you should do the same. It only takes seconds to copy a link. You need to actually read what you submitted and refute the facts. However, stick to the facts. Don't just attack someone because another prejudiced party has an opposing point of view. Tell me where he was worng. Then, you have a right to attack him. Don't do like Schmidt and use a person of questionable character as a freference to atack Moore's character. Make sure the source is credible.

[Ben Willaert]

Where were the false facts Moore presented? Don't give me references to do your research work for you. Tell me where he was wrong. I try to research my facts, you should do the same. It only takes seconds to copy a link. You need to actually read what you submitted and refute the facts. However, stick to the facts. Don't just attack someone because another prejudiced party has an opposing point of view. Tell me where he was worng. Then, you have a right to attack him. Don't do like Schmidt and use a person of questionable character as a freference to atack Moore's character. Make sure the source is credible.

I didn't refute his facts. The articles I cited above do go so far as to refute his facts though. I said he only presents half truths and one side of the story. I back that up with an article in USAToday on sicko:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2007-06-30-sicko-facts_N.htm
For the concern of keeping my posts short, you can read the article without me doing a copy and paste on the whole thing. And yes I read it.

[Dan Conner]

I didn't refute his facts. The articles I cited above do go so far as to refute his facts though. I said he only presents half truths and one side of the story. I back that up with an article in USAToday on sicko:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2007-06-30-sicko-facts_N.htm
For the concern of keeping my posts short, you can read the article without me doing a copy and paste on the whole thing. And yes I read it.

'You haven't backed anything up, because you havene't made any allegations. You say he presents half-truths? Then, what are they? You said he presents one side of a story...well, what is that? I try to use articled to reinforce what I say. I don't use them to speak for me. Make your accusations, and then bolster it with the link. I shouldn't have to do your research.

[Ben Willaert]

'You haven't backed anything up, because you havene't made any allegations. You say he presents half-truths? Then, what are they? You said he presents one side of a story...well, what is that? I try to use articled to reinforce what I say. I don't use them to speak for me. Make your accusations, and then bolster it with the link. I shouldn't have to do your research.

Have you seen his movies? He only presents one side of the story. Read the link I am providing, not for research, but to see what it means to present both sides of a story. While reading the story you will also find some half truths that he presented in his film. Try watching his films with a critical eye; you will see the propaganda and sensationalism. If you can see it in Rush L. you can see it in Michael M. They truly are cut from the same cloth, just different sides.

[Dan Conner]

Have you seen his movies? He only presents one side of the story. Read the link I am providing, not for research, but to see what it means to present both sides of a story. While reading the story you will also find some half truths that he presented in his film. Try watching his films with a critical eye; you will see the propaganda and sensationalism. If you can see it in Rush L. you can see it in Michael M. They truly are cut from the same cloth, just different sides.

I have seen every single one of them. Of course he presents a side of the story. There aren't many movies, documentaries, news stories, etc. that don't. However, he's making his pitch, he offers many truths and valuable things to consider, and he's convincing. There were virtually no half truths in "Sicko". Believe me they are not cut out of the same cloth. Michel doesn't lie. Rush does. Plus Rush does it in a very mean spirit. I have listened to him almost inciting civil war. Plus, I don't look to websites to tell me how to think, I choose to do that for myself. If it is the right thing to do, then we should do it.

What you don't know, because you haven't watched his movies, is that he presents real people and real problems. You might argue about how prevalent the problem is, but there is no doubt it is a problem.

Don't ask me to view a website with its set of lies to attack Michael. They have to attack his facts, not Michael Moore. There have been numerous people looking to tear his facts apart, but they haven't been able to. I have listened to Rush, but you aren't watching Sicko. I see no need to read your stuff until we are on the same ground and you have watched the movie. At this point let's just say we disagree big time.

Remember, it was the conservatives, and even you, that have been saying our health system is great. However, now there is all sorts of evidence that has come out that it is screwed up. You need to watch another point of view. It was Michael Moore that caused our nation to look more critically at our health care system. He had to do a lot of up stream swimming when he did that. That action did not make him a popular person, but he was right. There is consensus it needs to change.

[Ben Willaert]

I already said I have watched 2 Michael Moore movies and have seen his real people. I have no need to watch Sicko as I am sure it follows the same format from the reviews I have read about it. USAToday is not some random website blasting Michael Moore. They are a very reputable website/newspaper critiquing Sicko. It is Michael Moore that is telling you how to think by only giving one side of the story. Articles like the one I linked to, from actual news organizations, give both sides and allow the reader to form their own views and come to their own conclusions. This article is attacking no one and is not lying. It talks about the views Michael Moore presents and how close they are to real facts or what parts of the real facts he left out.

Here it is again, from national newspaper USAToday an article reviewing Sicko:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2007-06-30-sicko-facts_N.htm

[Dan Conner]

I already said I have watched 2 Michael Moore movies and have seen his real people. I have no need to watch Sicko as I am sure it follows the same format from the reviews I have read about it. USAToday is not some random website blasting Michael Moore. They are a very reputable website/newspaper critiquing Sicko. It is Michael Moore that is telling you how to think by only giving one side of the story. Articles like the one I linked to, from actual news organizations, give both sides and allow the reader to form their own views and come to their own conclusions. This article is attacking no one and is not lying. It talks about the views Michael Moore presents and how close they are to real facts or what parts of the real facts he left out.

Here it is again, from national newspaper USAToday an article reviewing Sicko:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2007-06-30-sicko-facts_N.htm

I am amazed about how you make nothing but unsubstantiated generalized criticisms without any specifics at all. You say:"...allow the reader to form their own views and come to their own conclusions. This article is attacking no one and is not lying. It talks about the views Michael Moore presents and how close they are to real facts or what parts of the real facts he left out." What a bunch of jibberish. You offer a bunch of hyperbole without one instance of Michael Moore's views or even what the real facts are. It's just an ad hominem rant. I will respond to specifics you bring up, but not the pie-in-the-sky BS you use to explain Moore. If the article critiqued Moore the way you do, there is not credibility. Where's your evidence, or can you find any evidence?

If analyzing and reporting your findings about Moore is to be worth anything at all, you better include some facts, or it is simply heresay.

[Ben Willaert]

Ahh, but I do corroborate my statement with the linked article backing it up. It is not hearsay; it is my observation of his past films along with a review of Sicko from a reputable source.

Michael Moore’s one sided exaggerations and half truths don’t deserve debate or discussion. To do so would substantiate his unethical practices. By only presenting one side of the story and putting real faces behind his agenda, he is appealing only to viewer’s emotions and passion. He doesn’t offer enough information for critical thinking or logic. I find that unethical. It doesn’t matter which of his “facts” are correct and which are not.

[Bob Jentges]

Ahh, but I do corroborate my statement with the linked article backing it up. It is not hearsay; it is my observation of his past films along with a review of Sicko from a reputable source.

Michael Moore’s one sided exaggerations and half truths don’t deserve debate or discussion. To do so would substantiate his unethical practices. By only presenting one side of the story and putting real faces behind his agenda, he is appealing only to viewer’s emotions and passion. He doesn’t offer enough information for critical thinking or logic. I find that unethical. It doesn’t matter which of his “facts” are correct and which are not.

Ben, if this were a wrestling match and I were the referee my decision would be to award you a "pin", or at least a "major decision".

[Dan Conner]

Ahh, but I do corroborate my statement with the linked article backing it up. It is not hearsay; it is my observation of his past films along with a review of Sicko from a reputable source.

Michael Moore’s one sided exaggerations and half truths don’t deserve debate or discussion. To do so would substantiate his unethical practices. By only presenting one side of the story and putting real faces behind his agenda, he is appealing only to viewer’s emotions and passion. He doesn’t offer enough information for critical thinking or logic. I find that unethical. It doesn’t matter which of his “facts” are correct and which are not.

That's not corroboration to me. You have to present your case. Remember, you are the same guy who hasn't watched and won't watch Sicko. Then why would I do your research for you in presenting your case?

[Dan Conner]

Ben, if this were a wrestling match and I were the referee my decision would be to award you a "pin", or at least a "major decision".


Bob, that's why you're not a referee. Ben didn't even register a "near fall". The article never refuted Michael Moore's facts either. They just didn't like that he was one-sided. However, I know you and Ben are totally objective and open-minded? If you are, I suggest that you and Ben look at the following link: http://blogs.bet.com/news/newsyoushouldknow/health-number-of-uninsured-americans-alarming/ In that link, it states the uninsured are actually over 86.7 million people. So, maybe Mike was being cautious with his facts. The article then said Michael Moore's $800 billion dollar figure referred to Medicare drug benefits and then correcteed him to $729 billion? Well, it's nice they chose to define what his $800 billion figure was, but I think they should have asked Michael.

I'm not a professional journalist, but I know a poorly researched article when I see it. They took tiny tiny facts, out of context, defined it, and then corrected it. Poor work. They should have verified these things with Moore. It turns out USA Today was wrong.

The amazing thing to me is that when I listen to people whining about protecting smokers and using only information that favors their case in making their case, that's OK. When I listen to others extrapolating the end of the world because of a perceived march toward socialism, you better believe those people are presenting their case based on their biased figures. Moore was "selling" his point of view, of course with bias. Everyone does that. When you attack him, you're defeating yourself. You make a big mistake attacking Mike Moore as a person. You must attack his position on the issues, and you haven't done that effectively at all. I respect Michael Moore's egalitarian philosophy, where he cares about other people. If you choose to emulate or aspire to the selfish, so be it. I just think that it is not a very admirable cause. That seems to be more symptomatic of a societal problem illustrated by AIG executives. By god, they got their money and they're going to keep it. That might be great for them, but not for our country.

Anyway, you can pass this along to Ben (the "Hulkster"). I think you call a contest a little too early.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, that's why you're not a referee. Ben didn't even register a "near fall". The article never refuted Michael Moore's facts either. They just didn't like that he was one-sided. However, I know you and Ben are totally objective and open-minded? If you are, I suggest that you and Ben look at the following link: http://blogs.bet.com/news/newsyoushouldknow/health-number-of-uninsured-americans-alarming/ In that link, it states the uninsured are actually over 86.7 million people. So, maybe Mike was being cautious with his facts. The article then said Michael Moore's $800 billion dollar figure referred to Medicare drug benefits and then correcteed him to $729 billion? Well, it's nice they chose to define what his $800 billion figure was, but I think they should have asked Michael.

I'm not a professional journalist, but I know a poorly researched article when I see it. They took tiny tiny facts, out of context, defined it, and then corrected it. Poor work. They should have verified these things with Moore. It turns out USA Today was wrong.

The amazing thing to me is that when I listen to people whining about protecting smokers and using only information that favors their case in making their case, that's OK. When I listen to others extrapolating the end of the world because of a perceived march toward socialism, you better believe those people are presenting their case based on their biased figures. Moore was "selling" his point of view, of course with bias. Everyone does that. When you attack him, you're defeating yourself. You make a big mistake attacking Mike Moore as a person. You must attack his position on the issues, and you haven't done that effectively at all. I respect Michael Moore's egalitarian philosophy, where he cares about other people. If you choose to emulate or aspire to the selfish, so be it. I just think that it is not a very admirable cause. That seems to be more symptomatic of a societal problem illustrated by AIG executives. By god, they got their money and they're going to keep it. That might be great for them, but not for our country.

Anyway, you can pass this along to Ben (the "Hulkster"). I think you call a contest a little too early.

Dan, your opening sentance would have been more complete if it had ended with the word "anymore". But referee or not the fact that two of our sons participated on what at the time was a perenial entrant in the H.S. Wrestling tournament and one of our grandsons participates now has given me opportunity to see many, many wrestling meete/matches. My call, whether you agree or disagree, remains the same.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, your opening sentance would have been more complete if it had ended with the word "anymore". But referee or not the fact that two of our sons participated on what at the time was a perenial entrant in the H.S. Wrestling tournament and one of our grandsons participates now has given me opportunity to see many, many wrestling meete/matches. My call, whether you agree or disagree, remains the same.

No, Bob,I was completely right. You know, referee isn't like President, you don't get to retain the title for life. Being referee was great. I'm glad you did that for others (even though you were paid). I was a wrestler in high school and for a season in college. I too went to state one year, but then I only wrestled 2 years in HS and one season in college. But enough of the personal.

I'm happy to see you are proud of your kids, but I don't think it's relevant to this thread, and I know you like to stick to the subject, but I guess you might equate wrestling to health care? I would like to say it is more like mud wrestling. Denying it to others is a dirty business. I expected you to answer totally off thread because you aren't able to refute Sicko. Oh well, some people don't want to confuse their prejudice with the facts, especially when those facts illustrate their "values" are misguided.

Let's see if I can state what you believe:


Don't want others to have health insurance if it costs money
Don't feel people with wealth should have to pay any more taxes, even it they don't pay their pro-rata share now
Don't want to improve education to the quality they had when they were a child, if it costs money
Feel it's OK that banks screw up our country because that's the price of capitalism
Readily complain about the condition and lack of improvements to our highways, despite not wanting to pay to fix them
Feel we are getting a great deal on pharmaceutical products for all people
Generally like the way drug companies operate
Like insurance companies, particularly AIG
Feel insurance companies never cheat people out of coverage, particularly for Hurricane Katrina, but feel people are are always trying to cheat insurnace companies
Feel it is fine for insurance companies to accept premiums and then dodge payment
Oh, and feel it's definitely not the lack of money that causes education to falter
Don't want to assist the less fortunate in society because they need to be "responsible"
Only conservatives get to sell their prejudiced ideas, but not Michael Moore, particularly when it involves helping others.
Socialism is evil when helping people, but OK when it comes to helping corporations


I don't agree with you. I believe government exists "for the people", not corporations. Then, when capitalist beliefs fall apart, because of too little government involvement, conservatives blame government for causing it. The part that is most hilarious is that their philosophy boils down to one thing...they don't want to pay taxes. They're like AIG executives. They want it all, no matter that it ruins their country. They're like Citibank executives who want to build $10,000,000 executive conference rooms, while on the government dole. Heck, I'll bet they are the same ones who judge people who have nice cars outside of hovels. Then, the masses below these "big shots" tolerate all these extravagances because they don't realize they are paying for it. McGuire's fantastic compensation came from millions of premiums from people like you and me, and from the stock holders. Bank and insurance executives "bill" their customers for all these extravagances.

Our country is in distress, not because of a lack of responsibility from the unfortunate among us, but because never-ending selfishness and greed of those you already have too much for doing too little. Supporting people who receive hundreds of millions of dollars of annual income while condemning someone who gets $5000 in SSI is twisted. Why do people feel it is OK for McGuire to get $1.6 billion as a retirement bonus from United Health, but OK for United Health to deny a $10,000 payment for life saving surgery?

Most important, why aren't people willing to pay to sustain what has made our country great? Believe me, it wasn't the selfishness and greed that made it great. They are what is destroying it. Bob, there just isn't a free lunch. Ad hominem attacks on our schools and education because you don't like the curriculum is a symptom of our country's problems. We're loaded with lazy complainers. They complain, but don't offer alternatives. That's easy and doesn't require any thought. Coming up with good ideas to improve the system does.

Bob, if you feel our schools do too little for too much money, let's actually hear a creative idea that you learned in your great education. You sure talk like you know the answer, so let's hear it. I certainly know you don't want to pay anymore taxes. That's a never-ending constant of yours. If you were a teacher, then why don't you use some of that past "expertise" to help and improve the system. There's school board, volunteering in the system, parent-teacher organizations, etc. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. I think you are different than me in one respect. Neither of us like to pay taxes, but I'm not willing to let our country deteriorate just so I don't have to pay them.

[Bob Jentges]

No, Bob,I was completely right. You know, referee isn't like President, you don't get to retain the title for life. Being referee was great. I'm glad you did that for others (even though you were paid). I was a wrestler in high school and for a season in college. I too went to state one year, but then I only wrestled 2 years in HS and one season in college. But enough of the personal.

I'm happy to see you are proud of your kids, but I don't think it's relevant to this thread, and I know you like to stick to the subject, but I guess you might equate wrestling to health care? I would like to say it is more like mud wrestling. Denying it to others is a dirty business. I expected you to answer totally off thread because you aren't able to refute Sicko. Oh well, some people don't want to confuse their prejudice with the facts, especially when those facts illustrate their "values" are misguided.

Let's see if I can state what you believe:


Don't want others to have health insurance if it costs money
Don't feel people with wealth should have to pay any more taxes, even it they don't pay their pro-rata share now
Don't want to improve education to the quality they had when they were a child, if it costs money
Feel it's OK that banks screw up our country because that's the price of capitalism
Readily complain about the condition and lack of improvements to our highways, despite not wanting to pay to fix them
Feel we are getting a great deal on pharmaceutical products for all people
Generally like the way drug companies operate
Like insurance companies, particularly AIG
Feel insurance companies never cheat people out of coverage, particularly for Hurricane Katrina, but feel people are are always trying to cheat insurnace companies
Feel it is fine for insurance companies to accept premiums and then dodge payment
Oh, and feel it's definitely not the lack of money that causes education to falter
Don't want to assist the less fortunate in society because they need to be "responsible"
Only conservatives get to sell their prejudiced ideas, but not Michael Moore, particularly when it involves helping others.
Socialism is evil when helping people, but OK when it comes to helping corporations


I don't agree with you. I believe government exists "for the people", not corporations. Then, when capitalist beliefs fall apart, because of too little government involvement, conservatives blame government for causing it. The part that is most hilarious is that their philosophy boils down to one thing...they don't want to pay taxes. They're like AIG executives. They want it all, no matter that it ruins their country. They're like Citibank executives who want to build $10,000,000 executive conference rooms, while on the government dole. Heck, I'll bet they are the same ones who judge people who have nice cars outside of hovels. Then, the masses below these "big shots" tolerate all these extravagances because they don't realize they are paying for it. McGuire's fantastic compensation came from millions of premiums from people like you and me, and from the stock holders. Bank and insurance executives "bill" their customers for all these extravagances.

Our country is in distress, not because of a lack of responsibility from the unfortunate among us, but because never-ending selfishness and greed of those you already have too much for doing too little. Supporting people who receive hundreds of millions of dollars of annual income while condemning someone who gets $5000 in SSI is twisted. Why do people feel it is OK for McGuire to get $1.6 billion as a retirement bonus from United Health, but OK for United Health to deny a $10,000 payment for life saving surgery?

Most important, why aren't people willing to pay to sustain what has made our country great? Believe me, it wasn't the selfishness and greed that made it great. They are what is destroying it. Bob, there just isn't a free lunch. Ad hominem attacks on our schools and education because you don't like the curriculum is a symptom of our country's problems. We're loaded with lazy complainers. They complain, but don't offer alternatives. That's easy and doesn't require any thought. Coming up with good ideas to improve the system does.

Bob, if you feel our schools do too little for too much money, let's actually hear a creative idea that you learned in your great education. You sure talk like you know the answer, so let's hear it. I certainly know you don't want to pay anymore taxes. That's a never-ending constant of yours. If you were a teacher, then why don't you use some of that past "expertise" to help and improve the system. There's school board, volunteering in the system, parent-teacher organizations, etc. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. I think you are different than me in one respect. Neither of us like to pay taxes, but I'm not willing to let our country deteriorate just so I don't have to pay them.

Good grief!

Although I do not get the relevance, I certainly do understand "referee isn't like President, you don't get to retain the title for life". That's one reason why I suggested adding the word "anymore" to your sentance. To expand a little on your parenthetical comment, sometimes I was paid to referee and sometimes it was as a volunteer.

I do not understand why you drift back to education in this thread. If it was mentioned at all herin it was way, way back among the posts.

I have said it before and will say it again once more. I "tire" of references to Sicko. I never saw Sicko. I am not trying to "refute Sicko". I have left that discussion to others who, in my opinion, have done quite well at it.

Please do not try to state what I believe. I get the impression it might be causing you great consternation. Almost certainly you might overlook something, and anyway I know what I believe; I do not need to be told what I believe by you!

In this forum there have been some things we have agreed on. But there is a
saying that when two people always agree on everything, only one of them is diong any thinking.

Since you say "I don't agree with you" there is no need for me to try to address the rest of your tirade. Quite frankly I could care less whether you agree with me or not. You are free to believe what you want and no amount of bullying can make me agree with you on basic principles, if I do not agree with you on those basic principles.

[Dan Conner]

Good grief!

Although I do not get the relevance, I certainly do understand "referee isn't like President, you don't get to retain the title for life". That's one reason why I suggested adding the word "anymore" to your sentance. To expand a little on your parenthetical comment, sometimes I was paid to referee and sometimes it was as a volunteer.

I do not understand why you drift back to education in this thread. If it was mentioned at all herin it was way, way back among the posts.

I have said it before and will say it again once more. I "tire" of references to Sicko. I never saw Sicko. I am not trying to "refute Sicko". I have left that discussion to others who, in my opinion, have done quite well at it.

Please do not try to state what I believe. I get the impression it might be causing you great consternation. Almost certainly you might overlook something, and anyway I know what I believe; I do not need to be told what I believe by you!

In this forum there have been some things we have agreed on. But there is a
saying that when two people always agree on everything, only one of them is diong any thinking.

Since you say "I don't agree with you" there is no need for me to try to address the rest of your tirade. Quite frankly I could care less whether you agree with me or not. You are free to believe what you want and no amount of bullying can make me agree with you on basic principles, if I do not agree with you on those basic principles.

Your original quote is "Ben, if this were a wrestling match and I were the referee my decision would be to award you a "pin", or at least a "major decision". I replied that's why you aren't a referee. Is there some error there on my part? I didn't intend to get into a discussion about your history as a wrestling referee, nor mine as a wrestler, or your children as wrestlers, or your gtrandchildren as wrestlers. I simply said that's why you aren't a referee. As far as the thread is concerned, wrestling isn't part of it, but I was responsing to your claim of a "pin." It's one irrelevance responding to another.

The rest of what I said is information gleaned from all sorts of prior posts you have made. If you think I have gotten them wrong, let me know. I will gladly correct them, if I was wrong. You are right, you didn't mention education, but you did mention wrestling and that wasn't mentioned before either and is not part of this thread.

I'm sorry that you "tire" of Sicko, but that is the one thing you address that is relevant to this thread. It is about health care. I'm surprised you don't want to discuss it, but rather want to talk about wrestling. While you disagree with it, you have never said why, or even offered credible evidence to refute it. You just "piggy back" on Ben's post.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Your original quote is "Ben, if this were a wrestling match and I were the referee my decision would be to award you a "pin", or at least a "major decision". I replied that's why you aren't a referee. Is there some error there on my part? I didn't intend to get into a discussion about your history as a wrestling referee, nor mine as a wrestler, or your children as wrestlers, or your gtrandchildren as wrestlers. I simply said that's why you aren't a referee. As far as the thread is concerned, wrestling isn't part of it, but I was responsing to your claim of a "pin." It's one irrelevance responding to another.

The rest of what I said is information gleaned from all sorts of prior posts you have made. If you think I have gotten them wrong, let me know. I will gladly correct them, if I was wrong. You are right, you didn't mention education, but you did mention wrestling and that wasn't mentioned before either and is not part of this thread.

I'm sorry that you "tire" of Sicko, but that is the one thing you address that is relevant to this thread. It is about health care. I'm surprised you don't want to discuss it, but rather want to talk about wrestling. While you disagree with it, you have never said why, or even offered credible evidence to refute it. You just "piggy back" on Ben's post.

Taking right wing propaganda at their word is a scary thought... Bob, it is worth the watch, whether or not you agree - honestly! Don't let the political machine decide for you. You might actually see that Michael Moore cares about people and isn't the nut job that the right makes him out to be.

[Ben Willaert]

Bob, that's why you're not a referee. Ben didn't even register a "near fall". The article never refuted Michael Moore's facts either. They just didn't like that he was one-sided. However, I know you and Ben are totally objective and open-minded? If you are, I suggest that you and Ben look at the following link: http://blogs.bet.com/news/newsyoushouldknow/health-number-of-uninsured-americans-alarming/ In that link, it states the uninsured are actually over 86.7 million people. So, maybe Mike was being cautious with his facts. The article then said Michael Moore's $800 billion dollar figure referred to Medicare drug benefits and then correcteed him to $729 billion? Well, it's nice they chose to define what his $800 billion figure was, but I think they should have asked Michael.

I'm not a professional journalist, but I know a poorly researched article when I see it. They took tiny tiny facts, out of context, defined it, and then corrected it. Poor work. They should have verified these things with Moore. It turns out USA Today was wrong.

The amazing thing to me is that when I listen to people whining about protecting smokers and using only information that favors their case in making their case, that's OK. When I listen to others extrapolating the end of the world because of a perceived march toward socialism, you better believe those people are presenting their case based on their biased figures. Moore was "selling" his point of view, of course with bias. Everyone does that. When you attack him, you're defeating yourself. You make a big mistake attacking Mike Moore as a person. You must attack his position on the issues, and you haven't done that effectively at all. I respect Michael Moore's egalitarian philosophy, where he cares about other people. If you choose to emulate or aspire to the selfish, so be it. I just think that it is not a very admirable cause. That seems to be more symptomatic of a societal problem illustrated by AIG executives. By god, they got their money and they're going to keep it. That might be great for them, but not for our country.

Anyway, you can pass this along to Ben (the "Hulkster"). I think you call a contest a little too early.

Thanks for the article Dan on the number of uninsured Americans. It makes me remember back to my 20’s when I considered health insurance an unnecessary expense. Another poor decision on my part, but thankfully I did not get burned by it. Does that mean I need the government to make that decision for me by providing me insurance? That kinda feels like I’m 12 again and my mom (the government) is standing over my shoulder making me brush my teeth before bed. I realize it is good for me, but isn’t there something to be said for the responsibility learned by taking care of one’s self?

As for you stating Moore is being “cautious” with his facts and using bias; that would be the half truths and one sidedness I made my comment about. Thank you for confirming what I said. And yes, other people use bias in their reporting. Does that mean they all should jump off that bridge? I personally would like to see more ethical journalism.

[Bob Jentges]

Taking right wing propaganda at their word is a scary thought... Bob, it is worth the watch, whether or not you agree - honestly! Don't let the political machine decide for you. You might actually see that Michael Moore cares about people and isn't the nut job that the right makes him out to be.

Liz, I try my best not to accept any propaganda, right-wing, left-wing, or even centrist, at it's word. I think there are times when each has some merit, just as there might be times when none has merit. For a few years after college I would say my thinking was mostly toward liberal ideas. I tended to vote Democrat. As experienced more in my life my thinking turned more toward the conservative side. Now I vote for what I consider the candidate that shares my values on the critical issues. That is usually a conservative, but not always. My philosophy for almost my entire life is to be my own man.

[Dan Conner]

Thanks for the article Dan on the number of uninsured Americans. It makes me remember back to my 20’s when I considered health insurance an unnecessary expense. Another poor decision on my part, but thankfully I did not get burned by it. Does that mean I need the government to make that decision for me by providing me insurance? That kinda feels like I’m 12 again and my mom (the government) is standing over my shoulder making me brush my teeth before bed. I realize it is good for me, but isn’t there something to be said for the responsibility learned by taking care of one’s self?

As for you stating Moore is being “cautious” with his facts and using bias; that would be the half truths and one sidedness I made my comment about. Thank you for confirming what I said. And yes, other people use bias in their reporting. Does that mean they all should jump off that bridge? I personally would like to see more ethical journalism.

I don't think you understand. The uninsured haven't been and will continue to duck repsonsiblity. You said you were fortunate you did not need to use it, but if you had been unfortune enough to have to use it, I and all the other insured people would have to pay for your medical care because you couldn't. I think you should make a call of visit ISJ and find out about how much cost they "kiss off" because of the uninsured. Most of the uninsured are unable to afford insurance and others are just don't purchase it. The hospital is bound by law to not let you die.

If you don't purchase insurance, then I think government should either buy it for you or make you buy it, as long as you have insurance. When you make the insinuation that it would be like treating people like they were 12, it might be that there are too many people actin g like they are 12. Then, it would be appropriate.

As far as Michael Moore is concerned, I think you are misinterpreting what I said. When I said he was being "cautious", I maybe could have used a better word. Conservative is probably the better word. He actually underestimated the number of uninsured, which made the USA Today article even more wrong. The problem is even worse than Michael Moore said it was. As far as bias is concern, you have shown a heap of bias in your posts, as I have. It is irrelevant to say his arguement is one-sided. So is yours and so is mine. You have to say why he is worng and prove it. The difference is that I have addressed statement where you have erred, you haven't. You simply say he is wrong, but offer nothing to substantiate you claim, except to have me look at another website that didn't substantiate anything either. I think you need to address what errors Michael Moore made and use your references to substantiate what you say. Otherwise, what are you saying?

[Ben Willaert]

I work with a guy that wants nothing to do with health insurance. As he sees it, he lives a healthy life and doesn’t use health services so he doesn’t want to carry insurance. His wife just had emergency surgery and they are paying out of pocket because they don’t have insurance. He insists he will still be ahead after paying out of pocket for the surgery vs. years of premiums. I believe health insurance is prudent, but are not going to force my views on him, forcing him to carry insurance. I respect my fellow citizens are not 12 year olds; I am sorry you see us as such.

I would like to see where uninsured patients are driving up health care costs.
“The common perception that uninsured patients with minor illnesses are primarily to blame for the overcrowding plaguing hospital emergency rooms is not supported by data, according to a study released today.”
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/study_debunks_theory_that_unin.html

“cautious” or “conservative” facts would both be half truths.

I present my side on the forum and you present yours. This forum is the finished unbiased product. Both of our sides are represented giving this forum journalistic integrity. If this were Dan’s blog or Ben’s blog without any references to opposing view points, I would say they are unethical. I didn’t say Michael Moore is wrong. I said his movies are unethical because they contain bias and half truths.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I work with a guy that wants nothing to do with health insurance. As he sees it, he lives a healthy life and doesn’t use health services so he doesn’t want to carry insurance. His wife just had emergency surgery and they are paying out of pocket because they don’t have insurance. He insists he will still be ahead after paying out of pocket for the surgery vs. years of premiums. I believe health insurance is prudent, but are not going to force my views on him, forcing him to carry insurance. I respect my fellow citizens are not 12 year olds; I am sorry you see us as such.

I would like to see where uninsured patients are driving up health care costs.
“The common perception that uninsured patients with minor illnesses are primarily to blame for the overcrowding plaguing hospital emergency rooms is not supported by data, according to a study released today.”
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/study_debunks_theory_that_unin.html

“cautious” or “conservative” facts would both be half truths.

I present my side on the forum and you present yours. This forum is the finished unbiased product. Both of our sides are represented giving this forum journalistic integrity. If this were Dan’s blog or Ben’s blog without any references to opposing view points, I would say they are unethical. I didn’t say Michael Moore is wrong. I said his movies are unethical because they contain bias and half truths.


I would have to disagree... having an opinion and a voice doesn't mean someone is unethical... Isn't that freedom of speech? Can you site Moore's half truths? I am tired of Moore being labeled as some unreliable or fringe personality. Conservatives typically don't like him because he can tear them up in a debate with facts and cases. So they throw a crazy label on him and everybody plugs their ears when he has something to say. It is ridiculous. He is an intelligent guy with valuable ideas that benefit mankind... but so many are too jaded by the labels given to him to actually think about what he is saying...

I would be interested in hearing why you feel they way you do about him. Give me some reasons, specific reasons, for believing he is unethical...

[Ben Willaert]

I would have to disagree... having an opinion and a voice doesn't mean someone is unethical... Isn't that freedom of speech? Can you site Moore's half truths? I am tired of Moore being labeled as some unreliable or fringe personality. Conservatives typically don't like him because he can tear them up in a debate with facts and cases. So they throw a crazy label on him and everybody plugs their ears when he has something to say. It is ridiculous. He is an intelligent guy with valuable ideas that benefit mankind... but so many are too jaded by the labels given to him to actually think about what he is saying...

I would be interested in hearing why you feel they way you do about him. Give me some reasons, specific reasons, for believing he is unethical...

Practicing freedom of speech does not mean it is ethical. I can say plenty of unethical things but be protected by the freedom of speech. Burning the American flag in protest is covered under freedom of speech. I don’t think it is ethical.

I don’t know what agenda conservatives have for labeling Michael Moore. I call a spade a spade. I have watched his productions and have seen through his charade.

“Like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Moore's other movies, Sicko is less documentary than poke in the eye. It plays on emotions with anecdotes, stories and facts that aren't always in context, up-to-date or accurate. So it has to be taken for what it is: a provocateur's expos of the worst of the American system, coupled with an uncritical, even naive, review of his preferred alternative.”
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/06/post-11.html

[Dan Conner]

I work with a guy that wants nothing to do with health insurance. As he sees it, he lives a healthy life and doesn’t use health services so he doesn’t want to carry insurance. His wife just had emergency surgery and they are paying out of pocket because they don’t have insurance. He insists he will still be ahead after paying out of pocket for the surgery vs. years of premiums. I believe health insurance is prudent, but are not going to force my views on him, forcing him to carry insurance. I respect my fellow citizens are not 12 year olds; I am sorry you see us as such.

I would like to see where uninsured patients are driving up health care costs.
“The common perception that uninsured patients with minor illnesses are primarily to blame for the overcrowding plaguing hospital emergency rooms is not supported by data, according to a study released today.”
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/study_debunks_theory_that_unin.html

“cautious” or “conservative” facts would both be half truths.

I present my side on the forum and you present yours. This forum is the finished unbiased product. Both of our sides are represented giving this forum journalistic integrity. If this were Dan’s blog or Ben’s blog without any references to opposing view points, I would say they are unethical. I didn’t say Michael Moore is wrong. I said his movies are unethical because they contain bias and half truths.

Well, maybe people who don't have health insurance because they didn't want ot pay for it, even though they could, should only get the medical services they pay for. No payment, no medical treatment. I think that would be a shame. if life or death was involved. However, like you said, he isn't 12, so maybe he won't mind taking that responsibility.

Uninsured patients are driving up costs. Talk to ISJ like I said. Patients who don't and are not able to pay their bills, cost all of us who can pay. The hospital is not going out of business to serve the uninsured. They make it up on everyone else. Your link about crowded waiting rooms isn't even relevant to the insurance and hospital cost arguement. You're off base there.

Well, you are conceding bias? The one who was condemning Moore for bias? Then, I was right about everyone having bias...right? You aren't making any sense. You say Morre is unethical because of bias, but you said immediately before that that you are biased. Then, doesn't it follow that you are unethical? I haven't been unethical, but I can't answer for you. I don't really see where you can be a judge of Michael Moore.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Practicing freedom of speech does not mean it is ethical. I can say plenty of unethical things but be protected by the freedom of speech. Burning the American flag in protest is covered under freedom of speech. I don’t think it is ethical.

I don’t know what agenda conservatives have for labeling Michael Moore. I call a spade a spade. I have watched his productions and have seen through his charade.

“Like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Moore's other movies, Sicko is less documentary than poke in the eye. It plays on emotions with anecdotes, stories and facts that aren't always in context, up-to-date or accurate. So it has to be taken for what it is: a provocateur's expos of the worst of the American system, coupled with an uncritical, even naive, review of his preferred alternative.”
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/06/post-11.html

Rather than waste more time discussing Michael Moore on this thread, I will end with saying that it is too bad that you have been jaded to dislike a man that points out the flaws in our system in hopes that it would someday benefit all of us. I am tired of the right wing (not necessarily you) turning a blind eye to this country's faults (yes we have some) thinking they have the market cornered on what is best for the common man, when they are really only thinking of increased profits. I ask this rhetorically... What has Michael Moore ever done to you?

[Dan Conner]

Rather than waste more time discussing Michael Moore on this thread, I will end with saying that it is too bad that you have been jaded to dislike a man that points out the flaws in our system in hopes that it would someday benefit all of us. I am tired of the right wing (not necessarily you) turning a blind eye to this country's faults (yes we have some) thinking they have the market cornered on what is best for the common man, when they are really only thinking of increased profits. I ask this rhetorically... What has Michael Moore ever done to you?

I agree Liz. There are too many people that seem to find bliss in ignorance. They don't want to see or hear anything that might change their mind. I think it has to do with dealing with change. Some people do not like change and are not comfortable with it. The tragedy in that, is we all suffer while people cling to old out-of-date and unworkable solutions. Isn't there a saying that goes, "It's better to fear the enemy you know, than the one you don't know?" Mankind will not progress without change. It's too bad that so many chose to stop progress/change.

[Ben Willaert]

Rather than waste more time discussing Michael Moore on this thread, I will end with saying that it is too bad that you have been jaded to dislike a man that points out the flaws in our system in hopes that it would someday benefit all of us. I am tired of the right wing (not necessarily you) turning a blind eye to this country's faults (yes we have some) thinking they have the market cornered on what is best for the common man, when they are really only thinking of increased profits. I ask this rhetorically... What has Michael Moore ever done to you?

What I don’t like is the use of sensationalism. I haven’t even watched the evening news in years because of it (especially Fox 9). As Dan Barreiro would say, “what are the Weather-Nazis predicting today?” Even the weathermen have gotten into sensationalizing the weather to get people all panicked; all in the name of ratings. The media and people like Michael Moore are making a fortune preying on our fears.

The way I see it, we all have a duty to each other. In this country we are free to pursue our dreams. At the same time, we owe it to our fellow citizens to allow them to chase their dreams as well, without hampering them. I do not think the government can provide all of us the life of our dreams. The government can make us comfortable, but not completely satisfied. Profits are the tool that can lead us to our dreams. Profits should not be made off others, but rather with others. Sensationalism is making profits off others. There are a lot of wealthy people that have made fortunes with others. Bill Gates is a good example. He made his fortune advancing our technology and now he has dedicated his life to helping others find their dreams too. Unfortunately we are all very focused on the bad seeds like Bernard Madoff and Tom Petters right now. They have made “profit” a swear word. We need to remember profits are the answer to our dreams. What kind of life is it to be dependant on the government? If we all took care to help our fellow citizens remain independent, we could all live a very successful lives. I believe freedom with morals can make this the greatest country in the world.

[Dan Conner]

What I don’t like is the use of sensationalism. I haven’t even watched the evening news in years because of it (especially Fox 9). As Dan Barreiro would say, “what are the Weather-Nazis predicting today?” Even the weathermen have gotten into sensationalizing the weather to get people all panicked; all in the name of ratings. The media and people like Michael Moore are making a fortune preying on our fears.

The way I see it, we all have a duty to each other. In this country we are free to pursue our dreams. At the same time, we owe it to our fellow citizens to allow them to chase their dreams as well, without hampering them. I do not think the government can provide all of us the life of our dreams. The government can make us comfortable, but not completely satisfied. Profits are the tool that can lead us to our dreams. Profits should not be made off others, but rather with others. Sensationalism is making profits off others. There are a lot of wealthy people that have made fortunes with others. Bill Gates is a good example. He made his fortune advancing our technology and now he has dedicated his life to helping others find their dreams too. Unfortunately we are all very focused on the bad seeds like Bernard Madoff and Tom Petters right now. They have made “profit” a swear word. We need to remember profits are the answer to our dreams. What kind of life is it to be dependant on the government? If we all took care to help our fellow citizens remain independent, we could all live a very successful lives. I believe freedom with morals can make this the greatest country in the world.

Michael Moore advanced public knowledge of our healthcare deficiencies. In the process he made movies, like a lot of other producers/directors. I don't believe profits lead to any dreams. If anything it is the dreams that lead to profits, not the other way around. Most all studies, looking at jobs and businesses have found that making money (profits) is far down the list as motivators. Sense of accommplishment and doing something worthwhile are way ahead of money.

Profit maligns itself when it is gained by despoiling our envoronment, endangering peoples' lives, and causing armed conflicts among people. Generally, where there is an obsession with money, there is an obsession with power. A lot of people lose when that compulsion happens.

Profits are not the answer to our dreams. The happiest people are ones who have done things for others without great remuneration. If profits were the supreme motivation, like you say, we would not have mother Theresa's, Doctors without Borders, Salvation Army, etc.,etc. Leading a meaningful life leads to happiness. I'm sure you've heard the stories about the rich many in the community who commits suicide because he was not happy. He discovered late in life that having money did not necessarily bring happiness. Profit and money are the concoctions of many and simply invested as a medium of exchange, not a commodity to hoard. It was only intended to improve on a system of barter.

I believe it is happiness that is the answer to out dreams. And success should be measured by happiness, not money. We would live in a ridiculous society if we just lined up peoples' net assets to determine their success. If so, I don't care anything about your "success." I want to be happy, regardless of my wealth and only you will know the score on that account.

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

Dear Ben, Dan and Joe,

Thank you, Joe, for allowing me to join in the forum.

I am a physician who trained at Mayo Medical School, also did my residency in Family Medicine at Mayo. I have worked in government (Indian Health Service) private (Mankato Clinic LTD) and not-for-profit (Mayo Rochester, and currently at Mayo Albert Lea) healthcare systems. I am married to a veteran who receives his healthcare through the VA. I have 3 grown children and 4 grandchildren.

My personal experience has led me to become a strong supporter of single payer insurance for universal healthcare. Over time, I hope to be able to clarify for you the observations and literature that have allowed me to conclude that this is the only affordable route to quality care for all.

I have a very tight work schedule until the end of May; until then, I intend to follow your thread, and briefly interject when I read something I know to be false or misleading, and can back it up with references. Beginning in June, I hope to become a much more active participant.

I am not clear about one of the rules of engagement, here; is it true that we can't post links to our references? If that is the case, I am wondering what the rationale is... seems to me that would be like writing a term paper without the footnotes. Perhaps I am mistaken?

With response to your thread thus far, I would state the following:

The United States, sadly, does not have the best healthcare system in the world. I think the OECC has rated us 16th in the world for quality, first in the world for healthcare cost.... twice as much as Canada, which has the second most expensive system in the world. (I haven't figured out, yet, if I can leave this site to get to my reference sources, so I'll leave it at that for now and work on it after I've posted this draft. I am positive about everything but the "16th"; we may be further down on the list.)

I will agree with Ben that there are pockets of excellence. Mayo does not turn any patients down... yet. In my fall alumni magazine, Dr. Cortesi, Mayo CEO, discusses their system's inability to take even 2 more years of their current budget losses, mostly due to uncompensated coverage for the uninsured (which are increasing exponentially due to our troubled economy) and inequitable funding of Medicare across the nation, with northern states reimbursed less than those in the south. Minnesota is lucky to have Mayo. But I think that when Mayo's system is breaking, the rest of the system has pretty much already imploded.

With regards to the initial article from the Atlantic; the author was lucky she had insurance, and that her treatment was "only" $60,000. There are many cancer patients who are receiving no treatment in the United States. (Again, I want to back this up with my resources, but you'll have to trust me for now, as I've seen cases myself).

The problems are many, but it usually goes like this; The patient has "good" insurance, or so they think, but the cost of cancer treatment, even without complications, often exceeds the insurance cap (50% of bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to medical catastrophes, and of those bankruptcies, 75% HAD insurance!). Haven't you ever wondered why we keep having potluck fundraisers for working families who had some medical disaster or another? $60,000 is a drop in the bucket for cancer care. I would also like to add that, if you are lucky enough to be cured and you haven't maxed on your cap, I advise holding onto that insurance, because anything related to that cancer is now a "pre-existing condition", and you will either be "uninsurable" or you will pay out-of-pocket for any medical expenses related to the cancer. This is one of the many reasons I fail to understand how anyone can call our current insurance system either "private" or "free market". What we really have is an oligopoly that Teddy Roosevelt would have been proud to "bust."

Here's another scenario--and I'm seeing a lot more of this; the patient had insurance through work. The patient got laid off. COBRA is truly unaffordable for most (personal experience? After a back fracture--which surgery alone cost my insurance company $55,000--I left the job that was not conducive to my recovery (and no, I did not file for disability, although I was encouraged to do so, because I couldn't stand to think of myself as "disabled" and because, frankly, the paper work and the wait would have ticked me off, and I have always been frugal so I had a savings account to cover myself till I was fully recovered.) Over the next 18 months, I paid $18,000 out of pocket for COBRA, and another $8000 in deductibles and co-pays. In short, unless the patient has an independent source of funding (while laid off!) they drop their insurance and pray that nothing happens. In Minnesota, that patient can drive (or move; cancer and chemo can be overwhelming) to a city with a hospital that accepts Medicare (fewer and fewer) and provides chemotherapy (if nuclear medicine, this generally cuts your options down to a few large cities). Not all citizens are as lucky as we Minnesotans; Nevada, for instance, closed its only publicly funded oncology program last year because of state budget cuts.

People who worked hard all their lives are either selling everything they've ever owned or paying their life savings... in order to live. I hope the patient who got the Herceptin here in the U.S. keeps her insurance. Of course, now that New Zealand has approved Herceptin, she could always move to New Zealand, where anyone who has breast cancer can get that treatment now.

Here's the last scenario; the patient has never had insurance. Pick your reason--a pre-existing condition that precludes them from buying insurance, a delusion that bad things never happen to good people so they took a gamble and lost, or maybe the patient was a "no-good, shiftless bum" (as one person described his patient to me) who can't see straight, much less fill out an insurance form. In these cases, I side with Dan, as I believe a human being is a human being, and what makes us human is the ability to walk in someone else's shoes. 18,000 people per year die in the United States, solely because they have no health insurance. At least 18,000. It's hard to get the homeless included in the surveys.

Well, that's all I have time for today. Again, thank you for letting me participate in the conversation; I've always thought debate was a great way to learn... friends too often share the same opinion, already (59% of doctors want single payer insurance). If you want to get started on information with regards to single payer insurance, I recommend going first to the available U.S. proposals. Nationally, there is Representative John Conyers' HR 676 and Senator Sanders' new bill; I don't know the docket number off-hand. Locally, there is the Minnesota Health Act offered by Senator Marty; it's googleable. Good day!

Oh, one more thing; many insurance companies won't pay for Enbrel, Ben. I'll be willing to bet a buck that your physician had to spend some time and effort getting pre-authorization. I'm so glad you are one of the lucky ones! I have a son-in-law who has been on Remicaid (similar med, similar expense) for 7 years, now. His doctor started it here at Mayo. But when they moved to California, the doctor there couldn't get it approved, so they treated him with cyclosporine and prednisone... until the kid developed diabetes, osteoporosis, hypertension and had a stroke, all at the age of 32, and all due to the medications. One case of insurance clerics deciding a patient's medical care, in order to cut costs. Me, I'm not crazy about a government official deciding what gets paid for and what doesn't, but at least with the government official, as in New Zealand, we (eventually) get to hold the idiot responsible via a vote! We don't get to hold the insurance companies responsible, unless we file a lawsuit. Free market? The insurance company paid for the side effects, but still refused to pay for a switch of meds!

He could have sued and won, but our family (hubris, perhaps) doesn't go for lawsuits any more than we go for disability. He came back to Minnesota where his doctors and I can keep an eye on him. He pays through the nose for insurance (but he, fortunately, can afford it), and he is recovering nicely. He's back to only having the original condition. Mayo is talking about switching him to Enbrel, so he can administer his own treatment at home!

Again, good day... I promise not to be so long-winded in the future!

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

I don't know how I managed to miss this last page on the thread, but did; and want to include Liz in my remarks... which are probably dated, now--sorry! I will add that I've always followed my dreams. Which led to happiness, which is also my measure of success. Thanks for your patience, I'll get the hang of this! Lynn

[Bob Jentges]

Dear Dr. Kelly,

I had been making posts on this thread too, although I had not for some time.

I read your post with interest and certainly respect your expertise in the medical field. I look forward to your future posts on this issue, and others.

As indicated previously herin my working years were spent in the insurance field, but property and casualty rather than health. We have had experience with Mayo Clinic in Rochester as my wife is a Stage IV cancer survivor enrolled in a clinical trial program, although she is now treating with an oncologist at ISJ Mayo in Mankato. She underwent extensive surgery at Mayo and a lengthy series of chemotherapy treatments. Initially her prognosis was 3-5 years and she is now in her sixth year post diagnosis. She has received and continues to receive excellent medical treatment.

Before I retired we were very satisfied with how our private group health insurance processed claims for my wife's treatment. Our "cap" is $1M. We carried a rather high deductable to help keep premiums reasonable, relativly speaking. Our out-of-pocket expenses were not great, all considered.

When my wife became eligible for Medicare we kept our private policy as a supplemental. We were generally satisfied with Medicare's processing of her expenses, although most of the expensive treatment was behind us by that time.

The only issue we had was after Medicare became primary. When the cancer returned after five years and another series of chemotherapy was completed, the oncologist ordered a PET Scan every two months. Medicare only covered one per year. Our supplemental policy included a provision that read if Medicare did not cover more than one PET Scan per year they would not cover more than one either.

My concern about single payer universal health care is based mostly on our personal experience with Medicare and the PET Scan limitations. But I have done some reading about concerns with universal health care. Although it includes many, many articles--too many for most to read them all, at the end of this post I will include the web site for those that might be interested.
Obviously the site is biased, but I think the articles and opinions come from mostly reputable publications.

As I have expressed previously, I favor any health care system that provides choice of physicians, leaves the medical care decisions to the patient and their physician, and provides reasonable coverage at a reasonable cost to members.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.htm#britian

PS--For some reason the web site did not print out correctly origionally. After "issues/" it should read: health care/socialized.htm#britian

[Dan Conner]

Dr. Kelly, thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate your humanity and concern for people. That is so easily forgotten in our rush to the auto dealers to buy our next BMW or Mercedes. I read your post as from a person who really believes in the Hippocratic Oath. I would consider it a great honor to have you as my doctor.

As an asside, I read a reference that the US actually ranked 38th in the world in "quality" of health care. The ranking was done by a non-partisan group from the US and Europe. I believe I included a link to that reference in one of my earlier posts.

It seems there are so many people who want to use fear as a tool to scare people away from national health insurance by calling it "socialist" or telling people the government will control your doctor and your health care. Then, there are the complacent among us that feel they get good care, so why would they want to help others get better health care? You know, that I've got mine so the heck with you crowd? I believe this is what is leading to our self-destruction....like a rotting from within.

I believe our country will achieve ever higher heights of prosperity and happiness for all, if we offer a helping hand instead of a boot. There is a huge untapped human resource that has not been adequately used because too many of us have been so willing to throw them on a human refuse pile. Better utilizing this wasted talent and labor will help our country reach never previously attained heights.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Dr. Kelley, you can post links by using this bracket before the link. and the same one after the link except with a / between the leading bracket and the "u" in url. It shows up like this [url]www.mankatofreepress.com. I also have found it handy to use is.gd.com for compressing very long links...it is easy to use and it makes a long link into about 5 to 8 characters...and it always works.
Thanks for your contributions. I look forward to our "civil discourse" forum (unlike the anonymous irresponsible ones many newspapers operate) growing and being a community resource for gaining knowledge and solving problems.
Thanks again.
Joe

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

Wow, you all replied so quickly! I wish I'd checked night before last, I actually had a little time to reply! Late day at work today, so I'll be brief, but have tomorrow off so will respond in more depth;

Joe, thanks for the URL bracket tip; I'm a Mac user so have always been able to just copy and paste links... I was referring to the rule at the bottom of the page that says "you may not post attachments". I figured out that this must mean we can't "cut and paste" from published articles (?), or something along that line, when I say Bob's link. And yes, I really appreciate the Free Press' opportunity for honest discussion; anonymity tends to breed contempt. Seems to me everyone here is interested in listening to concerns, identifying problems, looking for solutions. I am interested in constructive learning. Finally, Joe, I watched a PBS show last night, Frontline "Sick Across America" (my husband had taped it for me, as he records pretty much everything on health care, so I can't tell you which night it aired, but it should be available on PBS.org). The program discusses health care issues, identifies some of the possible solutions, although not in much depth; what made me think of you is that they actually had a New Zealand citizen who came to America. Had group insurance for years through her work, which covered a cancer. She was in remission for some time when she switched jobs, applied for and obtained BC/BS; weeks after her acceptance, she was hospitalized for a different type of cancer, underwent treatment thinking she had coverage, then came home to $160,000 in bills. BC/BS had recinded their contract because, in the underwriting process, she had failed to offer that at one of her clinic visits she complained of "light spotting", had a normal pap and pelvic and was told there was no problem. Anyway, the reason I refer you to this story is because she happens to be from New Zealand and plans to return there for a few years so she can have coverage for further treatment. Fortunately, it looks like she is going to recover!

Dan, I am honored that you would have me for your doctor, but would advise that you choose doctors for their expertise rather than their bedside manner. Most physicians do care, although many are too hurried to show it. If you have a choice, first find the doctors with the best training. Then, among that group, choose the doctor who is kindest. The neurosurgeon who repaired my back had as much personality as a cardboard box, but he was one of the few persons in this world who could do that surgery, and do it well. I'm Family Medicine, know a little about a lot, love working with people of all stripes, and love doing procedures. Because of Mayo, I can detect big problems sooner than most, and know who to get you to in order to fix what I can't. Then they send you back to me to get the after care, because there isn't a surgeon in the world who thinks their surgeries are painful, and most want to do surgery rather than medicine.

Bob, your response deserves a longer response, but I want to say tonight that I am just so glad your wife is doing well. And I can think (well, sort of slowly, at this time of night...) of a few things that might be done about the PET scans, and will include that advice tomorrow. Your circumstances provide good fodder for discussion. I did read your links; I found the picture of Hilary a bit shocking and unkind but you are right, your reference is a teaching tool. I also favor any health care system that provides the patient his or her choice of physicians, leaves the medical care decisions to the patient and their physician, and provides reasonable coverage at a reasonable cost to members. I think we are all on the same page about that, and that is where I'll start tomorrow!

And Liz, as proof that I've always been a dreamer; I am also interested in a system that won't bankrupt our country, while meeting all the other criteria.
But there is a practical side of me; I don't think this whole mess is going to be fixed in one step, and I don't think we'll be done fixing it tomorrow.

Good Night!

Lynn

[Dan Conner]

Wow, you all replied so quickly! I wish I'd checked night before last, I actually had a little time to reply! Late day at work today, so I'll be brief, but have tomorrow off so will respond in more depth;

Joe, thanks for the URL bracket tip; I'm a Mac user so have always been able to just copy and paste links... I was referring to the rule at the bottom of the page that says "you may not post attachments". I figured out that this must mean we can't "cut and paste" from published articles (?), or something along that line, when I say Bob's link. And yes, I really appreciate the Free Press' opportunity for honest discussion; anonymity tends to breed contempt. Seems to me everyone here is interested in listening to concerns, identifying problems, looking for solutions. I am interested in constructive learning. Finally, Joe, I watched a PBS show last night, Frontline "Sick Across America" (my husband had taped it for me, as he records pretty much everything on health care, so I can't tell you which night it aired, but it should be available on PBS.org). The program discusses health care issues, identifies some of the possible solutions, although not in much depth; what made me think of you is that they actually had a New Zealand citizen who came to America. Had group insurance for years through her work, which covered a cancer. She was in remission for some time when she switched jobs, applied for and obtained BC/BS; weeks after her acceptance, she was hospitalized for a different type of cancer, underwent treatment thinking she had coverage, then came home to $160,000 in bills. BC/BS had recinded their contract because, in the underwriting process, she had failed to offer that at one of her clinic visits she complained of "light spotting", had a normal pap and pelvic and was told there was no problem. Anyway, the reason I refer you to this story is because she happens to be from New Zealand and plans to return there for a few years so she can have coverage for further treatment. Fortunately, it looks like she is going to recover!

Dan, I am honored that you would have me for your doctor, but would advise that you choose doctors for their expertise rather than their bedside manner. Most physicians do care, although many are too hurried to show it. If you have a choice, first find the doctors with the best training. Then, among that group, choose the doctor who is kindest. The neurosurgeon who repaired my back had as much personality as a cardboard box, but he was one of the few persons in this world who could do that surgery, and do it well. I'm Family Medicine, know a little about a lot, love working with people of all stripes, and love doing procedures. Because of Mayo, I can detect big problems sooner than most, and know who to get you to in order to fix what I can't. Then they send you back to me to get the after care, because there isn't a surgeon in the world who thinks their surgeries are painful, and most want to do surgery rather than medicine.

Bob, your response deserves a longer response, but I want to say tonight that I am just so glad your wife is doing well. And I can think (well, sort of slowly, at this time of night...) of a few things that might be done about the PET scans, and will include that advice tomorrow. Your circumstances provide good fodder for discussion. I did read your links; I found the picture of Hilary a bit shocking and unkind but you are right, your reference is a teaching tool. I also favor any health care system that provides the patient his or her choice of physicians, leaves the medical care decisions to the patient and their physician, and provides reasonable coverage at a reasonable cost to members. I think we are all on the same page about that, and that is where I'll start tomorrow!

And Liz, as proof that I've always been a dreamer; I am also interested in a system that won't bankrupt our country, while meeting all the other criteria.
But there is a practical side of me; I don't think this whole mess is going to be fixed in one step, and I don't think we'll be done fixing it tomorrow.

Good Night!

Lynn

Lynn--

Thanks for your timely reply. When I responded about being proud about having you as a doctor, I was talking in a hypothetical way. I currently have a doctor I am happy with. She too seems to be very caring. I would be proud to be a patient of yours, if I needed a different doctor.

I was on the board of a local non-profit where another doctor from the Mankato Clinic sat. She didn't serve on the board very long before she quit, because she moved to the cities. She announced that she was quitting the medical profession because of clinic pressure to see a quota of patients per hour. Apparently, the clinic tracks the number of patients seen eachday/hour by a doctor. Evidently, she was regularly admonished because of the lesser number of patients she saw. She said she was quitting the profession because of all the production demands. She felt she was sacrificing the quality of care for her patients by serving them more quickly.

If I understood her problem corectly, our current system seems to be forcing a rapid diagnosis and treatment process down doctors throats, for the sake of profit. While there normally might not be anything wrong with that, it would be dead wrong if patient care was sacrificed.

If you don't mind me asking a question, are you aware of circumstances where patient care has been sacrificed in the push to see more patients per hour?

I do feel our private health insurance system is a mess. In too many cases, insurance companies spend too much energy trying to find ways to deny payment, regardless of the consequences to the patient. That seems void of conscience and is profit at all costs.

[Bob Jentges]

Dr. Kelley, thank you for the comment about my wife. She is an inspiration to me, our family, and all who know her. I attend each oncologist visit with her and although she is a realist about the cancer, the bonding between her and the oncologist is amazing!

If you intend to address Dan's remarks about restrictions placed on time physicians spend with patients maybe you would also address what, if any, influence the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) might have on that perceived problem.

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

Well, we have something in common; my husband's Mom and Dad sold Farmer's (life/car/property) insurance all their lives, and his older brother still does. Life insurance seems to me to be the fairest insurance, because it's voluntary, although it always seemed like a strange kind of bet, to me... you bet you're not going to live and the insurance company bets you'll live long enough for them to turn a profit! We always had it for the kids' sake, until they were grown and providing for themselves, then dropped it because I figured I'd set enough aside in case either of us died. I'm considering signing on again, as most of my retirement savings was in mutual funds, and you know how that's been going, so I'm concerned about how my husband's going to get by if I go first. As far as car insurance goes, we've just always had it, never had to use it except for one broken windshield, and we just pay it. I'm always a little surprised at how high the premiums are, but I think an accident can be pretty expensive and you just never know when it might be you, so that's fair, too. I never did get the no-fault thing, but it didn't seem to change our insurance any, so never really studied it. I know from my in-laws that you must have worked pretty hard all your life! I'm so sorry that you can't just spend this time traveling and having fun, rather than dealing with illness, but it seems like you both have a great attitude, and that's half the battle.

I also have a friend in town who sells health insurance. She's successful at her business, but relates that she's had more of a struggle the last few years because she really cares about her clients and has had to put in a lot of extra hours to try to find coverage they can afford, or get the coverage the clients thought they had, and she can't always get them what they need, these days. She relates that she's especially unhappy about CEO's going into retirement with multi-million dollar golden parachutes that were gained at the expense of her "average Joe" clients. She isn't too crazy about single payer insurance, either, as she doesn't trust the government to make health coverage any better for her clients, and worries, justifiably, that she will lose her source of income. I haven't had a chance to talk to her lately, so don't know how she feels about President Obama's interest in a public/private hybrid system--so far, it sounds like they are going to go for a compromise something similar to the Massachusetts plan--which I think is better than what we have now, for patients, still good for insurance companies (I emphasize "companies"... not necessarily their agents or clients) but which I believe will be unsustainable economically, because it does nothing toward cutting out the duplication of effort and waste involved in our fragmented system. But I'll get to that very complex subject in more depth as we move forward in this conversation.

Bob, I am concerned about your wife's PET scans; my first question is whether a scan every 2 months is medically justifiable; I called Dr. Loury, a wonderful oncologist in the Mayo system, who tells me that there IS a circumstance in which he would order a repeat PET scan in two months, i.e., if the patient has an aggressive type of cancer (rapid-growth, Grade III or IV, which refers to the type of cancer within the cell itself, rather than the Stage of cancer, where Stage 4 refers to the toughest news anyone can hear, because it means there were metastases) and he has started a new treatment. In that case, he would want to see another PET scan 2 months after the treatment because an aggressive cancer would possibly show up at that time (not sooner, or he'd ask for one a month later.) But he would not order PET scans every two months. If the cancer showed up on the repeat PET scan, he might have another treatment available, do the chemo, and request another PET scan in two months. Bob, if this is a circumstance that matches your wife's circumstance, I want you to have your oncologist call both Medicare and your insurance company, as the PET scan is then medically justifiable and they darn well better agree to pay!

I have called both public and private insurance companies many times over the years for my patients. Both calls are extremely frustrating, as it takes a lot of time (much more on that subject later, Dan) just to get past the automated operator. Insurance companies have a higher profit margin (3% administrative overhead for Medicare, at least 16% and rising for insurance corporations) so less automation (at this point in time, anyway), but you end up talking to more people so it amounts to about the same amount of time; a minimum of 30 minutes, and that's lucky. I just spent 45 minutes on the phone with an insurance company yesterday, in order to get pre-authorization for an imitron CT to determine where and how big a kidney stone was in order to decide to proceed with a call to urology to perform one of two procedures available to remove the stone, or to determine whether I could just use IV hydration, pain medicine and an antibiotic. The difference would be both medically important for my patient, and cost efficient for the insurance company. And yet I wasted 45 minutes of precious time to get permission from a CLERIC and a nurse. The nurse commented that "we don't usually have the doctor calling." And I'm sure they don't because, frankly, time spent on the BUSINESS of medicine is time I would rather spend healing or comforting a patient, but some of these procedures are so expensive (due to supply, which is low, and demand, which is high... a free market determination I think you appreciate) that their cost might actually prohibit my patients' healing and comfort! A PET scan, for instance, costs $4300 PLUS $150 for the specialist who reads the images. Who makes not much more than a New York plumber per hour, by the way--and some doctors never think they get paid enough because of all the years of schooling and no income (and more on that, eventually). However, the calls have sure paid for my patients; over the past 15 years, I have never been turned down for any of my requests from either Medicare or private insurance!!!! The key is, they were medically justifiable, and I knew it, and I didn't leave the responsibility to a cleric or nurse who couldn't be expected to understand the justification.

If your wife's situation does not match the circumstances described above, it is possible that your very human oncologist has bonded with her, cares a lot about her, is thrilled that his treatment has been successful thus far, and just can't wait to reassure her with an early negative PET scan. I understand this rationale, see it all the time among colleagues, and am sometimes tempted to do it myself because it is the easiest way to reassure a patient from a psychological standpoint. I just can't condone it, though, when it is not medically justifiable; I think in those cases it is important for the Dr. to just take the extra (precious) time to reassure, because talk costs nothing but the doctor's time, and those thousands could be better spent on something that is medically constructive, like vaccinations for about a hundred children. Do you see my reasoning?

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

Bob, I do have a question. Why do you seem to blame Medicare for not getting your wife's PET scans, but seem to be saying you find it less objectionable that your insurance company is refusing them, as well? Or am I wrong about that? Is it possible this is due to a bias about "socialized" medicine? I would suggest to you that this is a “buzzword”, a “talking point” that allows those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to sway people via emotion rather than fact. I have included a “Journal of the American Medical Association” piece on single payer, which is current (within 5 years) a respected source (although it may be argued that any source any of us give is not without bias, I will add that—after 13 years of membership-- I withdrew from the AMA 3 years ago, as I think at this stage they promote monopoly by prohibitively restricting the number of medical students and the extent to which adjunctive providers are allowed to practice, and are more interested in obstructing malpractice suits and assuring some incredibly exorbitant incomes than they are in making medicine affordable and available for my patients!)

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/physicians_proposal_intro.php

I have also included a summary of the main points,if you'd rather not read the whole article:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/key_features_of_singlepayer.php

Medicare hospital and clinic and doctor coverage (Medicare Part A and B) are very similar to single payer insurance, but restricted as to membership (65 or over). I have yet to run into a single patient who is willing to give up their Medicare card because it provides excellent (even expensive) coverage for the patient when the treatments are medically sound. I think it meets all the criterion you gave for the kind of health coverage you want; when there are exceptions to the rule like your wife's PET scan, Medicare is far more accountable to the patient than private insurance.

Medicare payments from the PROVIDER's standpoint is another story, which I'll discuss in more depth in the future, because Medicare fragmentation into a wasteful hybrid (Part D, which they presume to call "Choice") is NOT the single payer insurance I’m talking about, but a publicly funded privately administered fiasco!

Due to political compromises, this expensive, non-sustainable hybrid that just plain stinks for any patient who needs the number of medications many older patients need once they reach that donut hole. This is a great example of kow-towing to pharmaceutical companies by OUR representatives who took their lobby money and allowed non-negotiable pricing. Insurance corporations and their lobbyists are pretty happy, too, because the government reimburses these medications at 119% while the poor local pharmacist gets a fixed Medicare price that is often less than the cost of the medicine itself!

This is a very bad joke on both the patient and the taxpayer, and the only type of system I dread almost as much as a continuation of the broken system we have now.

I mean, what the heck is this insurance premium you're paying for "supplemental" insurance "supplementing", anyway, if it can use the excuse that they won't pay for it because Medicare won't?

Okay, I guess I started venting in those last couple paragraphs. This broken system just breaks my heart; Dan was right that we come in 36th for quality... and about 5 times as much cost as any other civilized country, except Canada, which pays half what we do.

I think I need a break here, need to get a little sunshine... but I'll try to get back to Dan's question and Bob's follow-up tonight. I work this Saturday (leave at 7 AM, will get home anywhere between 10 PM and 2 PM, as my shift "ends" at 9 PM but I work with people, not machines, and you just never know who's going to show up at "Same Day" clinic (just a new name for Urgent Care), which is where I'll be tomorrow. The point is, I hope I get better at responding quicker, but I want to be thorough. It's just that I need to lay the groundwork here, I think.

Hope I've cleared SOME things up. Hope my advice will be useful for your wife!

Lynn

[Dan Conner]

Lynn--

It's good to read your very thorough explanations from a provider viewpoint. We can talk as consumers and sometimes as agencies/businesses working in health care, but only in a few cases as a provider working where the "rubber meets the road."

I was working for Social Security Administration at the time Part D Medicare was enacted. All of my employees and myself all viewed the Part D implementation as a program to preserve pharmaceutical and insurance company profits. The law was mindbogglingly difficult for people of advanced age to understand. It required considerable help by local non-profits to help process applications for people. These organizations did receive grants to help with that, but not at anywhere near the kind of money made by insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The process was further complicated by using the Social Security Administration as collector of these Part D premiums, for payment to the insurance compnies. However there were many different premium amounts to deduct and insurance companies did not timely note receipt of the premiums, and thusly cover the policy holders. Our office had to follow up and pursue many of the insurance companies to issue the coverage and send appropriate notification to pharmacists. This took a tremendous amount of time from my employees, many times at the expense of retirement and disability claims.

I do remember there was considerable public angst about the cost of drugs at the time legislation was formulated. Congressmen even went so far as to sponsor bus trips to Canada and Mexico for US citizens to get lower cost drugs. Senator Mark Dayton was a leader in doing this. He paid to bus Minnesotans to Canada to buy drugs at near 1/2 the cost. Other congressmen were proposing a program where drugs could be ordered over the internet from foreign countries at cheaper rates. These were the same drugs that were sold in the US, but at a far cheaper price. It was the heavy lobbying efforts of the pharmaceutical and insurance companies that actually influenced Congress to pass legislation outlawing purchase of medications in foreign countries. It was the continuing confrontations over this issue that led to Part D Medicare.

Unfortunately, Part D Medicare was more of a bone thrown to insurance and pharmaceutical companies that gave us what we now have. It is medication at a reduced price, but not quite that of Canada, partially paid for by additional premium payments of recipients. The "donut hole" further reduced coverage and seved as a disincentive for people to purchase more medication after reaching the start of it. Some of the more expensive policies had no "donut hole." I can't remember for sure, but it also seemed there was a maximum that would be paid. Everything that I heard, but which I can't speak factually about, is that insurance companies made a fortune off the Part D premiums and pharmaceuticals preserved their outrageous profits by preventing people from getting drugs from foreign vendors and by voluntarily charging a little less to get listed with an insurance company.

I viewed the Part D compromise as a government capitulation to insurance and pharmaceutical companies, so they could continue to handsomely profit off public needs. It was a compromise designed to "shut people up" while allowing the profit making to continue. Hardly a free enterprise model where price was dictated by supply and demand. It was more like that oligopolistic model of price maximization.

One thing I would like to add to your presentation above, is that Medicare coverage is also available to Social Security Disability beneficiaries who have received disability benefits for at least 2 years. For insured beneficiaries, there is no cost for Part A coverage (costs over $400/month for the uninsured) and about $99.50/month for Part B. So, even if one declines Part B, there is a hidden $400/month addition to the Social Security monthly check by including that coverage.

[Bob Jentges]

Dr. Kelley, my wife was fortunate enough to have traveled to about 18 foreign countries before the onset of her cancer in 2002. She is contemplating an Alaskan cruise this Summer (cross your fingers for her).

The situation you describe in paragraph three of your 1:56 PM post today is almost exactly my wife's medical situation. We think the present PET Scan scheduling is probably medically justifiable. Hopefully the cancer will stay in remission so that schedule can be extended in the not too distant furure.

Regarding your subsequent post today, although we are somewhat dissapointed with Medicare's position we are not really assessing blame to Medicare. We accept Medicare's position on PET Scans. Rules are rules. After seeing the provision in our private supplemental health insurance policy contract, and after dealing with insurance policy contracts from the other end of the spectrum during my working years we think it would be hypocritical for us to ask or expect the company to disregard the language in the policy contract.

As to your question: "...what the heck is this insurance premium you're paying for 'supplimental' insurance 'supplementing', anyway...", that crossed my mind some time back. After checking into the situation back then I learned that it is excess over what Medicare pays. In otherwords, if treatment is covered by Medicare but Medicare does not pay the charge in full the supplemental pays the excess.

I was strongly against Medicare Part D from the start, and wrote to our representative and senators expressing my position, but they voted for it anyway. We did not take it; we kept our private insurance prescription drug coverage. I think Medicare Part D has developed into the financial and coverage boondoggle I thought it might. I know a few people with large prescription expenses who have been subject to the dreaded "doughnut hole".

I await with interest your thoughts on my previous HCFA question.

[Dan Conner]

Dr. Kelley, my wife was fortunate enough to have traveled to about 18 foreign countries before the onset of her cancer in 2002. She is contemplating an Alaskan cruise this Summer (cross your fingers for her).

The situation you describe in paragraph three of your 1:56 PM post today is almost exactly my wife's medical situation. We think the present PET Scan scheduling is probably medically justifiable. Hopefully the cancer will stay in remission so that schedule can be extended in the not too distant furure.

Regarding your subsequent post today, although we are somewhat dissapointed with Medicare's position we are not really assessing blame to Medicare. We accept Medicare's position on PET Scans. Rules are rules. After seeing the provision in our private supplemental health insurance policy contract, and after dealing with insurance policy contracts from the other end of the spectrum during my working years we think it would be hypocritical for us to ask or expect the company to disregard the language in the policy contract.

As to your question: "...what the heck is this insurance premium you're paying for 'supplimental' insurance 'supplementing', anyway...", that crossed my mind some time back. After checking into the situation back then I learned that it is excess over what Medicare pays. In otherwords, if treatment is covered by Medicare but Medicare does not pay the charge in full the supplemental pays the excess.

I was strongly against Medicare Part D from the start, and wrote to our representative and senators expressing my position, but they voted for it anyway. We did not take it; we kept our private insurance prescription drug coverage. I think Medicare Part D has developed into the financial and coverage boondoggle I thought it might. I know a few people with large prescription expenses who have been subject to the dreaded "doughnut hole".

I await with interest your thoughts on my previous HCFA question.

Bob--

So sorry to hear about your wife's predicament. I wish her, and you, well. I think Dr. Kelley was trying to say that your wife's doctor needs to probably talk to Medicare himself about the medical necessity. Lynn said she has never failed to convince Medicare of the necessity of the treatment, since she was insistent and talked about the medical necessity as a doctor.

Maybe a talk with your doctor to plead for personal intervention might help. Good Luck,

Dan

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

Dan, Bob, I really appreciate your thoughtful questions and responses.

Dan, yes, there is a great deal of pressure with regards to a physician's time; the reasons are many and varied. In part, it begins with supply and demand. There simply aren't enough physicians, particularly primary care physicians to go around. And there should be; it really doesn't take a genius to be a doctor, just a hard-working, caring person who doesn't mind studying and is willing to stick out the training. There are plenty of people in America with those qualifications. The limited class sizes are imposed and need to be changed, particularly if we ever do get universal health care, as there will be even more people lined up who haven't had health care in years.

Some administrations pressure doctors to work faster, do more procedures, avoid expensive testing unless the group owns the equipment and has the means to do the testing. I have also heard from colleagues who left various positions because they were pressured by administrators (or even impatient colleagues who may be overworked if they work with a particularly slow physician) but production pressure was not the reason I left Mankato Clinic. 6 physicians that I know of left the clinic the year I did, and I think we all had different reasons. I'll be glad to discuss my reasons in the future; long story.

I've, unfortunately, known a few physicians who rush through their treatment of patients because their chief interest is making more money. There are people, including doctors, who think of medicine as a business rather than a calling. And doctors are human, meaning there are bound to be a few sociopaths, a few saints, and many, many who are caring individuals. In my experience, Mankato Clinic had as many excellent physicians as anywhere else I've worked. Including the IHS.

Bob, I think I sort of answered your question about the HCFA in the last letter, but perhaps the following link will be more clear. Good, nonpartisan resource, well written, and it tells the truth about how, as far as time consumption by payers is concerned, it's about a horse apiece. The difference is that insurance companies advertise themselves as superior in this aspect, and that is not true; and they are getting worse. Like I said before, their overhead costs Americans, overall, far more than any public system--seems to me it shouldn't be so difficult to get them to pay their clients' claims.

'http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/health-insurance-and-bureaucracy-rob-patients-docs-time

There are other complicating factors with regards to time pressures, but I have to be up at 6 AM, so I'll save the rest for later. I want to talk a little bit about fraud one of these days. I'll be off Sunday afternoon.

Don, we have a lot in common. Your experience reflects my own observations. And I'm learning from you. Did you know I used to work at SMILES, as an Americorps volunteer? Might have met you at the Social Security office back then, as I used to spend some time there as an advocate. I was also on the board at SMILES until back surgery interrupted my duties; great group of people. I intend to volunteer my time again, one day soon. We'll definitely have to talk more about the situation for disabled people in America today.

Good Night!

[Dan Conner]

Dan, Bob, I really appreciate your thoughtful questions and responses.

Dan, yes, there is a great deal of pressure with regards to a physician's time; the reasons are many and varied. In part, it begins with supply and demand. There simply aren't enough physicians, particularly primary care physicians to go around. And there should be; it really doesn't take a genius to be a doctor, just a hard-working, caring person who doesn't mind studying and is willing to stick out the training. There are plenty of people in America with those qualifications. The limited class sizes are imposed and need to be changed, particularly if we ever do get universal health care, as there will be even more people lined up who haven't had health care in years.

Some administrations pressure doctors to work faster, do more procedures, avoid expensive testing unless the group owns the equipment and has the means to do the testing. I have also heard from colleagues who left various positions because they were pressured by administrators (or even impatient colleagues who may be overworked if they work with a particularly slow physician) but production pressure was not the reason I left Mankato Clinic. 6 physicians that I know of left the clinic the year I did, and I think we all had different reasons. I'll be glad to discuss my reasons in the future; long story.

I've, unfortunately, known a few physicians who rush through their treatment of patients because their chief interest is making more money. There are people, including doctors, who think of medicine as a business rather than a calling. And doctors are human, meaning there are bound to be a few sociopaths, a few saints, and many, many who are caring individuals. In my experience, Mankato Clinic had as many excellent physicians as anywhere else I've worked. Including the IHS.

Bob, I think I sort of answered your question about the HCFA in the last letter, but perhaps the following link will be more clear. Good, nonpartisan resource, well written, and it tells the truth about how, as far as time consumption by payers is concerned, it's about a horse apiece. The difference is that insurance companies advertise themselves as superior in this aspect, and that is not true; and they are getting worse. Like I said before, their overhead costs Americans, overall, far more than any public system--seems to me it shouldn't be so difficult to get them to pay their clients' claims.

'http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/health-insurance-and-bureaucracy-rob-patients-docs-time

There are other complicating factors with regards to time pressures, but I have to be up at 6 AM, so I'll save the rest for later. I want to talk a little bit about fraud one of these days. I'll be off Sunday afternoon.

Don, we have a lot in common. Your experience reflects my own observations. And I'm learning from you. Did you know I used to work at SMILES, as an Americorps volunteer? Might have met you at the Social Security office back then, as I used to spend some time there as an advocate. I was also on the board at SMILES until back surgery interrupted my duties; great group of people. I intend to volunteer my time again, one day soon. We'll definitely have to talk more about the situation for disabled people in America today.

Good Night!Yes, Lynn I was also on the board at SMILES. I understand I'm still on the finance committee, but I haven't received a meeting notice in a long time. You probably met me there. I too am concerned about the disabled. Sometimes I feel people throw the disabled on that refuse pile I referred to before. Most all of them want to be contributing members in our society, but they're not given a shot. Then, many people judge them as lazy. It's like a giant "catch 22." The disabled have a lot to contribute, but we have to allow it. However, we'll never get to that point, if we aren't willing to pay to enable the programs and the assistance. There seems to be too much concern only about ourselves and not others. Where is our conglomerated country to ever go, if we don't stand for things other than ourselves or our self-interests? We have to get about being a country of many again.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, Bob, I really appreciate your thoughtful questions and responses.

Dan, yes, there is a great deal of pressure with regards to a physician's time; the reasons are many and varied. In part, it begins with supply and demand. There simply aren't enough physicians, particularly primary care physicians to go around. And there should be; it really doesn't take a genius to be a doctor, just a hard-working, caring person who doesn't mind studying and is willing to stick out the training. There are plenty of people in America with those qualifications. The limited class sizes are imposed and need to be changed, particularly if we ever do get universal health care, as there will be even more people lined up who haven't had health care in years.

Some administrations pressure doctors to work faster, do more procedures, avoid expensive testing unless the group owns the equipment and has the means to do the testing. I have also heard from colleagues who left various positions because they were pressured by administrators (or even impatient colleagues who may be overworked if they work with a particularly slow physician) but production pressure was not the reason I left Mankato Clinic. 6 physicians that I know of left the clinic the year I did, and I think we all had different reasons. I'll be glad to discuss my reasons in the future; long story.

I've, unfortunately, known a few physicians who rush through their treatment of patients because their chief interest is making more money. There are people, including doctors, who think of medicine as a business rather than a calling. And doctors are human, meaning there are bound to be a few sociopaths, a few saints, and many, many who are caring individuals. In my experience, Mankato Clinic had as many excellent physicians as anywhere else I've worked. Including the IHS.

Bob, I think I sort of answered your question about the HCFA in the last letter, but perhaps the following link will be more clear. Good, nonpartisan resource, well written, and it tells the truth about how, as far as time consumption by payers is concerned, it's about a horse apiece. The difference is that insurance companies advertise themselves as superior in this aspect, and that is not true; and they are getting worse. Like I said before, their overhead costs Americans, overall, far more than any public system--seems to me it shouldn't be so difficult to get them to pay their clients' claims.

'http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/health-insurance-and-bureaucracy-rob-patients-docs-time

There are other complicating factors with regards to time pressures, but I have to be up at 6 AM, so I'll save the rest for later. I want to talk a little bit about fraud one of these days. I'll be off Sunday afternoon.

Don, we have a lot in common. Your experience reflects my own observations. And I'm learning from you. Did you know I used to work at SMILES, as an Americorps volunteer? Might have met you at the Social Security office back then, as I used to spend some time there as an advocate. I was also on the board at SMILES until back surgery interrupted my duties; great group of people. I intend to volunteer my time again, one day soon. We'll definitely have to talk more about the situation for disabled people in America today.

Good Night!

Dr. Kelley, this response is not submitted with the intent of having you reply soon, or at all if you choose not to, when you obviously have more important and pressing responsibilities. But I do have some further thoughts.

First, the Key Features of Single Payer article was very interesting and informative. It seemed to include most, if not all, of the things I would prefer in my own health care coverage. If a way to make it cost effective for members could be developed and I had a vote on it's implimentation I would probably vote for it.

Second, with respect to the HCFA issue, in addition to the references you provided I looked at the United States Department of Health & Human Services website, under Health Care Financing Administration. It seems HCFA deals only with Medicade, Medicare and Quality Assurance for same. Apparrantly it does not deal with private insurance company health claims processing. If I am correct, any HCFA related adverse effects on health care services and/or payments would not involve private health insurance companies.

Third, I found the Health Care Finance News.com link in your most recent post very informative. As you say, their assessment of problems including but not limited to slow payment/underpayment between government and private insurance is "about a horse apiece". But I also noted the comment many physicians cannot afford to care for patients dependent on Medicade or Medicare. I did not see any mention of that being a problem with private insurance, although it could be.

Fourth, with regard to slow payment I can only offer what I have observed over the past few years. For us Medicare is primary. The providers submit their charges to Medicare first. Medicare makes payment for what they cover. After the provider receives payment from Medicare our supplemental comes into play. From what I can tell from looking at the bills we recieve from the provider and the record of payment we receive from our supplemental, the supplemental issuses their payment within 30 days of Medicare's payment.

It is not my intent to promote private health insurance or denegrate government health insurance. I have had favorable and not so favorable (from my perspective) experiences with both.

[Dan Conner]

Dr. Kelley, this response is not submitted with the intent of having you reply soon, or at all if you choose not to, when you obviously have more important and pressing responsibilities. But I do have some further thoughts.

First, the Key Features of Single Payer article was very interesting and informative. It seemed to include most, if not all, of the things I would prefer in my own health care coverage. If a way to make it cost effective for members could be developed and I had a vote on it's implimentation I would probably vote for it.

Second, with respect to the HCFA issue, in addition to the references you provided I looked at the United States Department of Health & Human Services website, under Health Care Financing Administration. It seems HCFA deals only with Medicade, Medicare and Quality Assurance for same. Apparrantly it does not deal with private insurance company health claims processing. If I am correct, any HCFA related adverse effects on health care services and/or payments would not involve private health insurance companies.

Third, I found the Health Care Finance News.com link in your most recent post very informative. As you say, their assessment of problems including but not limited to slow payment/underpayment between government and private insurance is "about a horse apiece". But I also noted the comment many physicians cannot afford to care for patients dependent on Medicade or Medicare. I did not see any mention of that being a problem with private insurance, although it could be.

Fourth, with regard to slow payment I can only offer what I have observed over the past few years. For us Medicare is primary. The providers submit their charges to Medicare first. Medicare makes payment for what they cover. After the provider receives payment from Medicare our supplemental comes into play. From what I can tell from looking at the bills we recieve from the provider and the record of payment we receive from our supplemental, the supplemental issuses their payment within 30 days of Medicare's payment.

It is not my intent to promote private health insurance or denegrate government health insurance. I have had favorable and not so favorable (from my perspective) experiences with both.

Medicare, administered by HCFA, processes medical claims through very large and regional carriers/intermediaries. These are private firms contracted to process Medicare clams. So, even though you might think it is all government, it's not. While I did not work in Medicare or process claims, I would be astounded it there were no appeal rights for decisions made by them, their carriers, or intermediaries. I can't remember any decision made by Social Security that is not subject to appeal. I think the same would exist for Medicare. Congress always tries to protect claimant/patient/beneficiary rights by offering appeals rights. It might be a good idea to talk to your doctor about appealing the Medicare decision and getting the necessary paperwork rolling. I do know there are other Medicare issues subject to appeal, like the length of hospital stays. Anyway, I suggest you look to appeal. There is undoubtedly a process for doing that. I believe there is still a Medicare telephone number to call: 1-800-MEDICARE. They should be able to answer that question and send you the necessary forms to appeal.

I do know one area where the Social Security office in Mankato might be able to help you. They have Medicare handbooks and other Medicare pamphlets and information. You can stop down there and pick some up. They're free.

P.S. I just went into the Medicare website. There is a website dealing with appeals. The site also said every decision made by Medicare is subject to appeal. I suggest you look at the website and look to appeal. The wbsite link is:

http://www.medicare.gov/Basics/appealsoverview.asp

[Dan Conner]

Dr. Kelley, this response is not submitted with the intent of having you reply soon, or at all if you choose not to, when you obviously have more important and pressing responsibilities. But I do have some further thoughts.

First, the Key Features of Single Payer article was very interesting and informative. It seemed to include most, if not all, of the things I would prefer in my own health care coverage. If a way to make it cost effective for members could be developed and I had a vote on it's implimentation I would probably vote for it.

Second, with respect to the HCFA issue, in addition to the references you provided I looked at the United States Department of Health & Human Services website, under Health Care Financing Administration. It seems HCFA deals only with Medicade, Medicare and Quality Assurance for same. Apparrantly it does not deal with private insurance company health claims processing. If I am correct, any HCFA related adverse effects on health care services and/or payments would not involve private health insurance companies.

Third, I found the Health Care Finance News.com link in your most recent post very informative. As you say, their assessment of problems including but not limited to slow payment/underpayment between government and private insurance is "about a horse apiece". But I also noted the comment many physicians cannot afford to care for patients dependent on Medicade or Medicare. I did not see any mention of that being a problem with private insurance, although it could be.

Fourth, with regard to slow payment I can only offer what I have observed over the past few years. For us Medicare is primary. The providers submit their charges to Medicare first. Medicare makes payment for what they cover. After the provider receives payment from Medicare our supplemental comes into play. From what I can tell from looking at the bills we recieve from the provider and the record of payment we receive from our supplemental, the supplemental issuses their payment within 30 days of Medicare's payment.

It is not my intent to promote private health insurance or denegrate government health insurance. I have had favorable and not so favorable (from my perspective) experiences with both.

Bob, I thought I would clear up one additional point. You're right Medicare has nothiong to do with private health insurance. Each plan is different. Most private supplementary plans only pay the deductibles and coinsurance that Medicare does not pay. They allow what Medicare allows. However, I believe there might be some plans that pay for all charges above what Medicare pays, but I am sure those are very expensive policies.

Whenever the Medicare insured is no longer covered through an employer based insurance, Medicare becomes primary payer. However, one does not have to enroll in Medicare until after 7 (?) months after quitting/retiring without penalty, even if the insured is over age 65.

Most supplement plans simply piggy-back on Medicare and pay the coinsurance and deductibles without making a coverage decision, because Medicare would have made that decision for them. It's a way for them to reduce administrative costs for their plans. They accept what Medicare does. If Medicare denied coverage, most likely your private insurance would too, unless you have one of those exceptional policies. Consequently, you need to talk to Medicare about non-payment/non-coverage. Then, per what I explained above file an appeal and get the doctor to personally lobby on your behalf.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, I thought I would clear up one additional point. You're right Medicare has nothiong to do with private health insurance. Each plan is different. Most private supplementary plans only pay the deductibles and coinsurance that Medicare does not pay. They allow what Medicare allows. However, I believe there might be some plans that pay for all charges above what Medicare pays, but I am sure those are very expensive policies.

Whenever the Medicare insured is no longer covered through an employer based insurance, Medicare becomes primary payer. However, one does not have to enroll in Medicare until after 7 (?) months after quitting/retiring without penalty, even if the insured is over age 65.

Most supplement plans simply piggy-back on Medicare and pay the coinsurance and deductibles without making a coverage decision, because Medicare would have made that decision for them. It's a way for them to reduce administrative costs for their plans. They accept what Medicare does. If Medicare denied coverage, most likely your private insurance would too, unless you have one of those exceptional policies. Consequently, you need to talk to Medicare about non-payment/non-coverage. Then, per what I explained above file an appeal and get the doctor to personally lobby on your behalf.

Thanks Dan.

Although we are certainly not independently wealthy, whatever happens with payment for PET Scans is insignifigant to us when compared with the effectivness of the treatment that hopefully will keep us together in a reasonable quality of life for as long as possible.

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

Dan, Bob, thanks for your concern about my time; don't you worry about it. I hope I didn't imply that anyone here was taking my time. I'm writing because I enjoy the conversation. I just want to indicate when I'll be able to respond next... because you and Dan and Ben are so darn reliable at a fast response, I was worried that you might think my delayed response meant I was ignoring what you had to say. I've gotten fairly good at structuring my schedule these days, although my husband might beg to differ...

Bob, I'm also glad you found the key points on single payer in accordance with your interests. There are many, many non-partisan sources that agree single payer would be the most affordable way to go. PNHP is always a good source for science/fact-based information:

(http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/july/_health_insurance_fo.php), but their sole purpose is to try to get single payer universal coverage for the United States, so I've added a few other sources that say the same. Bloomberg News is, I think, bipartisan, and the writer is identified elsewhere as a fiscal conservative:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_wasik&sid=ao58otXrmrPM

Here's one in Dollars and Sense, which is a non-partisan publication, but the writer is a progressive:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/july/_health_insurance_fo.php

Just google "single payer coverage costs", the sources are endless, and the consensus is that single payer would be the most cost effective. The issue is that single payer would eliminate private health insurance. They have a powerful lobby so, although most Americans want single payer, the majority of politicians say it isn't "politically feasible." Tom Daschle's book "Critical--What We Can Do About the Health-care Crisis" is an easy read and does a good job of explaining the history of private and public health insurance; I'll be glad to lend my copy to anyone who wants to read it. And no, I'm not a big Daschle fan (my husband's best joke this month? "Honey, don't worry about taxes this year; we don't have to pay them till we get nominated to a cabinet post"), at least as far as his ethics on taxes, and he concludes that it "isn't politically feasible", as well, although he admits it would be the most cost effective. I disagree.

Although it was initially regarded as a progressive idea, farmers and small businesses and are beginning to see that single payer would allow them to provide excellent, cost effective coverage. Only insurance corporations, pharmaceutical companies, their lobbyists and the politicians who accept their campaign money are denigrating the plan, and they can afford a lot of negative advertisement, and have no qualms about using the usual buzzwords that carry negative connotations for conservatives, like "socialism" or "nationalization of healthcare". So I think it IS politically feasible, these days, but it's going to take a groundswell of public support to offset the power of big profits for a few corporations. In Minnesota, one of the big stumbling blocks, I'm sorry to say, is Mayo! This goes back to your comment, Bob, about how some doctors can't afford to take Medicare/Medicaid patients. Mayo can afford them, but Medicare/Medicaid sure doesn't pay as much as, say, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and that affects the bottom line. The reasons for the discrepancy in coverage rates are 1) Medicare/Medicaid don't cherry pick their patients like private insurance. 2) There are too many politicians who have their fingers into how these programs reimburse so, for instance, Medicare pays higher rates in the southern states, despite the fact that Minnesota has a higher quality of care!

The first problem would be overcome with single payer, because everyone is in the pool. The second problem could be overcome with a health board similar to the Federal Reserve Board, where members are chosen for their qualifications and serve for at least a 10 year period, so their decisions are not affected by partisan interests. And, unlike private insurance companies, they would answer to us.

The reason Mayo would prefer total privatization at this stage is because the status quo with regards to private insurance currently works for them; it is, essentially, a large corporation and thus has a large pool of employees (mostly young and healthy employees, by the way) and therefore can underwrite and provide its own health insurance plan. In addition, Mayo employs a huge staff whose sole responsibility is collection of payments from "outside" insurance companies. They are insurance specialists, and they get paid a pittance compared to the fees they collect, so Mayo comes out ahead in the private insurance game... while the rates for Medicare stay the same no matter how specialized your staff is.

Small businesses don't have that luxury. Only very large corporations have that luxury. But the costs are going up and up and up for them, too; so large, depersonalized corporations just cover less and less to make up the difference. And raise premiums. And set up shadow corporations to deny coverage for "out of network" costs, like United Health. I don't have anything against wealth, it's wealth that is gained crookedly that bugs me. I think corporations should behave as responsibly as the rest of us, and pay their fair share. That isn't what I see today.

It seems to me many people are easily misguided, led to believe half-truths or notions that disregard facts. I'll give you one general example; why does "the right" seem to get so worked up about people "on welfare", but not about huge subsidies for the rich? I think it's because poor people are visible and their issues look simple from the outside, so they are an easy target... but the truth is only 2% of the population are on Medicaid for more than 2 years out of their whole lives. I don't have any trouble thinking of at least 2 out of every hundred people I know who are absolutely unable to take care of themselves. The amount of subsidization they get from our government is a very small percentage of subsidization for the wealthy. If anyone thinks they all have permanent vacations, cadillacs and color TV's, I would encourage that cynic to sign on; you'll soon learn how poorly we care for the poor. Subsidization of the wealthy is more complex, better hidden, and therefore a moving target that gets very little attention. Tax havens and loopholes, bailouts and big no-bid government contracts, big "corporate" farm subsidies (for tobacco! sort of negates the rationale for increasing that sin tax you're discussing in the "costly cigarettes" thread, doesn't it?), and on and on.

I'll give you a specific example, too; in February, I attended a committee meeting on healthcare reform--the Minnesota Act--at the Capitol. They had about 6 speakers "pro" and 6 speakers "against." One small businessman who was "pro" spoke about how his insurance had increased from a few thousand a year 20 years ago to over $60,000 a year to cover 12 employees, and with less coverage now than then. He said the only thing holding him back from expanding his business was the prohibitive cost of insurance... and his conscience wouldn't let him discontinue coverage for the employees who had worked so hard to help him build this business. The next speaker, who countered the small businessman, was the head of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, who spoke one sentence, saying {to paraphrase from my notes) "we will not support any plan that isn't based on free-market principles." I was shocked, since the current system--which they apparently support--is anything but "free-market", but also because I always thought the Chamber of Commerce represented small business as well as large. Then I even called our local Chamber to see if they'd like to schedule a speaker representing single payer--like myself, or Nancy Biedmeyer, who heads the Minnesota Independent Business Owners organization. They didn't even bother to reply!

I don't get it. I have my own worries about the downside of single payer (which I'll address in my next post) but can't imagine anything other than brainwashing that would preclude discussion, when it comes to increasing the viability of business today. I really thought economics would be more important in this instance than petty politics.

Politics! When it comes to people's health? Maybe "Health and Human Services" and "Social Security" should be split into a zillion different categories, just so they look more politically palatable when it comes to figuring out that pie chart for the federal budget? That's how finance got away with pillaging the budget without causing a ripple... until there was nothing left to take.

Well, that's my time for today. I swear I'll my answers will get shorter if you guys start asking less complex questions! The main point is, if you want a single payer plan, it is going to take calls and letters to your representatives. If you want the Minnesota Health Act to pass, call Senator Sheran and Representative Walz. If you want single payer for the United States, call Senator Klobuchar and tell her to support HR 676. I still believe democracy works, but sometimes it takes a lot of us to make things happen.

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

Well, I wasn't done writing the post at 1 thirty P.M, thought i'd pulled it up to edit it (which I've been doing for almost an hour so I'd have it correct) and noticed the original posted. The second is more accurate! Sorry! Arrggg! Lynn

[Dan Conner]

Lynn--

I was reading your prior post where you briefly discussed the difference in Medicare reimbursement rates among states. As it was explained to me, when President Johnson first enacted Medicare, he was missing key legislative support, mostly from conservative southern states. He realized that in order to get the votes necessary to enact Medicare, he needed to entice representatives and senators from the recalcitrant southern states, by offering a higher rate of reimbursement. Minnesota was always an out-front Medicare supporter. So, no enticements needed there. Consequently, Minnesota has among the lowest reimbursement rates and some of the southern states the largest. Hardly equitable. I guess this is the evils of political compromise.

Over time, the differences in reimbursements have been somewhat eroded, but I'm sure they are still there. Needless to say, those same reluctant southern states want to hold on to their reimbursement differential. I know that congress has considered, and maybe even voted on, legislation to equalize payments across the country, but it failed because of the fierce opposition from southern states. I know that Arizona and Florida have among the highest reimbursement rates.

It's too bad that these conservative states had to be "bribed" to support Medicare, because without it we would have been a thrid-world country. It's another reason conservative southern states railing against "welfare" seem hypocritical. They don't mind taking theirs (welfare) whenever they can get it.

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

You are right on the button. This pay for play politics has also allowed the fragmentation of Medicare into different parts, some paying better than others. The beauty of single payer is that it would eliminate differential rates among the states, and allow us to streamline not only the waste involved in administrating a thousand different insurance plans, but would also allow us to streamline WITHIN programs, so that everybody gets an improvement in quality of care. For instance, I had an acutely ill patient the other day who usually doctors at the VA. He had received some new medicines the week before and I thought they had something to do with his condition; so I called the VA. I am familiar with the system, because my husband is a veteran, had the patient's social security number, identified myself as a physician when I called, and it STILL took me over an hour to learn what those medications were. They were, indeed, important.

The information could be gained in a timely fashion if all these fragmented departments were all under the same system. And it isn't going to help much to fund a bunch of individual group practices to get their own electronic systems. It isn't that VA doesn't chart electronically, yet; they do (although IHS doesn't). It's just that Mayo's electronic system and VA's system are different, so all these histories are totally unavailable to anyone outside the system. We need to coordinate health care!!!

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

my edited version of the above didn't post... anyone know what happened? I selected edit, edited the version, pressed post... and only the original is showing. and now I've lost the edited version, which had some significant editions!

Lynn

[Dan Conner]

You are right on the button. This pay for play politics has also allowed the fragmentation of Medicare into different parts, some paying better than others. The beauty of single payer is that it would eliminate differential rates among the states, and allow us to streamline not only the waste involved in administrating a thousand different insurance plans, but would also allow us to streamline WITHIN programs, so that everybody gets an improvement in quality of care. For instance, I had an acutely ill patient the other day who usually doctors at the VA. He had received some new medicines the week before and I thought they had something to do with his condition; so I called the VA. I am familiar with the system, because my husband is a veteran, had the patient's social security number, identified myself as a physician when I called, and it STILL took me over an hour to learn what those medications were. They were, indeed, important.

The information could be gained in a timely fashion if all these fragmented departments were all under the same system. And it isn't going to help much to fund a bunch of individual group practices to get their own electronic systems. It isn't that VA doesn't chart electronically, yet; they do (although IHS doesn't). It's just that Mayo's electronic system and VA's system are different, so all these histories are totally unavailable to anyone outside the system. We need to coordinate health care!!!

I totally agree with you Lynn. I would like a government sponsored single-payer system in the US, as well. I hope we implement a system that will treat all our citizens without bankrupting them. However, I am fearful political compromise will lead to very little improvement. The insurance/pharmaceutical lobbies are so powerful and have so much money, they will probably bribe their way to some perversion of a national health care system. Maybe we need campaign finance reform as well.

I understand one of the proposed expenditures in the stimulus bill was to digitalize the medical records system that is available for all health care providers. $20 billion comes to my head for some reason. It would be about time the system was standardized. My VA doctor is still working in the system to "perfect" the electronic system. He is Dr. Neil. Do you know of him?

[Dan Conner]

my edited version of the above didn't post... anyone know what happened? I selected edit, edited the version, pressed post... and only the original is showing. and now I've lost the edited version, which had some significant editions!

Lynn

This has happened to me before too. I don't know what causes it. I have lost pieces with a lot of editing too. Very frustrating.

[Dan Conner]

Thanks Dan.

Although we are certainly not independently wealthy, whatever happens with payment for PET Scans is insignifigant to us when compared with the effectivness of the treatment that hopefully will keep us together in a reasonable quality of life for as long as possible.

No need to pay Bob, if you are covered and it should be paid. I suggest you appeal. This is not a case where the meek shall inherit the earth.

[Bob Jentges]

No need to pay Bob, if you are covered and it should be paid. I suggest you appeal. This is not a case where the meek shall inherit the earth.

I know what you mean, but I can not recall when, if ever, someone called me "meek".

[Bob Jentges]

Although I have read many articles to the contrary, some rather convincing, for the sake of this discussion let's say the PNHP single payer proposal, or any similar proposal, would not adversely effect the quality of health care. That leaves the always contraversial issue of money i.e. where do we get the money to pay for it? I think that has been a political "hot potato" from FDR through Johnson, Clinton, etc.

My thoughts are that if the "premiums" for government run health care are included in a payroll tax witholding where everyone contributes the same "premium", like FDR's initial plan for Social Security, it would be a regressive tax very difficult for low wage earners. If the "premiums" witheld varried based on certain income brackets it seems to me the cost to middle income earners would be signifigantly greater than what they might now be paying in "premiums" for their private health insurance coverage.

Would having the government take over hospitals and clinics be the answer? I think not. Politicians from both sides of the isle frequently say the VA System is under funded. Would having doctors and nurses become government employees be the answer? I do not think so, any more than I think it would be a good idea to have doctors who treat the general public become employees of private insurance companies.

I read E.J. Dionne's "Health Care's Year (Really)" column this morning. He suggests there will be "...a mandate requiring all Americans to buy insurance" and "...a mixture of subsidies for those who can't afford insurance...". On it's face maybe that sounds acceptable to some, but there is always the question---who pays for the "mixture of subsidies"?

It might sound harsh, but I just do not see how taxpayers can afford more in entitlement programs in the forseeable future. I read that in 2008 the trustee's estimated that Medicare's unfunded obligation is more than $36T---and that's only Medicare.

I do not agree with E.J. that this is the year, but I seldom agree with any of his opinions.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Lynn
Did you "save" the edited post...I believe you have to save when you edit post, then "submit" it.

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

First of all, I was under the impression that you’d read at least one of the references I’ve given with regards to payment for single payer (see yesterday at 1:28 PM, for example). Conservative estimates, backed by good, scientifically-conducted non-partisan researchers, all state that we would save at least $250 billion dollars the very first year we go to single payer, due to elimination of waste and duplication of effort.

Once again, the political issue is NOT which method is the least expensive. The issue is that single payer would eliminate subsidization of the “middleman”, i.e., large health insurance corporations, pharmaceutical companies, their lobbyists and the legislators who take their campaign “contributions.” Which includes both Republican and Democratic legislators. Which means single payer will likely never pass, unless there is a groundswell to demand passage. What will likely pass is, as Dan noted, a compromise that looks “politically feasible”:


http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/04/06/mcclellan-asks-what-would-be-the-point/

Such a compromise will, on the surface, look as if the Democrats have accomplished something that will help the uninsured, but it will be an incremental reform that will be ultimately non-sustainable (see, for instance, the Massachusetts Plan.) The compromise is also sure to make it look as if the Republicans have saved the free market system. which is neither a free market nor sustainable:

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/health/costs/story/973158.html

Either way, Americans in general will be the big losers, including you and me. The difference is that—as long as your focus is on partisan… I don’t know what a nice term would be for the inference-laden, buzz-word packed (non) response you wrote today—but the difference between us, really, is that I am trying to avoid a predictable outcome of the status quo. Because I am discouraged to learn that you (obviously) didn’t read the reference links I’d posted, I’ve included a video this time. It should be very easy for you to review:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAvy9jew9dM

And I’ve included a non-partisan piece from East/West Metro doctors, if you prefer a local source; this is also very easy reading:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=your+voice+by+ed+ehlinger&ie
=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


Also, I would like to know why you think Physicians for a National Health Plan would endorse the single payer system if it were going to “adversely [e]ffect (sic) the quality of health care? They are a group of mostly primary care physicians (Family Practice, Internal Medicine, Pediatrics) who are dedicated to gaining access to quality, affordable healthcare for all patients. They get no big government grants or foundation or trust or corporate moneys. In short, they have no secondary gain except the good of their patients, unlike the corporate interests and politicians indicated above.

Bob, I would appreciate it if you would start backing up your “thoughts” and “statements” with data. A “FDR” type plan? A “government take over of hospitals and clinics”, and “doctors and nurses becoming government employees”? Where do you get that stuff?

Are you getting this from the one reference you’ve posted (#118) which was an offensively partisan web page that contained only opinion pieces, and one dated book on the English healthcare system, which has nothing to do with any proposed single payer model for the United States? Or was your post today just an emotional response to E.J. Dionne’s piece, which is just another partisan opinion piece, as far as I can tell? Please, if you have something to teach me, back it up. If you want to learn anything about single payer insurance, read the resources. I just don’t have time to waste on tangents.

I’ve included one more reference that answers your Medicare funding reference.

T http://thepolicycenter.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/heed-the-words-of-a-physician-don-mccanne-md/

Oh! One more question: where did you get $36 trillion for Medicare entitlements? That is 4 times the OECB’s projected budget over the next 10 years… hardly seems likely, to me.

Finally, Joe, I can't find a place that says "save".

[Bob Jentges]

First of all, I was under the impression that you’d read at least one of the references I’ve given with regards to payment for single payer (see yesterday at 1:28 PM, for example). Conservative estimates, backed by good, scientifically-conducted non-partisan researchers, all state that we would save at least $250 billion dollars the very first year we go to single payer, due to elimination of waste and duplication of effort.

Once again, the political issue is NOT which method is the least expensive. The issue is that single payer would eliminate subsidization of the “middleman”, i.e., large health insurance corporations, pharmaceutical companies, their lobbyists and the legislators who take their campaign “contributions.” Which includes both Republican and Democratic legislators. Which means single payer will likely never pass, unless there is a groundswell to demand passage. What will likely pass is, as Dan noted, a compromise that looks “politically feasible”:


http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/04/06/mcclellan-asks-what-would-be-the-point/

Such a compromise will, on the surface, look as if the Democrats have accomplished something that will help the uninsured, but it will be an incremental reform that will be ultimately non-sustainable (see, for instance, the Massachusetts Plan.) The compromise is also sure to make it look as if the Republicans have saved the free market system. which is neither a free market nor sustainable:

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/health/costs/story/973158.html

Either way, Americans in general will be the big losers, including you and me. The difference is that—as long as your focus is on partisan… I don’t know what a nice term would be for the inference-laden, buzz-word packed (non) response you wrote today—but the difference between us, really, is that I am trying to avoid a predictable outcome of the status quo. Because I am discouraged to learn that you (obviously) didn’t read the reference links I’d posted, I’ve included a video this time. It should be very easy for you to review:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAvy9jew9dM

And I’ve included a non-partisan piece from East/West Metro doctors, if you prefer a local source; this is also very easy reading:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=your+voice+by+ed+ehlinger&ie
=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


Also, I would like to know why you think Physicians for a National Health Plan would endorse the single payer system if it were going to “adversely [e]ffect (sic) the quality of health care? They are a group of mostly primary care physicians (Family Practice, Internal Medicine, Pediatrics) who are dedicated to gaining access to quality, affordable healthcare for all patients. They get no big government grants or foundation or trust or corporate moneys. In short, they have no secondary gain except the good of their patients, unlike the corporate interests and politicians indicated above.

Bob, I would appreciate it if you would start backing up your “thoughts” and “statements” with data. A “FDR” type plan? A “government take over of hospitals and clinics”, and “doctors and nurses becoming government employees”? Where do you get that stuff?

Are you getting this from the one reference you’ve posted (#118) which was an offensively partisan web page that contained only opinion pieces, and one dated book on the English healthcare system, which has nothing to do with any proposed single payer model for the United States? Or was your post today just an emotional response to E.J. Dionne’s piece, which is just another partisan opinion piece, as far as I can tell? Please, if you have something to teach me, back it up. If you want to learn anything about single payer insurance, read the resources. I just don’t have time to waste on tangents.

I’ve included one more reference that answers your Medicare funding reference.

T http://thepolicycenter.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/heed-the-words-of-a-physician-don-mccanne-md/

Oh! One more question: where did you get $36 trillion for Medicare entitlements? That is 4 times the OECB’s projected budget over the next 10 years… hardly seems likely, to me.

Finally, Joe, I can't find a place that says "save".

Dr.Kelly, I did read the articles in your 1:28 PM yesterday post. I went back and read them again in preperation for this Reply. The first was co-authored by a Senior Policy Fellow for PNHP. The second discussed the National Health Insurance Act sponsored by John Conyers (D MI) who, in my opinion is one of the most partisan members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Also cited was the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The third appeared to me to be a duplicate of the article co-authored by the Senior Policy Fellow for PNHP.

I also read the articles in your post today. One was from the 4/2/07 Washington Post; another was from the 3/28/09 Miami Herald.

I did not base any of the comments in my post this morning from my previous #118 post which admittedly was one sided against the English healthcare system. Since we have been referring to editorials or commentary articles for and against the topic you might be interested in one I read this morning in The Detroit News by Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a non-profit research organizationfocusing on free-market solutions to health reform. Admittedly a partisan organization. I will try to provide the link, but I have had problems accomplishing that before so if I am not successful I believe there is enough information for you to find it if you choose.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090406/OPINION/904060313

Let me be clear, I do not question the motives of PNHP. I am simply trying to provide material from some who might disagree with their single payer proposal.

I do not recall where I read "...that in 2008 the trustees estimated that Medicare's unfunded obligation is more than $36T...". I have been reading a great deal on this matter over the past weeks and it is just one thing I made note of for future mention. After this I will be more careful and make note of where I read things I may plan to mention later. Sorry.

With respect to the "FDR" 'type plan'" you mention I have been reading Mark Levine's recent best sellor: "Liberty and Tyranny" over the last few days and found it in "Chapter Seven, The Welfare State". Levin cites references for much of what he propounds in his book. I do not dispute that Levin is a partisian, but I think most consider him intelligent and credible.

The having government take over hospitals and clinics and having doctors and nurses become government employees remarks I made in this mornings post were my own thoughts. I think I am entitled to my own thoughts, even if no one else agrees.

Finally, this issue is worthy of a serious debate of what each side thinks. I do not intend for things I say to turn a debate into an arguement.

[Dan Conner]

First of all, I was under the impression that you’d read at least one of the references I’ve given with regards to payment for single payer (see yesterday at 1:28 PM, for example). Conservative estimates, backed by good, scientifically-conducted non-partisan researchers, all state that we would save at least $250 billion dollars the very first year we go to single payer, due to elimination of waste and duplication of effort.

Once again, the political issue is NOT which method is the least expensive. The issue is that single payer would eliminate subsidization of the “middleman”, i.e., large health insurance corporations, pharmaceutical companies, their lobbyists and the legislators who take their campaign “contributions.” Which includes both Republican and Democratic legislators. Which means single payer will likely never pass, unless there is a groundswell to demand passage. What will likely pass is, as Dan noted, a compromise that looks “politically feasible”:


http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/04/06/mcclellan-asks-what-would-be-the-point/

Such a compromise will, on the surface, look as if the Democrats have accomplished something that will help the uninsured, but it will be an incremental reform that will be ultimately non-sustainable (see, for instance, the Massachusetts Plan.) The compromise is also sure to make it look as if the Republicans have saved the free market system. which is neither a free market nor sustainable:

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/health/costs/story/973158.html

Either way, Americans in general will be the big losers, including you and me. The difference is that—as long as your focus is on partisan… I don’t know what a nice term would be for the inference-laden, buzz-word packed (non) response you wrote today—but the difference between us, really, is that I am trying to avoid a predictable outcome of the status quo. Because I am discouraged to learn that you (obviously) didn’t read the reference links I’d posted, I’ve included a video this time. It should be very easy for you to review:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAvy9jew9dM

And I’ve included a non-partisan piece from East/West Metro doctors, if you prefer a local source; this is also very easy reading:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=your+voice+by+ed+ehlinger&ie
=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


Also, I would like to know why you think Physicians for a National Health Plan would endorse the single payer system if it were going to “adversely [e]ffect (sic) the quality of health care? They are a group of mostly primary care physicians (Family Practice, Internal Medicine, Pediatrics) who are dedicated to gaining access to quality, affordable healthcare for all patients. They get no big government grants or foundation or trust or corporate moneys. In short, they have no secondary gain except the good of their patients, unlike the corporate interests and politicians indicated above.

Bob, I would appreciate it if you would start backing up your “thoughts” and “statements” with data. A “FDR” type plan? A “government take over of hospitals and clinics”, and “doctors and nurses becoming government employees”? Where do you get that stuff?

Are you getting this from the one reference you’ve posted (#118) which was an offensively partisan web page that contained only opinion pieces, and one dated book on the English healthcare system, which has nothing to do with any proposed single payer model for the United States? Or was your post today just an emotional response to E.J. Dionne’s piece, which is just another partisan opinion piece, as far as I can tell? Please, if you have something to teach me, back it up. If you want to learn anything about single payer insurance, read the resources. I just don’t have time to waste on tangents.

I’ve included one more reference that answers your Medicare funding reference.

T http://thepolicycenter.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/heed-the-words-of-a-physician-don-mccanne-md/

Oh! One more question: where did you get $36 trillion for Medicare entitlements? That is 4 times the OECB’s projected budget over the next 10 years… hardly seems likely, to me.

Finally, Joe, I can't find a place that says "save".

Lynn--

I think the following excerpt from one of the replies to your post states what we are arguing against:

It might sound harsh, but I just do not see how taxpayers can afford more in entitlement programs in the forseeable future. I read that in 2008 the trustee's estimated that Medicare's unfunded obligation is more than $36T---and that's only Medicare.

To me, this is the sad truth of the opinions of many in our country these days. It's called, "Let them die because I don't want to pay to help them." People will rattle on about not being able to afford a welfare state for those "entitlement program" people, especially if it involves foregoing a new BMW for next year. What they mean is that they are unwilling to pay for it, whether they can afford it or not. Saying that it might sound harsh is the truth of it. It is harsh. It's called letting a person die of untreated cancer because it costs too much, but if it's me, then spending has no limits. In fact, I'm angry that all sorts of unnecessary very expensive treatment/diagnostic processes aren't used.

I can't believe people are so uncaring of others while they obsess about themselves. We seem to be turning into a nation of the self-absorbed. I think people who take these "harsh" stands need to witness a dying poor person, who could have been saved if he/she could afford it. It is the scrooge mentality of not wanting to help others because it might interfere with hoarding. I would be surprised our country became a nation with such "scroogish" views. However, I guess I will back off and let a higher person be the judge. I don't believe there is anything in the bible or really any other religious text that condones or advocates for not helping others who need help.

Isn't it a higher level of social sophistication that facilitates sharing, caring, and doing good for each other? It seems barbaric letting others pass away because of some survival of the fittest philosophy. The truly ironic thing is that many of the homeless and needy were military veterans who stood up and offered themselves to defend our nation, at some personal risk. What were they trying to defend our nation from, and why? It doesn't seem many in our nation are willing to return a favor. And that's harsh too.

[Dan Conner]

Although I have read many articles to the contrary, some rather convincing, for the sake of this discussion let's say the PNHP single payer proposal, or any similar proposal, would not adversely effect the quality of health care. That leaves the always contraversial issue of money i.e. where do we get the money to pay for it? I think that has been a political "hot potato" from FDR through Johnson, Clinton, etc.

My thoughts are that if the "premiums" for government run health care are included in a payroll tax witholding where everyone contributes the same "premium", like FDR's initial plan for Social Security, it would be a regressive tax very difficult for low wage earners. If the "premiums" witheld varried based on certain income brackets it seems to me the cost to middle income earners would be signifigantly greater than what they might now be paying in "premiums" for their private health insurance coverage.

Would having the government take over hospitals and clinics be the answer? I think not. Politicians from both sides of the isle frequently say the VA System is under funded. Would having doctors and nurses become government employees be the answer? I do not think so, any more than I think it would be a good idea to have doctors who treat the general public become employees of private insurance companies.

I read E.J. Dionne's "Health Care's Year (Really)" column this morning. He suggests there will be "...a mandate requiring all Americans to buy insurance" and "...a mixture of subsidies for those who can't afford insurance...". On it's face maybe that sounds acceptable to some, but there is always the question---who pays for the "mixture of subsidies"?

It might sound harsh, but I just do not see how taxpayers can afford more in entitlement programs in the forseeable future. I read that in 2008 the trustee's estimated that Medicare's unfunded obligation is more than $36T---and that's only Medicare.

I do not agree with E.J. that this is the year, but I seldom agree with any of his opinions.

I don't quite understand you Bob. You have discussed at length your wife's horrendous struggle with cancer and your concerns that she be given every opportunity to prevail, but then you talk about being harsh and not requiring the taxpayer to fund another entitlement program(medical care). I guess you must be saying that the un/underinsured are expendable? I wonder if you would be saying that if you or your spouse were one of those denied medical help because the taxpayer "can't afford" it. I don't think people's lives should have a price tag on it. Health care should be a right in our country. We are plenty rich enough to afford it. Maybe a couple of fewer monthly trips to the restaurant might pay for it. I'm sure you would appreciate it if it was your life on the line.

[Bob Jentges]

I don't quite understand you Bob. You have discussed at length your wife's horrendous struggle with cancer and your concerns that she be given every opportunity to prevail, but then you talk about being harsh and not requiring the taxpayer to fund another entitlement program(medical care). I guess you must be saying that the un/underinsured are expendable? I wonder if you would be saying that if you or your spouse were one of those denied medical help because the taxpayer "can't afford" it. I don't think people's lives should have a price tag on it. Health care should be a right in our country. We are plenty rich enough to afford it. Maybe a couple of fewer monthly trips to the restaurant might pay for it. I'm sure you would appreciate it if it was your life on the line.

Dan, I am not saying that the "un/underinsured are expendable". I certainly do not believe that! But from some articles I have read it seems like in some countries with government run health care something similar to that might be happening. If I recall correctly some examples were cited in the link I included in my yesterday post #147 to Dr Kelley. In my wife's case we are among the un/underinsured when it comes to PET Scans and to us she is certainly not expendable.

In that same post I said: "It might sound harsh...". I used that lead-in in an attempt to temper what to me is a harsh reality i.e. "... I just do not see how taxpayers can afford more in entitlement programs in the forseeable future."

What I want Dan is, I think, the same things you and Dr. Kelley want; access to affordable, quality health care for everyone who wants it. We simply need to find out how that can be accomplished.

[Bob Jentges]

Dr. Kelley, after some searching I found the article on which I based my
comment: "I read that in 2008 the trustee's estimated Medicare's unfunded obligation is more than $36T...". It was in The Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) article of 3/26/08. If you care to read it, the link is:

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1869.cfm

During my search I found a 4/02/08 article in the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities web site discussing Medicare's "daunting" problems. I expect there are many more articles on the subject, but I cite these two because they were the first two that came-up during my Google search.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, I am not saying that the "un/underinsured are expendable". I certainly do not believe that! But from some articles I have read it seems like in some countries with government run health care something similar to that might be happening. If I recall correctly some examples were cited in the link I included in my yesterday post #147 to Dr Kelley. In my wife's case we are among the un/underinsured when it comes to PET Scans and to us she is certainly not expendable.

In that same post I said: "It might sound harsh...". I used that lead-in in an attempt to temper what to me is a harsh reality i.e. "... I just do not see how taxpayers can afford more in entitlement programs in the forseeable future."

What I want Dan is, I think, the same things you and Dr. Kelley want; access to affordable, quality health care for everyone who wants it. We simply need to find out how that can be accomplished.

I don't know if I understand your response. Dr. Kelley and myself have offered lots of evidence and references to show that a national single payer plan will not only cover everyone, but it will also be cheaper. We CAN NOT afford not to do it. Remember Canada Bush so readily ridiculed? Well, there national single-payer health plan covers everyone and it is far cheaper than ours. That's about as obvious evidence as you can get. The media is replete with evidence showing health care plans in[B]ALL[B] industrialized nations are a lot cheaper and covers everyone. There are far too many people dying in our country, for lack of health care, to not consider change.

I didn't read your post as objecting to the above. Instead, I read you to say that you are very happy with the coverage you have and that you want to keep that at all costs, even if the price to be paid is uninsuring millions of other people. That is harsh. The point I want to make is that there is no reason we can't give higher quality health care, than we now have, at far far cheaper a price. We can have it both ways, but people have to accept change. The current system funnels hundreds of billions of dollars into insurance companies (who do nothing to care for patients) and pharmaceutical companies who put profit ahead of people. We shouldn't have to ask doctors to overlook their Hippocratic Oath by not treating the uninsured.

I suggest you try reading and listening to other than the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly crowd and think about what is possible, instead of what isn't. Where there is a will there is a way. I don't care what people call universal health care, it is the humanity that counts, not luxuriously treating some at the expense of others. If other nations can do it, why can't we?

[Dan Conner]

Dr. Kelley, after some searching I found the article on which I based my
comment: "I read that in 2008 the trustee's estimated Medicare's unfunded obligation is more than $36T...". It was in The Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) article of 3/26/08. If you care to read it, the link is:

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1869.cfm

During my search I found a 4/02/08 article in the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities web site discussing Medicare's "daunting" problems. I expect there are many more articles on the subject, but I cite these two because they were the first two that came-up during my Google search.

Let's see, you won't watch Sicko, but you believe Heritage Foundation? It is not only conservative, it is reactionary. Why are you so willing to believe the far right wing pap, but not Michael Moore and other progressive sources? If you don't want to read/watch progressive ideas, then at least find a more neutral source. Heritage Foundation isn't close.

Haven't you given some of the conservative philosophy at least a second thought? Capitalism has shown its very serious flaws in our current financial crisis. Also, it has demonstrated its lack of humanity by allowing the needless dying of the uninsured. I think people open to change will be able to objectively reexamine our system. It was Socrates who said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

Bob, when I cited the article from the "Senior Policy Fellow for PNHP" I also frankly stated "their sole purpose is to try to get single payer universal coverage for the United States." PNHP is not affiliated with any political party, and are widely referenced as a source for expert research on single payer. Still, I thought you would be more interested in what conservatives have to say about single payer, so I added "a few other sources that say the same" about how single payer will save us money rather than cost us money. Then I referred you to an article published by Bloomberg news.

Mike Bloomberg owns the Bloomberg finance/news/television corporation. He was elected as a Republican Governor of New York and is currently running as an independent, but is endorsed by the Staten Island Republican Executive Committee, and the GOP. The publication is not affiliated with any political party.

The author, John F. Wasik is a global finance columnist. He is, per Macmillan publishing, one of America's most prominent business and finance journalists and the author of nine books on investing. I am impressed with his thoughts because he cites sources for the facts he presents, and because he cites facts that back up his opinions.

You note the article “discussed the National Health Insurance Act sponsored by John Conyers who, in [your] opinion is one of the most partisan members of the U.S. House of Representatives”. This is what the article says, with reference to the National Health Insurance Act:

“A good working model would be the National Health Insurance Act, which was introduced in 2007 by Conyers, a Democratic representative, and had 93 co-sponsors in the 110th Congress.”

That’s it. Three lines. The whole article has 35 paragraphs…141 lines…947 words, but you infer that you are discounting the reference as a partisan discussion because the author (barely) mentions John Conyers? The author also mentions that Conyers was not invited to the table at the President's healthcare forum... hardly a partisan recommendation.

You also note that the article “cited… the Center for American Progress Action Fund”. Indeed it does, insofar as it notes that 14,000 people are losing their jobs and their healthcare per day, a fact which is easily corroborated independently. But then, the article also cites the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Congressional Budget Office. Do you discount the merit of these sources, as well?

I thought you would appreciate the author’s plea for equal application of free-market principles in testing single payer--the principles you say you endorse--in his conclusion: “Single-payer haters don’t like the idea of seeing who will provide the highest-quality, low-cost coverage and will do anything to shut down the discussion. But let’s at least put this free-market comparison to the test.” In short, I think this reference was non-partisan, and merits discussion.

My third link was entered in error; as noted in my post, I had initially entered a link to a “Dollars and Sense” article on single payer costs, which was the first link that came up when I googled “conservative economic journals and single payer” ... in the interest of finding balanced references. Upon further research, I learned that the journal is actually considered progressive. So I found a totally non-partisan article that includes dozens of sources for national, state and independent studies on the cost effectiveness of single payer, including the Lewin group, the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office. Unfortunately, when (as noted in the post) I lost my edited version, I thought I had recopied the correct link, because the reference was found at the PNHP site.

The link is not about PNHP, but contains links to all the study sites mentioned above. If you are going to discount the above studies because they are summarized at the PNHP site (following), let me know and I will post each of the site links individually for you.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=1I

Finally, you mention, correctly, that I referenced the Washington Post and the Miami Herald. I researched these newspapers today and learned that some consider them to be "liberal." Both articles appeared to be well supported and factual rather than opinion pieces, but I will not reference them again; my purpose here is not related to "party lines". I also referenced three other non-partisan links in the same post.

I don't mind an honest debate. And I don't mind anyone stating what they "think". I don't, however, appreciate an argument that misleads readers into thinking an argument is based on fact when it is only based on unsupported opinions spiced up with "talking points" that are not even related to the issue at hand.

I appreciate that, this time, you have included a link to a newspaper, and noted that the author is partisan. I will check it out, as well as your 2 other links, and get back to you as time allows.

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

Bob, I checked the link to the Heritage Foundation. They neglect to provide the context for the "facts" contained in the article, but do at least provide a link to their source. So I followed the trail:

According to “A SUMMARY OF THE 2008 ANNUAL REPORTS” by the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees, “the projected actuarial deficit in the OASDI Trust Fund over the infinite future [which is defined—apparently--elsewhere in the report as 75 years…my notation] is 3.2 percent of taxable payroll (1.1 percent of GDP) or $13.6 trillion in present value terms. “

Still sounds like a ton of money, to me, but not half as horrendous as it did out of context. If you check the figures, the projected deficit is $181 billion per year. We paid how much to bail out our deregulated finance buddies? Why reserve harsh reality for the aged and the sick?

The report goes on to say “The system could be brought into actuarial balance over this time horizon with an immediate increase in payroll tax revenues…from 12.4 percent to 15.6 percent or an immediate reduction in benefits of 20 percent, or some combination of the two.”

Okay. Which 20 percent of medical care would you prefer to give up, so that the rest of us can continue to take home an additional 3.2 percent of our payroll? I personally don't think anyone should have to give up reasonable care. In fact, 3.2 percent of my personal payroll would cover one half of one Pet scan... and I’m willing to give that 3.2 % to make a meaningful difference in someone's life. Maybe it would blossom into a "pay your darn taxes" movement; if everyone in this country who claims compassionate conservatism loosens up their wallets, too, the Social Security/Medicare system can be solvent over the “infinite future”! Or 75 years…whichever actuarial or actual term you prefer.

I think Medicare/Social Security solvency is an enormously important issue… and that single payer insurance would go a long way toward making the system solvent by cutting medical costs.

I also think facts are fun. I’m going to try to figure out how much a war costs over the infinite future. Then I’ll read your link to the Detroit paper and get back to you.

[Bob Jentges]

Dr. Kelley, I will try to briefly address your two most recent posts in this single reply.

Although I do read articles by progressives, I have not watched and do not intend to watch Sicko. I consider The Heritage Foundation more credible than Michael Moore, but I do not blindly accept everything they say. The reason I cited them in this instance is because you asked where I found the information about Medicare's unfunded obligation of $36T. I searched and found it was in The Heritage Foundation website, which I read occassionally, but not regularly. I also check the Brookings Institute on occassion, which some think leans more toward the liberal philosophy, as well as Cato, which some say is libertarian, and Hoover Institute which leans conservative, etc., etc., etc.

With respect to newspapers, in addition to The Free Press and the two other major in-state papers, each morning I scan The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Sreeet Journal, The Washington Times, The New York Post, and others for articles that might interest me. In addition I check the Real Clear Politics website daily for articles from other publications that might interest me. I do consider my basic principles as conservative, but I also consider my readings fairly well balanced with respect to politicial ideology.

I never suggested the rhetorical questions in my earlier post, which I immediatly followed with my answers in that same post, were based on fact. It certainly was not my intention to misslead anyone into thinking they were.

In response to another of your questions, yes I am concerned about some things that develope under the Capitalist system of government. No system is perfect. But in my opinion the Capitalist system is superior to any other I am aware of at this time.

You are certainly a passionate advocate for the single payer idea, and I respect that. I am not so sure, and I hope you respect that too.

In concluding this probably too lengthy reply let me say that I did read the last link you provided. I will also read any remarks you choose to put forth after you have had oppertunity to read the material I submitted and you referenced you would look into at the end of your last post.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Lynn. When you click on the "edit" button, the "save" button should appear at the bottom of the box, near the bottom of your screen.

All. I find this discussion on single pay interesting, I wonder if it might be useful for others reading if we started a new thread or several new threads. One could be "Paying for Single payer" and one could be "Cutting waste in medicine" thereby focusing the discussion a bit. What do we think?

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

Bob, I never asked you to watch "Sicko." I think you must be referring to Dan's post?

[Bob Jentges]

I don't know if I understand your response. Dr. Kelley and myself have offered lots of evidence and references to show that a national single payer plan will not only cover everyone, but it will also be cheaper. We CAN NOT afford not to do it. Remember Canada Bush so readily ridiculed? Well, there national single-payer health plan covers everyone and it is far cheaper than ours. That's about as obvious evidence as you can get. The media is replete with evidence showing health care plans in[B]ALL[B] industrialized nations are a lot cheaper and covers everyone. There are far too many people dying in our country, for lack of health care, to not consider change.

I didn't read your post as objecting to the above. Instead, I read you to say that you are very happy with the coverage you have and that you want to keep that at all costs, even if the price to be paid is uninsuring millions of other people. That is harsh. The point I want to make is that there is no reason we can't give higher quality health care, than we now have, at far far cheaper a price. We can have it both ways, but people have to accept change. The current system funnels hundreds of billions of dollars into insurance companies (who do nothing to care for patients) and pharmaceutical companies who put profit ahead of people. We shouldn't have to ask doctors to overlook their Hippocratic Oath by not treating the uninsured.

I suggest you try reading and listening to other than the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly crowd and think about what is possible, instead of what isn't. Where there is a will there is a way. I don't care what people call universal health care, it is the humanity that counts, not luxuriously treating some at the expense of others. If other nations can do it, why can't we?

I very seldom read or listen to Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly, but I will say that if I do decide to nothing you can say will stop me!

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

Also, Bob, I didn't ask you about the capitalist system. That must also be something in Dan's post?

Joe, I would like to see a more focused thread; you are the editor, however you want to go about it is fine by me.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, I never asked you to watch "Sicko." I think you must be referring to Dan's post?

You are correct, Dr. Kelley. I guess when the two against one comes at me too fast I lose track of who I am responding to. I appologize.

[Bob Jentges]

Also, Bob, I didn't ask you about the capitalist system. That must also be something in Dan's post?

Joe, I would like to see a more focused thread; you are the editor, however you want to go about it is fine by me.

You are correct again Dr. Kelley and again I appoligize. I must admit I was somewhat surprised in thinking you would promote Sicko in a legitimate debate on this issue and offer a broad criticism the capitalist system. As I said in my previous post, the two against one posts have been coming at me too fast to keep who I am responding to straight in this 72 year old brain. But I should have known better than to even assume (one of the rules I try to live by is: Never assume anything) it might have been you when those two issues have been put to me by Dan previously. When it get's down to it maybe you and me agree on more than we think.

Joe, do what you think is best for the Forum. Based on the last posts from Dan directed toward me I think I have about run my course in this thread.

[Dan Conner]

Bob, I checked the link to the Heritage Foundation. They neglect to provide the context for the "facts" contained in the article, but do at least provide a link to their source. So I followed the trail:

According to “A SUMMARY OF THE 2008 ANNUAL REPORTS” by the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees, “the projected actuarial deficit in the OASDI Trust Fund over the infinite future [which is defined—apparently--elsewhere in the report as 75 years…my notation] is 3.2 percent of taxable payroll (1.1 percent of GDP) or $13.6 trillion in present value terms. “

Still sounds like a ton of money, to me, but not half as horrendous as it did out of context. If you check the figures, the projected deficit is $181 billion per year. We paid how much to bail out our deregulated finance buddies? Why reserve harsh reality for the aged and the sick?

The report goes on to say “The system could be brought into actuarial balance over this time horizon with an immediate increase in payroll tax revenues…from 12.4 percent to 15.6 percent or an immediate reduction in benefits of 20 percent, or some combination of the two.”

Okay. Which 20 percent of medical care would you prefer to give up, so that the rest of us can continue to take home an additional 3.2 percent of our payroll? I personally don't think anyone should have to give up reasonable care. In fact, 3.2 percent of my personal payroll would cover one half of one Pet scan... and I’m willing to give that 3.2 % to make a meaningful difference in someone's life. Maybe it would blossom into a "pay your darn taxes" movement; if everyone in this country who claims compassionate conservatism loosens up their wallets, too, the Social Security/Medicare system can be solvent over the “infinite future”! Or 75 years…whichever actuarial or actual term you prefer.

I think Medicare/Social Security solvency is an enormously important issue… and that single payer insurance would go a long way toward making the system solvent by cutting medical costs.

I also think facts are fun. I’m going to try to figure out how much a war costs over the infinite future. Then I’ll read your link to the Detroit paper and get back to you.Lynn--

Another point I think is worth mentioning is that the Social Security tax (FICA) is pretty regressive. Wage earners are taxed 7.65% up to about $100,000/YEAR. After that, there is no more FICA tax. So someone earning $100,000/yr pays 7.65% for Social Security coverage. Someone earning $1,000,000/yr effectively pays about .765%. That's a great tax disparity. The last figures I saw was that if everyone paid 7.65% of all earnings, regardless of amount (like Medicare), the Social Security funding problem would be solved for the indefinite future.

[Dan Conner]

Dr. Kelley, I will try to briefly address your two most recent posts in this single reply.

Although I do read articles by progressives, I have not watched and do not intend to watch Sicko. I consider The Heritage Foundation more credible than Michael Moore, but I do not blindly accept everything they say. The reason I cited them in this instance is because you asked where I found the information about Medicare's unfunded obligation of $36T. I searched and found it was in The Heritage Foundation website, which I read occassionally, but not regularly. I also check the Brookings Institute on occassion, which some think leans more toward the liberal philosophy, as well as Cato, which some say is libertarian, and Hoover Institute which leans conservative, etc., etc., etc.

With respect to newspapers, in addition to The Free Press and the two other major in-state papers, each morning I scan The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Sreeet Journal, The Washington Times, The New York Post, and others for articles that might interest me. In addition I check the Real Clear Politics website daily for articles from other publications that might interest me. I do consider my basic principles as conservative, but I also consider my readings fairly well balanced with respect to politicial ideology.

I never suggested the rhetorical questions in my earlier post, which I immediatly followed with my answers in that same post, were based on fact. It certainly was not my intention to misslead anyone into thinking they were.

In response to another of your questions, yes I am concerned about some things that develope under the Capitalist system of government. No system is perfect. But in my opinion the Capitalist system is superior to any other I am aware of at this time.

You are certainly a passionate advocate for the single payer idea, and I respect that. I am not so sure, and I hope you respect that too.

In concluding this probably too lengthy reply let me say that I did read the last link you provided. I will also read any remarks you choose to put forth after you have had oppertunity to read the material I submitted and you referenced you would look into at the end of your last post.

Bob you say the capitalist system is not perfect, but superior to any other you are aware of. I would like to ask why you feel it is superior? What do you base that on. Have feelings it is superior is one thing, but if those feelings are not bolstered by anything factual or practical, then those feelings and a dollar might be able to buy you a cup of coffee. I hear from conservative about what they feel is right and wrong, but very liitle from them why. Do you know why?

[Dan Conner]

You are correct again Dr. Kelley and again I appoligize. I must admit I was somewhat surprised in thinking you would promote Sicko in a legitimate debate on this issue and offer a broad criticism the capitalist system. As I said in my previous post, the two against one posts have been coming at me too fast to keep who I am responding to straight in this 72 year old brain. But I should have known better than to even assume (one of the rules I try to live by is: Never assume anything) it might have been you when those two issues have been put to me by Dan previously. When it get's down to it maybe you and me agree on more than we think.

Joe, do what you think is best for the Forum. Based on the last posts from Dan directed toward me I think I have about run my course in this thread.

Sorry to hear about this Bob. I guess now you must understand some of the confusion when I was responding to you and Ben. Also, my departures from this thread were only in responding to your remarks made in your response to Lynn. So, if I departed from the thread, it was only after you led me there.