Paying for health care

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

I've heard the CEO of Mayo write that the way the government runs the health care business is flawed in that the government only insures and pays for the high risk people, those over 65 or 67 on Medicare. No private business would run it that way. I believe he was arguing for a national health care plan where everyone must buy in, thereby getting young healthy people to help pay to cover the risks of those over 65.
It's a premise that is very intriguing to me, and seems to make sense. Now, can we partner with the private sector to make this happen introducing "competition" that can keep costs low? That's another question, but certainly worthy of debate.

Here's CEO Denis Cortese's interview with Strib. http://is.gd/rC7t

[Dan Conner]

I've heard the CEO of Mayo write that the way the government runs the health care business is flawed in that the government only insures and pays for the high risk people, those over 65 or 67 on Medicare. No private business would run it that way. I believe he was arguing for a national health care plan where everyone must buy in, thereby getting young healthy people to help pay to cover the risks of those over 65.
It's a premise that is very intriguing to me, and seems to make sense. Now, can we partner with the private sector to make this happen introducing "competition" that can keep costs low? That's another question, but certainly worthy of debate.

Here's CEO Denis Cortese's interview with Strib. http://is.gd/rC7t

Joe, you and I interpret the article very differently. He never said the government runs the "health care business." In fact, he pointed out several tiimes there isn't a health care system at all. He did indicate there is no incentive for business to prevent health problems because they know they will be able to pass the problems on to the Federal health system. However he also said: "The government stepped up by helping to create a NASA agency. Notice Congress didn't run NASA ... private industry responded. Why? Because they put dollars on the table and said we'll pay you for that value." While he was right that NASA is a created Federal agency, he was wrong that Congress didn't "run" NASA. The Congress is very involved with running NASA. If you read the NASA website, there is a section detailing Congressional testimony and decisions about funding projects. Of course, private industry responded. When there is a chance to make money it is expected they would respond. However, the running of NASA is governmental as well as it's control. Like many other agencies, it uses many contractors to develop products.

Again, the government doesn't run health care. That was the domain of private business. The Government offered Medicare/Medicaid to insure previously uninsured groups of people, who were not insured. Retirement was synonymous with loss of medical insurance. There was no competitive process between government and business. The government attempted to fill a void and give medical insurance to millions who didn't have any. When you said "no private business would run it that way", is very misleading. Private business never ran it at all and even as you indicated, they did not want to run it. People entered into retirement without any health insurance. People became disabled without any health insurance and people were too poor to afford any health insurance. The Government attempted to insure those uninsured or underinsured people. The purpose wasn't to make a profit, it was to help save lives and allow people to live a dignified life. There is not a profit motive in Government.

You explained that using competition will keep costs down. To me that doesn't make a lot of sense. All those insurance companies are insuring people today. Certainly that would mean there is a competition today, but has it produced competitively priced health care? I think not. Our health care costs are among the highest in the world. So, where is that insurance company competition now? Shouldn't the costs already be low? Now, he proposes to add the most expensive group of people to the insurance pool, which would probably do nothing other than drive costs higher.

I think it is important to consider the motivations of the Mayo CEO. He is in business to make money while offering great service. However, I'm sure he views a national health care single-payer system as a threat to Mayo's bottom line. He is naturally going to support a system he feels will more likely support the high costs of medical treatment, and that will do little to reduce health care costs.

[Bob Jentges]

I read Dr. Cortese's 3/29/08 article to say he thinks we need to create a system, "...with [the] patient at the center.", offering "choice" through a "...
true public-private partnership." To me he seemed perplexed that "We're telling people you've got to buy insurance for other people. We've never said you gotta buy your own.", and he does not think that "makes sense". The way I see it these points are worthy of very serious consideration.

Dr. Cortese suggests that health insurance be mandatory with the belief that people should be contributing to their health insurance. He also believes that those that choose to not to participate be held finincially responsible for their incurred medical expenses. I agree with that too, provided a system can be devised where what participants are required to pay is not greater than what people that presently have private insurance are paying for that insurance now. With more in the "pool" maybe that is a reality.

Dr Cortese thinks the president is the one that needs to lead here. I agree with that, but only to the extent that it needs to be a cooperative effort with the congress and with input from private industry.

If I recall correctly (and I expect others to correct me if I am wrong) back in '96 or '97 Republicans in the House proposed Medicare benificiaries be allowed to open Medicare Savings Accounts, but the Clinton Administration opposed. Subsequently President Bush proposed partial privatisation of Medicare, but the Democrat Congress rejected that. One could say the opposition in both instances was because they legitimatly thought the proposals were flawed, or the skeptic might think the opposition was more along partisian party lines.

Maybe now that the President and both the House and Senate are controlled by the same party something can get done, provided the minority party and private industry are given a PARTICIPATORY seat at the table. President Obama has asked the House to work on a system, and in the Senate Wyden (D OR) and Bennett (R UT) are working on a proposal.

The problem as I see it is that their has been too much spending proposed already this year---there may not be enough "green stuff" left for the health care priority.

[Dan Conner]

I read Dr. Cortese's 3/29/08 article to say he thinks we need to create a system, "...with [the] patient at the center.", offering "choice" through a "...
true public-private partnership." To me he seemed perplexed that "We're telling people you've got to buy insurance for other people. We've never said you gotta buy your own.", and he does not think that "makes sense". The way I see it these points are worthy of very serious consideration.

Dr. Cortese suggests that health insurance be mandatory with the belief that people should be contributing to their health insurance. He also believes that those that choose to not to participate be held finincially responsible for their incurred medical expenses. I agree with that too, provided a system can be devised where what participants are required to pay is not greater than what people that presently have private insurance are paying for that insurance now. With more in the "pool" maybe that is a reality.

Dr Cortese thinks the president is the one that needs to lead here. I agree with that, but only to the extent that it needs to be a cooperative effort with the congress and with input from private industry.

If I recall correctly (and I expect others to correct me if I am wrong) back in '96 or '97 Republicans in the House proposed Medicare benificiaries be allowed to open Medicare Savings Accounts, but the Clinton Administration opposed. Subsequently President Bush proposed partial privatisation of Medicare, but the Democrat Congress rejected that. One could say the opposition in both instances was because they legitimatly thought the proposals were flawed, or the skeptic might think the opposition was more along partisian party lines.

Maybe now that the President and both the House and Senate are controlled by the same party something can get done, provided the minority party and private industry are given a PARTICIPATORY seat at the table. President Obama has asked the House to work on a system, and in the Senate Wyden (D OR) and Bennett (R UT) are working on a proposal.

The problem as I see it is that their has been too much spending proposed already this year---there may not be enough "green stuff" left for the health care priority.

I think we are blessed with a President that is willing to listen to people before he makes a decision. He has already done that. This is a radical departure from the prior President. I think President Obama will take all the constructive input the public has to offer, but I don't think he will tolerate just saying "NO" and obstructing the process. Polls show the American people want major health care reform. Input should be limited to what form that is, not obstructing change.

I don't feel spending should be a consideration in determining a health care plan for the future. We are already spending far more than any of the industrialized world. I think it would not be difficult to restructure the system to get better, more complete and cheaper health care coverage. However, we have to be willing to start from ground zero.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

So,it seems many of us think 1. more people should be insured, especially those who don't have it. 2, some kind of equitable price system should be worked out 3. create incentives of some kind to "prevent" not "treat"., thereby keeping costs in check.
Getting back to the focus of the post, what's the best way to pay: All pay some premium with government subsidization? for those who can't afford? How much should businesses pay (half and half with employee?). Now most businesses pay a larger percentage than half the cost.... What payment systems would achieve the goals above, if we believe those are goals?

[Bob Jentges]

So,it seems many of us think 1. more people should be insured, especially those who don't have it. 2, some kind of equitable price system should be worked out 3. create incentives of some kind to "prevent" not "treat"., thereby keeping costs in check.
Getting back to the focus of the post, what's the best way to pay: All pay some premium with government subsidization? for those who can't afford? How much should businesses pay (half and half with employee?). Now most businesses pay a larger percentage than half the cost.... What payment systems would achieve the goals above, if we believe those are goals?

All should pay something, but other than that my position remains basically as stated in my post#3: " ...what participants are required to pay is not greater than what people that have private insurance are paying for that insurance now. With more in the "pool" maybe that is [could become]a reality."

[Dan Conner]

So,it seems many of us think 1. more people should be insured, especially those who don't have it. 2, some kind of equitable price system should be worked out 3. create incentives of some kind to "prevent" not "treat"., thereby keeping costs in check.
Getting back to the focus of the post, what's the best way to pay: All pay some premium with government subsidization? for those who can't afford? How much should businesses pay (half and half with employee?). Now most businesses pay a larger percentage than half the cost.... What payment systems would achieve the goals above, if we believe those are goals?

Joe--

I think you have misread posts. While I'm not a spokesperson for Dr. Kelley, I believe she is a proponent of national single-payer health care for ALL people, whether they pay or not. For those who don't have enough money service would be free. Of course, taxes would be the easiest way to collect for the cost. I think others on this post aren't in a debate about being insured, it's about universal entitlement.

I too am a proponent of health care for everyone. I view it as a right, not a luxury only those who can afford it should receive. It is a human right. It's not the ones who don't have insurance that are the ones who are spoiled here. It's the ones who have insurance, but don't want to sacrifice anything so all can have it. People that want everyone to pay premiums must be disconnected. There are millions of people that have a hard time just feeding their families, let alone pay for health insurnace premiums.

As far as employer contributiuons are concerned, I think many employers want the government to pay for the ehalth insurance. Today, employers who export their products must compete with employers who contribute nothing toward health insurance because it is furnished by the government. Consequently, other foreign countries outbid the US in the worldwide competition for business. Those businesses are relenting from their previous anti-national health care positions.

Determining the premium amount based on income will be confusing and very costly to administer. You will verify incomes and determine the premium? It would mean even more bureaucracy.

[Lynn Kelley M.D.]

Sorry, I've been really busy; will be back in the debate once May comes 'round. Did want to say that I agree with what Dan has to say. I am in favor of single payer, which would actually pay for itself due to elimination of duplicated effort and administrative waste the first year. After that, a progressive tax makes the most sense; easiest to administer, affords health care for those who have none, doesn't add to employer expense, puts everyone in the pool, costs far less than what we are all paying for now.

I'm sure there will be those who balk at the word "tax", even though it would mean a lower taxation rate, according to every projected estimate, but there are always going to be those who believe government serves no purpose, no matter what. Witness the goofy "Tea-bagging" taking place today... despite the fact that Obama has actually cut taxes for 95% of us, and only returned the top 5% of earners to a tax level they were at in the 90's.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

I am in favor of single payer, which would actually pay for itself due to elimination of duplicated effort and administrative waste the first year.

The problem with single payer is that it also means single buyer. Once there is only one buyer, there is no longer any reliable indicator of how much something is worth. The price system gets thrown out the window, so you have no way to tell you NOT to get a $1,000 a month prescription when a $10 a month one (or maybe just eating better foods) might do just as well. Yes, the current system is borked up, but single payer will be disastrous. Without prices, everything must be decided by politicians and bureaucrats. If you're 75 and a $100,000 surgery will give you another few years to spend with your grandkids, but the budget is running low, they'll just tell you "sorry".

There's an excellent blog post here (http://maxborders.typepad.com/max_borders/2009/04/mcardle-why-does-healthcare-cost-so-much.html) on why healthcare costs so much:

McArdle: Why Does Healthcare Cost So Much?

Megan McArdle touches on a few of the answers here (http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/04/ask_the_editors_why_does_health_care_cost_so_much. php#comments). But I'd like to give my own quick and dirty Top Ten:




The tax code (http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/Turner_Testimony.pdf) (pdf) is designed so that people get their health insurance overwhelmingly through their employer. No real competition here - if they pick it, you take it. No price pain, either. So overconsumption and high premiums follow.
Baumol's cost disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease). McArdle mentions that wages and salaries are higher in service industries. Expensive technologies are a part of it, but labor costs are massive.
Mandate costs, particularly in states where insurance is no longer insurance at all, but an "if I get sick I can get it anyway prepaid healthcare plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease)". Never mind all of these mandates (http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2008.pdf) and their costs.
Medicaid death spiral (http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/glossary/g/deathspiral.htm). As more kids and young people get into SChip (Medicaid), the more the low-risk folks get out of the private risk pool, which drives up premiums.
Third party payer systems cause overconsumption. If you pay $15 dollars for whatever prescription you get from the drugstore, you don't see who pays for the extra $85 you're not having to pay. The answer is everyone, in the form of higher premiums. Nexium or Prilosec OTC? Why not Nexium? It's only $15 right? Wrong. (This is just as true for socialized medicine as a PPO, btw, until the rationing starts.)
Unpooled risk. Too much government coverage and a crazy quilt system means risk remains unpooled.
Heroic measures at the end of life are very expensive. People who don't have to bear the full costs of care will keep people on life support for months in the hope that their family members will survive, even if they have the quality of life of Terry Shiavo. This is understandable, but expensive.
Our system is rife with lawsuits brought by people like John Edwards. The payments are out of control, making malpractice insurance expensive -- costs of which are passed onto you and me.
Pharma is expensive due to longer patent periods, high regulatory hurdles for new drugs and the fact that the rest of the world has price controls, so we actually subsidize their drugs.
Insurance companies are limited in their ability to charge variable rates for unhealthy lifestyles and incentives for healthier lifestyles

[Dan Conner]

The problem with single payer is that it also means single buyer. Once there is only one buyer, there is no longer any reliable indicator of how much something is worth. The price system gets thrown out the window, so you have no way to tell you NOT to get a $1,000 a month prescription when a $10 a month one (or maybe just eating better foods) might do just as well. Yes, the current system is borked up, but single payer will be disastrous. Without prices, everything must be decided by politicians and bureaucrats. If you're 75 and a $100,000 surgery will give you another few years to spend with your grandkids, but the budget is running low, they'll just tell you "sorry".

There's an excellent blog post here (http://maxborders.typepad.com/max_borders/2009/04/mcardle-why-does-healthcare-cost-so-much.html) on why healthcare costs so much:
The single-payer system for health care is credited with the opposite effect because of a single "buyer." If the system uses the government as the single payer, they control costs because they are the only consumer on the market. The focus is changed to cost of the program. If there is any concern about government control of single-payer, it is that it doesn't pay enough for medical procedures/medications. Vendors negotiate the price and if they aren't competitive, the government goes elsewhere. There would not be an alternative market.

There is no accurate way to say a single-payer system will be disastrous. Most European countries use it now and they would never begin to trade their system for ours. They get better results for a far cheaper price. It is bureaucrats that run their system now. So, I don't see where there is empirical evidence to show it is disastrous. I suggest you look at medical reports comparing our system with that in Canada, Britain, Germany and France. They are far more successful than ours and they are single-payer.

I support financing the health care system with taxes.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Jonathan
I disagree with your premise that a single buyer would distort prices or inhibit price discovery. Prices are determined by buyers AND sellers. Actually, there would still be many "sellers" of health care in a single payer system. If there were only one buyer, and many sellers, the buyer would actually have the advantage, would they not? All the sellers would have to compete for the single buyer's business.

[Dan Conner]

Jonathan
I disagree with your premise that a single buyer would distort prices or inhibit price discovery. Prices are determined by buyers AND sellers. Actually, there would still be many "sellers" of health care in a single payer system. If there were only one buyer, and many sellers, the buyer would actually have the advantage, would they not? All the sellers would have to compete for the single buyer's business.

Thak you Joe. You expalined it much clearer than me.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Yes, a single buyer would not completely destroy the pricing system, since sellers would have to compete somewhat, but there's no way that it won't distort prices and inhibit price discovery.

First, decisions on what to buy, how much, etc., would be made primarily by people who were neither the end consumers of the product nor would they be spending their own money. There are four ways to buy things:


spending your own money on something for you
spending your own money on something for someone else
spending someone else's money on something for yourself
spending someone else's money on something for someone else

In the first type of transaction, you have incentives to look for the best value product at the lowest price. In the second type of transaction (buying a gift for someone), you want to get a low price but you will often not get the best value (since the actual value is determined by the gift recipient). In the third type (for example, some shopping with a rich significant other's credit card), you have little incentive to get the lowest price, but great incentive to get the best value. In the fourth type (i.e. most government spending), there are few incentives to get the lowest price or the best value.

In a single-payer/buyer healthcare system, decisions on what types of care to pay for would be made by people who were neither receiving the care nor paying for it. This means that purchasing decisions would be significantly political rather than purely economical. When the government is the only buyer, we get things like the $18,000 hammers and the FEMA response to Katrina.

Small businesses and niche needs are largely left out of the loop. The government would rather award a single contract for a single cancer drug than to award 1,000 contracts to 1,000 different drug companies (or even choosing low-cost alternative treatments). With thousands of insurance companies or millions of patients and doctors all making their own decisions, there is a much greater variety of purchase decisions which allow for more targeted treatments that have the best value for the end consumer.

The United States already has socialized medicine to a great degree, since over half of all healthcare dollars flow through government channels (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc.). It is perhaps the most subsidized and government regulated sector in our economy. The very organization of our current healthcare system into one of byzantine third-party billing and payment procedures has its roots in wage freezes of years ago, which resulted in health benefits being attached to employment when companies were attempting to attract employees without raising wages.

In countries with single-payer healthcare, there is no incentive to conserve. Just as we currently have people abusing emergency rooms for minor problems because the state forces hospitals to treat patients there for free, we would have a systemic abuse because there would be no incentive for individuals to conserve healthcare resources. For an analogy (and yes, all analogies limp), let's say that it's raining and there are 200 people but only 100 umbrellas in the store. In a single-payer system, the government buys all 100 umbrellas and passes one out to the first 100 people in line. The last 100 people in line don't get an umbrella because of the shortage. Or, the 100 people with the best political connections (or bribes) get an umbrella. In a market system, the store raises the price on umbrellas until 100 people decide not to buy an umbrella and either get wet or share an umbrella with someone else instead. They have voluntarily decided to conserve a scare resource.

Why don't we switch to a single-payer food system too? Everyone deserves to eat, right? But what happens when the government decides to contract with Bob's Liver & Onions for tonight's meal but you hate liver and onions? Or what happens when it's lobster night and the first people in line take a double portion and you're left hungry when the food runs out? Again, food's not healthcare, but I believe that the problems in both would be similar.

[Bob Jentges]

Jonathan
I disagree with your premise that a single buyer would distort prices or inhibit price discovery. Prices are determined by buyers AND sellers. Actually, there would still be many "sellers" of health care in a single payer system. If there were only one buyer, and many sellers, the buyer would actually have the advantage, would they not? All the sellers would have to compete for the single buyer's business.

Joe I note that others have responded to your question to Jonathan before Jonathan had a chance, but since Jonathan has now responded I will take oppertunity to interlope and offer some thoughts; just some thoughts.

I think the market works best when there are many sellers AND many buyers.
I agree that in your "one buyer" senerio "...the buyer would actually have the advantage...".

But I do not favor that "one buyer" being able to set the price, so to speak. That could theoretically go both ways, too high or too low, but just consider the too low possibility because I think that might be the main reason some favor the single payer system. If the "one buyer" became overly concerned with setting a low price the "many sellers" may find it necessary to reduce quality to remain profitable, and providers may leave the profession because they can not provide the quality care they want with the payment allowed for their services.

Obviously more could be said, but the preceeding is my answer to your specific question.

[Dan Conner]

Joe I note that others have responded to your question to Jonathan before Jonathan had a chance, but since Jonathan has now responded I will take oppertunity to interlope and offer some thoughts; just some thoughts.

I think the market works best when there are many sellers AND many buyers.
I agree that in your "one buyer" senerio "...the buyer would actually have the advantage...".

But I do not favor that "one buyer" being able to set the price, so to speak. That could theoretically go both ways, too high or too low, but just consider the too low possibility because I think that might be the main reason some favor the single payer system. If the "one buyer" became overly concerned with setting a low price the "many sellers" may find it necessary to reduce quality to remain profitable, and providers may leave the profession because they can not provide the quality care they want with the payment allowed for their services.

Obviously more could be said, but the preceeding is my answer to your specific question.

That's great Bob, but there are too few sellers. They have designed it that way through consolidation. You seem to only worry about limiting buyers, but you are content with few sellers. Come up with a plan for increaing the number of sellers then. There isn't real competition in health insurance.

The market is not working at al now. Other countries are beating our brains out in the cost and effectiveness of health care. The conservative solution seems to be more of the same failed solutions. More consolidation and more over priced and ineffective health care.

Your arguement about prices and people leaving don't hold any water. Single payer plans in almost all the industrialized countries beat us hands down in cost and quality of care. You argue a point that fails and dismiss plans that are succeeding. Are you not able to recognize success? If our system is broken, it needs to change. If theirs is not, or at least beats ours hands down, then theirs must be working, at least better than ours.

It is ridiculous to argue against change of a broken system. If you don't think single payer won't work, propose the plan that will. It doesn't take any smarts to just say no, but with no ideas. If something won't work, what will? Try constructive criticism. Right now you are arguing the ridiculous--you know, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Come up with something new besides ripoff insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

[Bob Jentges]

That's great Bob, but there are too few sellers. They have designed it that way through consolidation. You seem to only worry about limiting buyers, but you are content with few sellers. Come up with a plan for increaing the number of sellers then. There isn't real competition in health insurance.

The market is not working at al now. Other countries are beating our brains out in the cost and effectiveness of health care. The conservative solution seems to be more of the same failed solutions. More consolidation and more over priced and ineffective health care.

Your arguement about prices and people leaving don't hold any water. Single payer plans in almost all the industrialized countries beat us hands down in cost and quality of care. You argue a point that fails and dismiss plans that are succeeding. Are you not able to recognize success? If our system is broken, it needs to change. If theirs is not, or at least beats ours hands down, then theirs must be working, at least better than ours.

It is ridiculous to argue against change of a broken system. If you don't think single payer won't work, propose the plan that will. It doesn't take any smarts to just say no, but with no ideas. If something won't work, what will? Try constructive criticism. Right now you are arguing the ridiculous--you know, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Come up with something new besides ripoff insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

I personally know of a number of differrent health insurance companies, but I checked the internet and learned that there are more than 70 leading health insurance companies that sell in Minnesota alone. That does not seem to fit with your contentions "...there are too few sellers", or "There isn't any real competition in health insurance."

After reading my post #14 again I do not understand how you could legitimatly try to tell me and other readers of the Forum that I said anything that would warrant your statement "...you are content with few sellers." In the event you missed it, what I said was: "I think the market works best when there are many sellers AND many buyers."

Long ago I became tired of your twisting and/or misrepresenting what I say,
or expressing what you think I think about an issue with nothing to back-up your contentions. But since you continue to do so I find it necessary to try to set what I say and/or think straight.

I am not argueing against change; what I hope for is change that will work.
I am not convinced the single payer system is the answer for reasons stated in my post#14 and other readings I have made. In this thread and an earlier health care thread now closed I have repeatedly said my basic outline for any health care program is that it include choice, quality and affordability. To suggest that I put together all the details is unreasonable.

[Howard Dittrich]

Have stayed out of this tread as it is very complex and I don’t have any real solutions. But here are a few observations:

Back in the seventies the U.S. Department of Justice initiated the break up of AT&T, a monopoly. The Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T centered on the lack of completion for long distance phone calls (among other things). The break up lead to the creation of the “Baby Bells” in 1984 and was credited with creating opportunity that lead a surge in competition. In the long run I believe this was a good thing. Can we create a single payer system that does not create a monopoly?

About fifteen years ago, while vacationing in Florida, I went golfing and was paired up with a couple of doctors from Canada. As we walked the links our conversation hit of the Canadian health care system. The doctor’s biggest complaint they shared with me was that under the Canada system they were limited with how much money they could earn. This led me to ask, of the young people going into college in Canada are the best and the brightest still going into medicine? Both doctors said no. “They are going into fields of study that allow them to make more money.” I want the best and the brightest working on me, so how do we keep them going into medicine?


Have been told (not sure if it true) that pharmaceutical companies don’t invent cures for diseases anymore. They invent treatments as they are easier and cheaper to come up with and have a bigger market. If you create a cure you sell it once, if you create a treatment you can sell it for a lifetime. Not sure if there is any truth to this, what does the forum think?

[Dan Conner]

I personally know of a number of differrent health insurance companies, but I checked the internet and learned that there are more than 70 leading health insurance companies that sell in Minnesota alone. That does not seem to fit with your contentions "...there are too few sellers", or "There isn't any real competition in health insurance."

After reading my post #14 again I do not understand how you could legitimatly try to tell me and other readers of the Forum that I said anything that would warrant your statement "...you are content with few sellers." In the event you missed it, what I said was: "I think the market works best when there are many sellers AND many buyers."

Long ago I became tired of your twisting and/or misrepresenting what I say,
or expressing what you think I think about an issue with nothing to back-up your contentions. But since you continue to do so I find it necessary to try to set what I say and/or think straight.

I am not argueing against change; what I hope for is change that will work.
I am not convinced the single payer system is the answer for reasons stated in my post#14 and other readings I have made. In this thread and an earlier health care thread now closed I have repeatedly said my basic outline for any health care program is that it include choice, quality and affordability. To suggest that I put together all the details is unreasonable.

Bob, either way you are shooting yourself in the foot. If you believe there are plenty of sellers and we certainly know there are plenty of buyers and the costs are sky-high and ineffective, then doesn't this shoot a hole in your idea about the benefits of lots of sellers and buyers? If you propose to keep it just the way it is, then aren't you promoting the same broken system we now have? Bob, you are content with the current system. You have said that before. So, whether we have lots or few buyers or sellers, you want to continue with the same broken system.

I say you are content with few sellers, because there really are - nationwide. The same 70 here exist all over the country, but whether there are few or many, doesn't make a hoot of a difference. Our system is broken, big-time, and you spend valuable time justifying what we have, rather than trying to think of ways of improving it. I think one really has to have their head in the sand not to realize our system of health care is screwed up.

Bob, you have said previously that you like the health care system we have. You said you were really pleased with what you have, regardless what others may or may not have. That's fine. You like what you have, but there are millions of others who need and want better. I have told you that before. In order for that to happen, change is necessary. Yes, you have said before that there are elements you wanted, but you forget that people have told you of plans to accommplish exactly that, but then you balk. You say you want certain things and then you argue about whether a system of health care will give it to you, even when it is not doing that now. Again, resistance to change.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, either way you are shooting yourself in the foot. If you believe there are plenty of sellers and we certainly know there are plenty of buyers and the costs are sky-high and ineffective, then doesn't this shoot a hole in your idea about the benefits of lots of sellers and buyers? If you propose to keep it just the way it is, then aren't you promoting the same broken system we now have? Bob, you are content with the current system. You have said that before. So, whether we have lots or few buyers or sellers, you want to continue with the same broken system.

I say you are content with few sellers, because there really are - nationwide. The same 70 here exist all over the country, but whether there are few or many, doesn't make a hoot of a difference. Our system is broken, big-time, and you spend valuable time justifying what we have, rather than trying to think of ways of improving it. I think one really has to have their head in the sand not to realize our system of health care is screwed up.

Bob, you have said previously that you like the health care system we have. You said you were really pleased with what you have, regardless what others may or may not have. That's fine. You like what you have, but there are millions of others who need and want better. I have told you that before. In order for that to happen, change is necessary. Yes, you have said before that there are elements you wanted, but you forget that people have told you of plans to accommplish exactly that, but then you balk. You say you want certain things and then you argue about whether a system of health care will give it to you, even when it is not doing that now. Again, resistance to change.

I guess it depends on what the definition of "few" is. To me 70+ sellors is more than a "few" whether that number refers to Minnesota only, or is nationwide.

To repeat myself again, and again, and again, my basic outline for any health care program is that it include choice, quality, and is affordable. As I mentioned previously I am not convinced a single payer (one buyer) program can produce those three. I am not alone in that opinion. There are plenty of people, more learned in the subject than either you or me, who agree with me, just like there are people who agree with you.

In his recent post Howard outlined an experience he had with some Canadians on the subject of the Canadian health care system. Coincidently, yesterday I visited with a long time friend (conservative Democrat) who had just returned after wintering in Florida. He said there were a number of Canadian citizens who wintered in the same area; some liked the Canadian system, but many did not.

Obviously what you and/or me say about the issue, in itself, will have little to do with what change, if any, is actually is implimented. I understand what you want. I have tried to make what I want (and do not want) clear. Maybe it would be best for us to just agree to disagree rather than bantering our previously stated opinions back and forth.

[Dan Conner]

I guess it depends on what the definition of "few" is. To me 70+ sellors is more than a "few" whether that number refers to Minnesota only, or is nationwide.

To repeat myself again, and again, and again, my basic outline for any health care program is that it include choice, quality, and is affordable. As I mentioned previously I am not convinced a single payer (one buyer) program can produce those three. I am not alone in that opinion. There are plenty of people, more learned in the subject than either you or me, who agree with me, just like there are people who agree with you.

In his recent post Howard outlined an experience he had with some Canadians on the subject of the Canadian health care system. Coincidently, yesterday I visited with a long time friend (conservative Democrat) who had just returned after wintering in Florida. He said there were a number of Canadian citizens who wintered in the same area; some liked the Canadian system, but many did not.

Obviously what you and/or me say about the issue, in itself, will have little to do with what change, if any, is actually is implimented. I understand what you want. I have tried to make what I want (and do not want) clear. Maybe it would be best for us to just agree to disagree rather than bantering our previously stated opinions back and forth.

There you go Bob. A truer statement you couldn't have made. You have made your three demands for health care. While you can deamnd all you want, the other 299,999,0999 will also have a voice. Heaven knows, I realize you feel single-payer won't fulfill your expectations. If it healed us all you would object. However, it doesn't make any difference that you and others feel what you do, unless you are in the majority, or you are able to thwart the will of the majority.

I find it amazing that all you can do is object to proposed plans, with no ideas to fix our very broken system. You like the system because you are serviced well, but then you don't care about those not served. So I guess it comes down to only caring about ourselves and to heck with the rest of the country. That's your plan. I have seen nothing else from you. Contributing to a health care system fix means coming up with ideas, not sitting back and criticizing other ideas. There's no challenge there.

People are rightfully fed up with our current system. I feel single-payer is the best fix available. I don't think you can refute that because you have no ideas except to perpetuate the same broken system we have. And you remember what I said about people doing the same wrong thing over and over, expecting a different result.

I think our country is going to see health care system changes, but people with no ideas can't be included in formulating the replacement. In that case, you'll just be along for the ride.

[Dan Conner]

I guess it depends on what the definition of "few" is. To me 70+ sellors is more than a "few" whether that number refers to Minnesota only, or is nationwide.

To repeat myself again, and again, and again, my basic outline for any health care program is that it include choice, quality, and is affordable. As I mentioned previously I am not convinced a single payer (one buyer) program can produce those three. I am not alone in that opinion. There are plenty of people, more learned in the subject than either you or me, who agree with me, just like there are people who agree with you.

In his recent post Howard outlined an experience he had with some Canadians on the subject of the Canadian health care system. Coincidently, yesterday I visited with a long time friend (conservative Democrat) who had just returned after wintering in Florida. He said there were a number of Canadian citizens who wintered in the same area; some liked the Canadian system, but many did not.

Obviously what you and/or me say about the issue, in itself, will have little to do with what change, if any, is actually is implimented. I understand what you want. I have tried to make what I want (and do not want) clear. Maybe it would be best for us to just agree to disagree rather than bantering our previously stated opinions back and forth.

There you go Bob. A truer statement you couldn't have made. You have made your three demands for health care. While you can deamnd all you want, the other 299,999,0999 will also have a voice. Heaven knows, I realize you feel single-payer won't fulfill your expectations. If it healed us all you would object. However, it doesn't make any difference that you and others feel what you do, unless you are in the majority, or you are able to thwart the will of the majority.

I find it amazing that all you can do is object to proposed plans, with no ideas to fix our very broken system. You like the system because you are serviced well, but then you don't care about those not served. So I guess it comes down to only caring about ourselves and to heck with the rest of the country. That's your plan. I have seen nothing else from you. Contributing to a health care system fix means coming up with ideas, not sitting back and criticizing other ideas. There's no challenge there.

People are rightfully fed up with our current system. I feel single-payer is the best fix available. I don't think you can refute that because you have no ideas except to perpetuate the same broken system we have. And you remember what I said about people doing the same wrong thing over and over, expecting a different result?

I think our country is going to see health care system changes, but people with no ideas can't be included in formulating the replacement. In that case, you'll just be along for the ride.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, at the end of my post #19 I tried to end our re-hashing the same old issues over and over again. I was not successful.

Your post #20 quoting my post #19 includes more misstatements of my positions and false assumptions about many of my preferences than I chose to respond to. But I will make just two brief comments. 1) I am not demanding anything; I have simply stated a basic outline I would prefer in any health care program. 2) Go ahead and send your comprehensive (if you have any), enlightened proposals for health care to whoever you like. Do not bother me with them; I have no authority to impliment them.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, at the end of my post #19 I tried to end our re-hashing the same old issues over and over again. I was not successful.

Your post #20 quoting my post #19 includes more misstatements of my positions and false assumptions about many of my preferences than I chose to respond to. But I will make just two brief comments. 1) I am not demanding anything; I have simply stated a basic outline I would prefer in any health care program. 2) Go ahead and send your comprehensive (if you have any), enlightened proposals for health care to whoever you like. Do not bother me with them; I have no authority to impliment them.

You requested three requirements for a health care system. Many can speculate whether you demanded or not, but here is what you said, "To repeat myself again, and again, and again, my basic outline for any health care program is that it include choice, quality, and is affordable." I can easily see how others could read what you said as demanding. I thought it was pretty demanding. However, you like to regress to semantics when you lack substance in your debate. Frankly, it is such a picayune issue, I'll let you waste your time on it. You never said "prefer", but I guess you now do. Maybe you should have said "prefer" on the original post. Thanks I will send my proposals on. Meanwhile, I'll let you bask in your negativity and broken status-quo.

Meanwhile, I won't bother you if you don't bother me with your diversions from the subject and personal attacks. However, I won't let your misinformation go when you publish it in a public forum. You are wrong far too often.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, it seems to me it is next to impossible for you to read anything I write literally. But that often happens when emotion overides logic.

Acting as caretaker for the Forum is a heavy load. There are about 39 other members available to correct others "errors". Moreover, it could result in unintended conseqences should, heaven forbid, you were ever wrong.

[Bob Jentges]

This thread has been inactive for close to six weeks, so as a reminder the title is "Paying for health care". I will limit my comments to the cost issue, based on some articles I read this morning.

Most are probably aware that the non-partisan CBO recently estimated the cost of the U.S. House plan would be about $1T over 10 years. Others have suggested it would be closer to $3T. Using a compromise figure of $1.6T the plan would cost $160B per year
($883.00 per month per subscriber) for the 10 years and still leave about 2/3 of the estimated 46 million claimed uninsured, without health insurance. The validity of the 46 million figure is open to debate, but that is a seperate issue.

[Dan Conner]

This thread has been inactive for close to six weeks, so as a reminder the title is "Paying for health care". I will limit my comments to the cost issue, based on some articles I read this morning.

Most are probably aware that the non-partisan CBO recently estimated the cost of the U.S. House plan would be about $1T over 10 years. Others have suggested it would be closer to $3T. Using a compromise figure of $1.6T the plan would cost $160B per year
($883.00 per month per subscriber) for the 10 years and still leave about 2/3 of the estimated 46 million claimed uninsured, without health insurance. The validity of the 46 million figure is open to debate, but that is a seperate issue.

Attached is an interesting Reuter's article today on healthcare. Too many can't afford healthcare, in addition to the uninsured. Another case for national healthcare. The growing unemployment is adding to the problem, but I suppose those happy with what they have would just as soon deny others coverage, so they can have theirs unchanged. If that's the case with too many people feeling that eway, our country is in deep s#$%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55L0C120090622?feedType=nl&feedName=ustopnewsearly

[Bob Jentges]

Attached is an interesting Reuter's article today on healthcare. Too many can't afford healthcare, in addition to the uninsured. Another case for national healthcare. The growing unemployment is adding to the problem, but I suppose those happy with what they have would just as soon deny others coverage, so they can have theirs unchanged. If that's the case with too many people feeling that eway, our country is in deep s#$%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55L0C120090622?feedType=nl&feedName=ustopnewsearly

I would not dispute that "about 25%" of housholds have difficulty in paying for "health care". It is not clear to me from the article whether that 25% has health insurance and their "difficulty" is in paying their monthly premiums, or if the "difficulty" relates to paying their deductable and co-payment after receiving medical treatment, or if they have no health insurance and the "difficulty" is in paying the provider direct. In any case, it would not surprise me if "about 25%" of households also have difficulty paying for other items in their monthly budgets such as rent, mortgage, utilitues, car, etc., etc., etc. I wish that was not the case and also wish there were a simple solution to the problem. However, since there does not appear to be a simple solution (ar least congress can't seem to find one) and there is no utopia on earth, we need to be realistic and keep things in perspective. There is not enough money to pay for all the things we would like.

Furthermore, I would expect that most of those that have health insurance now are paying significantly less for it than the $883.00 per month mentioned in my post #25. If those people had their monthly health insurance outlay increased by 50% or even 25% under the House Plan it would weem to follow that more than "about 25%" of households would have difficulty paying for health insurance/care.

[Dan Conner]

I would not dispute that "about 25%" of housholds have difficulty in paying for "health care". It is not clear to me from the article whether that 25% has health insurance and their "difficulty" is in paying their monthly premiums, or if the "difficulty" relates to paying their deductable and co-payment after receiving medical treatment, or if they have no health insurance and the "difficulty" is in paying the provider direct. In any case, it would not surprise me if "about 25%" of households also have difficulty paying for other items in their monthly budgets such as rent, mortgage, utilitues, car, etc., etc., etc. I wish that was not the case and also wish there were a simple solution to the problem. However, since there does not appear to be a simple solution (ar least congress can't seem to find one) and there is no utopia on earth, we need to be realistic and keep things in perspective. There is not enough money to pay for all the things we would like.

Furthermore, I would expect that most of those that have health insurance now are paying significantly less for it than the $883.00 per month mentioned in my post #25. If those people had their monthly health insurance outlay increased by 50% or even 25% under the House Plan it would weem to follow that more than "about 25%" of households would have difficulty paying for health insurance/care.

You're right, there is not enough to pay for all the things we want on earth. That's why I think we need to pay more to see that everyone gets the healthcare they need. It's a matter of priorities. We need to cut other things, but not healthcare. An example of just a couple would be to make sure people and corporations are paying income tax and not using "offshore tax havens" as a method to dodge taxes. It is estimated that the US misses out on over $100 billion a year in taxes from individuals alone and more from corporations.

Your $883.month in additional healthcare outlay is bogus. It doesn't consider the cost savings of the new system. Pharmaceuticals have already volunteered with $80 billion in drug cost savings. I realize you don't want to cover all people with healthcare, but I think it is necessary, even if you or me have to do without some frivolous items. I think you would feel the same? Afterall, isn't someone's life worth costing a little more?

[Bob Jentges]

You're right, there is not enough to pay for all the things we want on earth. That's why I think we need to pay more to see that everyone gets the healthcare they need. It's a matter of priorities. We need to cut other things, but not healthcare. An example of just a couple would be to make sure people and corporations are paying income tax and not using "offshore tax havens" as a method to dodge taxes. It is estimated that the US misses out on over $100 billion a year in taxes from individuals alone and more from corporations.

Your $883.month in additional healthcare outlay is bogus. It doesn't consider the cost savings of the new system. Pharmaceuticals have already volunteered with $80 billion in drug cost savings. I realize you don't want to cover all people with healthcare, but I think it is necessary, even if you or me have to do without some frivolous items. I think you would feel the same? Afterall, isn't someone's life worth costing a little more?

Since the evil "Big Pharma" has voulenteered $80B in savings (I thought I read that the insurance industry had made some concessions too) maybe President Obama and Democtats could convince the trial lawyers to agree to some type of tort reform that would reduce the amount of "defensive medicine" medical providers feel necessary to protect them against frivolous malpractice lawsuits. That would not only reduce patient medical expenses, it should significantly reduce the amount medical providers pay for malpractice insurance. If the involved parties i.e. drug companies, insurance companies, medical providers, lawyers, etc., would get together maybe the problem could be resolved without the need for a government run program.

I would prefer that we could find an effective, affordable way to "cover all people with health care", and if we do not rush to meet some July deadline but rather make an in depth study of all options, maybe we can. I think the government may have made too many colossal mistakes already, in the past eight months or so, by using the false claim that if we do not act immediatly terrible things will happen. In the meantime as the options are carefully explored, as I have said before and although you may not agree I will say again---having health insurance is not the equivelant of having access to health care. People in the USA have access to health care, and in some cases of serious illness that necessitate timely treatment, better access than those citizens of countries with government run health care.

I am not overly concerned about my having "to do without some frivolous items" so those who definatly can not afford health insurance have access to insurance. My worry is for those lower middle class families who are economically stretched thin now having to pay more to subsidize others health insurance coverage, let alone the burdon placed on future generations to pay for debt incurred by us now. You can tell me a government run health care system will reduce costs and increase coverage all you want, but I do not buy it. It runs against all principles of economics, let alone history.

Finally, in response to your final sentance, I do not know the monetary value of "someone's life". I spent a good deal of time during my working years trying to place a monetary value on "loss of society and companionship" in wrongful death claims. I was never confortable doing that, because the way I see it their is no monetary value to what a life means to family, friends, and society in general.

[Dan Conner]

Since the evil "Big Pharma" has voulenteered $80B in savings (I thought I read that the insurance industry had made some concessions too) maybe President Obama and Democtats could convince the trial lawyers to agree to some type of tort reform that would reduce the amount of "defensive medicine" medical providers feel necessary to protect them against frivolous malpractice lawsuits. That would not only reduce patient medical expenses, it should significantly reduce the amount medical providers pay for malpractice insurance. If the involved parties i.e. drug companies, insurance companies, medical providers, lawyers, etc., would get together maybe the problem could be resolved without the need for a government run program.

I would prefer that we could find an effective, affordable way to "cover all people with health care", and if we do not rush to meet some July deadline but rather make an in depth study of all options, maybe we can. I think the government may have made too many colossal mistakes already, in the past eight months or so, by using the false claim that if we do not act immediatly terrible things will happen. In the meantime as the options are carefully explored, as I have said before and although you may not agree I will say again---having health insurance is not the equivelant of having access to health care. People in the USA have access to health care, and in some cases of serious illness that necessitate timely treatment, better access than those citizens of countries with government run health care.

I am not overly concerned about my having "to do without some frivolous items" so those who definatly can not afford health insurance have access to insurance. My worry is for those lower middle class families who are economically stretched thin now having to pay more to subsidize others health insurance coverage, let alone the burdon placed on future generations to pay for debt incurred by us now. You can tell me a government run health care system will reduce costs and increase coverage all you want, but I do not buy it. It runs against all principles of economics, let alone history.

Finally, in response to your final sentance, I do not know the monetary value of "someone's life". I spent a good deal of time during my working years trying to place a monetary value on "loss of society and companionship" in wrongful death claims. I was never confortable doing that, because the way I see it their is no monetary value to what a life means to family, friends, and society in general.

All I can say to start is that I think you are wrong, wrong, wrong Bob... First, you're the man of small "g" who wants tort reform...Doesn't that fly in the face of your feelings the Federal Government needs to let business alone? I guess maybe you think big government is OK when it controls an industry you don't agree with. Frivolous malpractice suits? What are you referring too? Someone who had the wrong leg tgaken off, the wrong kidney removed, the wrong diagnosis that caused death, leaving various medical instruments inside of you after surgery? They're frivolous? Are you the judge of frivolous in medical suits? I would think most people are suing for something they feel is pretty serious. If they're not, then I'm sure a jury would find against them. I don't think you or I are the appropriate judge of medically frivolous lawsuits, just like you aren't a good judge of most any other lawsuit. That's what we have juries for.

Bob, medical providers, lawyers, and pharmaceuticals have had opportunities for decades to get together, but they haven't. While you are saying it, they still haven't gotten together. Maybe if you got an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters you could type all the greatest literary works in the world. Medical providers, lawyers, and pharmaceuticals have well blown their chance. Now, they and you just want more delay.

Then you speak with more confusion. You want an effective and affordable way to cover everyone with healthcare? I don't know why you have such a major concern about cost now. The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world and only mediocre, results, at best. Now you say you want affordable? To most people it is not affordable now. 62% of bankruptcies caused by healthcare bills, 50 million people with no health insurance, insurance premiums costing more than the taxes paid in many countries are not a ringing endorsement of the economy of our current healthcare costs. I think a major segment of people in the economy now, who have health insurance (most of the time partially subsidized by employers) are the blessed few among millions without.

Access? You say people without insurance have better access that other countries with national healthcare? You must be voting to legalize marijuana, because I think you're smoking the product now. Millions have and will die for lack of healthcare. They can't afford the access because they know they will be billed for the care, and they can't afford it. So they don't go and many times die prematurely. Others say heck with it, go for the treatment, and later file bankruptcy. I think you want to live in a polyannish world to believe the uninsured have better access than countries with national healthcare. Frankly, I think you conveniently made that one up.

Oh, you worrying about the Government acting too quickly. I guess you must be a guy who worries about the Government being too speedy with its decisiuons. The healthcare industry has had literally decades to work out effective healthcare. In 1993, Clinton sent an alarm, but the industry showed that its bloated profits could be used to derail national healthcare. What have they done since? Well, there has been rising costs in healthcare far outstripping cost of living. Millions are going broke because of it and others dying for lack of getting it, but you want still more time? Bob, I don't believe you will ever think there is enough time because you don't want to improve a system where you are satisfied. You say you "prefer we could find..." Doesn't that presuppose you are looking? I think it is reasonable for people to conclude you and the industry have had more than an adequate amount of time to look and find, but they, and you, have done neither.

While I detect you have some compassion for the "lower income" people in our country, I don't feel it is genuine. You say you want to save them from high health insurance? And you are concerned about passing off debt to future generations? Come on, that's not even logical. You are concerned so much about the "lower income" people that you propose to let them die so they won't have to saddled with high health insurance? Let them have that choice. I think they would opt for life. And debt? Who said there would be any debt? I guess you are thinking like Bush and Reagan - Government services without the taxes to pay for it. Our two great Federal debt mongers. Well Bob, I propose we give the universal health care and tax to pay for it. There will be no debt...it will be paid for. That's part of living in a society - services must be paid for. So, I propose the Government tax you and me to pay for universal health care. I think you'll find that paying taxes isn't so bad. I certainly don't like to pay insurance premiums to companies who pay their CEO $1.6 billion in one year. That's about the raping and pillaging of America.

You use the worn out fear about not believing Government can do it cheaper, when scads of countries do. And all the principals? What principals are you talking about...the fear of a commie-pinko behind every tree? I think you need to start to think logically and get off the emotional propaganda. And Bob, if you don't want to assess the value of a human life to friends and family, then don't. Give everyone the opportunity and wherewithall to live, if they want. Don't talk about your concern for the "lower income" when you want to make a decision for them to save them money. I think that's their call. I really think there is a little transference there.

[Bob Jentges]

All I can say to start is that I think you are wrong, wrong, wrong Bob... First, you're the man of small "g" who wants tort reform...Doesn't that fly in the face of your feelings the Federal Government needs to let business alone? I guess maybe you think big government is OK when it controls an industry you don't agree with. Frivolous malpractice suits? What are you referring too? Someone who had the wrong leg tgaken off, the wrong kidney removed, the wrong diagnosis that caused death, leaving various medical instruments inside of you after surgery? They're frivolous? Are you the judge of frivolous in medical suits? I would think most people are suing for something they feel is pretty serious. If they're not, then I'm sure a jury would find against them. I don't think you or I are the appropriate judge of medically frivolous lawsuits, just like you aren't a good judge of most any other lawsuit. That's what we have juries for.

Bob, medical providers, lawyers, and pharmaceuticals have had opportunities for decades to get together, but they haven't. While you are saying it, they still haven't gotten together. Maybe if you got an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters you could type all the greatest literary works in the world. Medical providers, lawyers, and pharmaceuticals have well blown their chance. Now, they and you just want more delay.

Then you speak with more confusion. You want an effective and affordable way to cover everyone with healthcare? I don't know why you have such a major concern about cost now. The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world and only mediocre, results, at best. Now you say you want affordable? To most people it is not affordable now. 62% of bankruptcies caused by healthcare bills, 50 million people with no health insurance, insurance premiums costing more than the taxes paid in many countries are not a ringing endorsement of the economy of our current healthcare costs. I think a major segment of people in the economy now, who have health insurance (most of the time partially subsidized by employers) are the blessed few among millions without.

Access? You say people without insurance have better access that other countries with national healthcare? You must be voting to legalize marijuana, because I think you're smoking the product now. Millions have and will die for lack of healthcare. They can't afford the access because they know they will be billed for the care, and they can't afford it. So they don't go and many times die prematurely. Others say heck with it, go for the treatment, and later file bankruptcy. I think you want to live in a polyannish world to believe the uninsured have better access than countries with national healthcare. Frankly, I think you conveniently made that one up.

Oh, you worrying about the Government acting too quickly. I guess you must be a guy who worries about the Government being too speedy with its decisiuons. The healthcare industry has had literally decades to work out effective healthcare. In 1993, Clinton sent an alarm, but the industry showed that its bloated profits could be used to derail national healthcare. What have they done since? Well, there has been rising costs in healthcare far outstripping cost of living. Millions are going broke because of it and others dying for lack of getting it, but you want still more time? Bob, I don't believe you will ever think there is enough time because you don't want to improve a system where you are satisfied. You say you "prefer we could find..." Doesn't that presuppose you are looking? I think it is reasonable for people to conclude you and the industry have had more than an adequate amount of time to look and find, but they, and you, have done neither.

While I detect you have some compassion for the "lower income" people in our country, I don't feel it is genuine. You say you want to save them from high health insurance? And you are concerned about passing off debt to future generations? Come on, that's not even logical. You are concerned so much about the "lower income" people that you propose to let them die so they won't have to saddled with high health insurance? Let them have that choice. I think they would opt for life. And debt? Who said there would be any debt? I guess you are thinking like Bush and Reagan - Government services without the taxes to pay for it. Our two great Federal debt mongers. Well Bob, I propose we give the universal health care and tax to pay for it. There will be no debt...it will be paid for. That's part of living in a society - services must be paid for. So, I propose the Government tax you and me to pay for universal health care. I think you'll find that paying taxes isn't so bad. I certainly don't like to pay insurance premiums to companies who pay their CEO $1.6 billion in one year. That's about the raping and pillaging of America.

You use the worn out fear about not believing Government can do it cheaper, when scads of countries do. And all the principals? What principals are you talking about...the fear of a commie-pinko behind every tree? I think you need to start to think logically and get off the emotional propaganda. And Bob, if you don't want to assess the value of a human life to friends and family, then don't. Give everyone the opportunity and wherewithall to live, if they want. Don't talk about your concern for the "lower income" when you want to make a decision for them to save them money. I think that's their call. I really think there is a little transference there.

The theme of this thread is how to devise a plan to reform (pay for) health care now, not to complain about what should have been done to control access, costs, etc., in the past. My point was it will take involvement by a number of different entities to achieve the goal, and that trial lawyers should not be excluded from contributing.

I know what a frivilous lawsuit is; I had experience in helping defend against some for years, as part of my job. I should not have to say this, but if someone files a lawsuit because "...they had the wrong leg taken off, the wrong kidney removed, the wrong diagnosis that caused death, leaving various medical instruments inside...after surgery", that is NOT a frivilous lawsuit.

I have some ideas about sensible tort reform and will mention a few of them: 1) Eliminate punitive damages. 2) Cap damage awards for pain and suffering. 3) Cap loss of society and companionship damage awards in wrongfull death claims. 4) Establish a "loser pays" attorney's fees system like Great Britian and many other countries have.

I consider the remaing rambling rants in your post to frivilous to wast time addressing!

[Dan Conner]

The theme of this thread is how to devise a plan to reform (pay for) health care now, not to complain about what should have been done to control access, costs, etc., in the past. My point was it will take involvement by a number of different entities to achieve the goal, and that trial lawyers should not be excluded from contributing.

I know what a frivilous lawsuit is; I had experience in helping defend against some for years, as part of my job. I should not have to say this, but if someone files a lawsuit because "...they had the wrong leg taken off, the wrong kidney removed, the wrong diagnosis that caused death, leaving various medical instruments inside...after surgery", that is NOT a frivilous lawsuit.

I have some ideas about sensible tort reform and will mention a few of them: 1) Eliminate punitive damages. 2) Cap damage awards for pain and suffering. 3) Cap loss of society and companionship damage awards in wrongfull death claims. 4) Establish a "loser pays" attorney's fees system like Great Britian and many other countries have.

I consider the remaing rambling rants in your post to frivilous to wast time addressing!

Bob, talk about rants. My "rambling rants" only answered your many impractical rambling rants. You make all sorts of statements and then deny you said them, and certainly don't defend them. You make no point. It seems to morph between responses. You claim to want to devise a plan and then you only complain about attorneys? Who is the complainer here? You need to come up with solutions, not ask lawyers to quit suing. Is that the limit of your problem solving?

Your statement that you want input from a number of entities is laughable. I guess you want the attorneys to all say they sue too much and that they need to do it for nothing. Get real here. Your solution is to complain (blame) attorneys for the gross problems with our healthcare system. Well, you are not realistic and you are dead wrong. Besides, national healthcare easily remedies the litigation problem about medicine. The government removes that as a condition of national single-payer implementation. Sorry, but you can't sue Uncle Sam when performing official duties. That would solve your tort issue. So, now what's your problem? Then you propose that they contribute no punitive damages, cap damage awards, and adopt loser pay. Well, if you think lawyers will contribute that, then I've got some swampland for you.

I am greatly surprised that one, claiming such legal experience and accumen, is so unaware. We have juries that make decisions of fault and award damages. I hate to say it, but it is way over your paygrade to assume those duties. That also conflicts with that document you selectively tout, called the US Constitution.

Bob, you only responded, ineffectively I feel, to one small element of your significant rant about delaying any fix for our healthcare system. I think you need to start coming up with suggestions instead of complaints. Meanwhile, I hope the President presses full-steam ahead.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, talk about rants. My "rambling rants" only answered your many impractical rambling rants. You make all sorts of statements and then deny you said them, and certainly don't defend them. You make no point. It seems to morph between responses. You claim to want to devise a plan and then you only complain about attorneys? Who is the complainer here? You need to come up with solutions, not ask lawyers to quit suing. Is that the limit of your problem solving?

Your statement that you want input from a number of entities is laughable. I guess you want the attorneys to all say they sue too much and that they need to do it for nothing. Get real here. Your solution is to complain (blame) attorneys for the gross problems with our healthcare system. Well, you are not realistic and you are dead wrong. Besides, national healthcare easily remedies the litigation problem about medicine. The government removes that as a condition of national single-payer implementation. Sorry, but you can't sue Uncle Sam when performing official duties. That would solve your tort issue. So, now what's your problem? Then you propose that they contribute no punitive damages, cap damage awards, and adopt loser pay. Well, if you think lawyers will contribute that, then I've got some swampland for you.

I am greatly surprised that one, claiming such legal experience and accumen, is so unaware. We have juries that make decisions of fault and award damages. I hate to say it, but it is way over your paygrade to assume those duties. That also conflicts with that document you selectively tout, called the US Constitution.

Bob, you only responded, ineffectively I feel, to one small element of your significant rant about delaying any fix for our healthcare system. I think you need to start coming up with suggestions instead of complaints. Meanwhile, I hope the President presses full-steam ahead.

If you think my post #31 was a rant you might check-out the definition of "rant". Likewise, if you think the four concise paragraphs in my post #31 was rambling you might check-out the definition of "rambling". Next, if you still think I mischaractized your post #30 as a "rambling rant" you might want to re-read your post.

After reading mostly well organized, logical correspondence from lawyers, judges, doctors, etc., during my working years I find it difficult to follow much of what you write. Having said that I will attempt to sort-out and respond to some of the things in your post #32.

---If you can cite specific examples of me making "...all sorts of statements and then deny [I] said them, please do.

---A "national single payer" program is not presently part of the plans being devised by either the U.S. House or Senate, as I understand them. Even if it were, it is not logical for you to even imply that trial lawyers would go along with a program where a medical provider i.e. doctor, nurse, hospital, etc., could not be sued for malpractice. I understand the Federal Tort Claims Act would not permit the government to be a defendant in the malpractice suit in the situation you describe; the defendants in the malpractice suit would be doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc.

---I did not say I expected trial lawyers would agree to all or any of the "ideas about sensible tort reform" suggested in my post #3. They probably will not, unless strongly urged (forced) to by President Obama or the Democrat controlled Congress. That is unlikely because the trial lawyers are one of the largest political contributors to the Democrat Party.

---I do not understand how you think my suggesting we need input from a number of entities as we try to resolve the issue "is laughable".

---Paragraph three in your post is even more confusing to me than most of what you say. Obviously I understand that juries "...make decisions of fault and damages". But very few cases actually get to trial. The overwhelming majority are dismissed or settled before trial. My former job involved being one of the participants to help decide which cases needed to be tried to a conclusion, from the standpoint of who our company insured. How you could think that would "conflict" with the "U.S. Constitution" is beyond me.

My "ideas about sensible tort reform" was indeed "only one small element" in reforming health care. It was somewhat specific. If you do not think trial lawyers should participate with some concessions to help resolve the cost of health care, so be it. I have offerred more general ideas in previous posts in this and other related threads. I try to avoid repeating what I have said in previous posts any more than absolutly necessary, which I find very difficult when dealing with you.

[Dan Conner]

If you think my post #31 was a rant you might check-out the definition of "rant". Likewise, if you think the four concise paragraphs in my post #31 was rambling you might check-out the definition of "rambling". Next, if you still think I mischaractized your post #30 as a "rambling rant" you might want to re-read your post.

After reading mostly well organized, logical correspondence from lawyers, judges, doctors, etc., during my working years I find it difficult to follow much of what you write. Having said that I will attempt to sort-out and respond to some of the things in your post #32.

---If you can cite specific examples of me making "...all sorts of statements and then deny [I] said them, please do.

---A "national single payer" program is not presently part of the plans being devised by either the U.S. House or Senate, as I understand them. Even if it were, it is not logical for you to even imply that trial lawyers would go along with a program where a medical provider i.e. doctor, nurse, hospital, etc., could not be sued for malpractice. I understand the Federal Tort Claims Act would not permit the government to be a defendant in the malpractice suit in the situation you describe; the defendants in the malpractice suit would be doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc.

---I did not say I expected trial lawyers would agree to all or any of the "ideas about sensible tort reform" suggested in my post #3. They probably will not, unless strongly urged (forced) to by President Obama or the Democrat controlled Congress. That is unlikely because the trial lawyers are one of the largest political contributors to the Democrat Party.

---I do not understand how you think my suggesting we need input from a number of entities as we try to resolve the issue "is laughable".

---Paragraph three in your post is even more confusing to me than most of what you say. Obviously I understand that juries "...make decisions of fault and damages". But very few cases actually get to trial. The overwhelming majority are dismissed or settled before trial. My former job involved being one of the participants to help decide which cases needed to be tried to a conclusion, from the standpoint of who our company insured. How you could think that would "conflict" with the "U.S. Constitution" is beyond me.

My "ideas about sensible tort reform" was indeed "only one small element" in reforming health care. It was somewhat specific. If you do not think trial lawyers should participate with some concessions to help resolve the cost of health care, so be it. I have offerred more general ideas in previous posts in this and other related threads. I try to avoid repeating what I have said in previous posts any more than absolutly necessary, which I find very difficult when dealing with you.

Bob, I don't think you can distinguish or define a rant. You're just too close to the forest on that one.

I'm glad that you finally respond to some of your rants two posts later. Anyone can keep responses short when you don't say anything.

Well, now you admit lawyers wouldn't go along with limiting litigation. Brilliant! You already retracted one of your inane remarks. You wanted lawyers to go along with tort reform to limit suits---pretty foolish. I thought you know about the law, but you continue to surprise me with your lack of knowledge. In a national single-payer system, doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. are employee of the US Government. As such, they are covered as any other Federal employee in the performance of their duty. The Federal Government can't be sued and the Federal government would either represent the doctor or lawyer or stipulate to the court that the doctor, nurse, or whatever are not subject to suit and that the US Government is the proper defendent. That brings you back to the government can't be sued. As employees they are imune from suits when performing Government duties. I'm surprised you don't know this. However, there is a startling amount of law you don't seem to know.

You want lawyers to agree to reduced rights of litigation, but I haven't heard a word about you wanting to limit insurance fees or prescription drug fees. Your true colors are showing. Besides, you still haven't addressed your hypocritical stand about wanting the Government (Obama) to "persuade" (coerce) lawyers to limit suits. I thought you were a free enterprise person? I think it's more like gore other people's oxes, not yours. And now you criticize lawyer contributions to Democrats? However, you forget about the millions the AMA, health insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies give to Republicans. I suggest you avoid hypocrisy.

You have already reversed yourself again. You said you didn't expect attorneys to go along with your repforms, but that is what you suggested they "contribute" to healthcare reform. Please be consistent and not so contradictory. What's is laughable is what you wanted parties to contribute. It's Alice and Wonderland like. You suggested input came only from attorneys. Nothing else. That's why I criticized your limited suggestions before, but ahhhh, you forget.

Bob, you made all sorts of decisions about what was frivolous or not. That was not your job. I never thought I would have to school you on the law, but there are always two sides in every case. You might have decided about whether an insurance company would go to court (and make out-of-court settlement), but the plaintiffs can still drag your company into court if they want, but then I thought you would know that. It takes both sides to decide on an out-of-court decision, not just the all-knowing omniscient Bob. Besides without cases to be settled, you would have been without a job.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, I don't think you can distinguish or define a rant. You're just too close to the forest on that one.

I'm glad that you finally respond to some of your rants two posts later. Anyone can keep responses short when you don't say anything.

Well, now you admit lawyers wouldn't go along with limiting litigation. Brilliant! You already retracted one of your inane remarks. You wanted lawyers to go along with tort reform to limit suits---pretty foolish. I thought you know about the law, but you continue to surprise me with your lack of knowledge. In a national single-payer system, doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. are employee of the US Government. As such, they are covered as any other Federal employee in the performance of their duty. The Federal Government can't be sued and the Federal government would either represent the doctor or lawyer or stipulate to the court that the doctor, nurse, or whatever are not subject to suit and that the US Government is the proper defendent. That brings you back to the government can't be sued. As employees they are imune from suits when performing Government duties. I'm surprised you don't know this. However, there is a startling amount of law you don't seem to know.

You want lawyers to agree to reduced rights of litigation, but I haven't heard a word about you wanting to limit insurance fees or prescription drug fees. Your true colors are showing. Besides, you still haven't addressed your hypocritical stand about wanting the Government (Obama) to "persuade" (coerce) lawyers to limit suits. I thought you were a free enterprise person? I think it's more like gore other people's oxes, not yours. And now you criticize lawyer contributions to Democrats? However, you forget about the millions the AMA, health insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies give to Republicans. I suggest you avoid hypocrisy.

You have already reversed yourself again. You said you didn't expect attorneys to go along with your repforms, but that is what you suggested they "contribute" to healthcare reform. Please be consistent and not so contradictory. What's is laughable is what you wanted parties to contribute. It's Alice and Wonderland like. You suggested input came only from attorneys. Nothing else. That's why I criticized your limited suggestions before, but ahhhh, you forget.

Bob, you made all sorts of decisions about what was frivolous or not. That was not your job. I never thought I would have to school you on the law, but there are always two sides in every case. You might have decided about whether an insurance company would go to court (and make out-of-court settlement), but the plaintiffs can still drag your company into court if they want, but then I thought you would know that. It takes both sides to decide on an out-of-court decision, not just the all-knowing omniscient Bob. Besides without cases to be settled, you would have been without a job.

It has been obvious to me for a long time, and it should be obvious to any person of sound mind that reads exchanges between you and me, that it is next to impossible to carry on a reasoned discussion with you on most political issues. We have very differrent ideologies and I doubt either of us will change ideologies soon. Therefore, in order not to frustrate myself any further let me try to bow out with just a few concluding comments relating to your last post.

To reinforce my belief that I am able to "...distingusih or define a rant" I went to the Oxford Concise English Dictionary. It defines "rant" to include: bombastic language; vehemently or wildly; a tirade".

I do not care who trial lawyers make political contributions to; that is up to them. The reason I mentioned they were large Democrat Party contributors was because the issue we were discussing was tort reform and President Obama and the Democrat congress' position on tort reform.

If as you suggest, "In a national single payer system, doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc....are employees of the U.S. Government...and not subject to suit...in the performance of their duty..." tort reform would not be an issue in health care reform, and someone should tell doctors, nurses, hospitals, President Obama, the U.S. Congress, and certainly the trial lawyers that is the case.

Mixed in throughout your post is the implication that in tort liability suits injured plaintiffs sue the insurance company of the person or entity they claim caused their injury or damage. At the time of my retirement 10 years ago their were only two states (WI & LA) that had Direct Action Statutes with respect to tort liability cases i.e a law that allows an injured plaintiff to sue the insurance company of an alledged wrongdoer direct. All other states required the injured plaintiff sue the person or entity they were claiming injured or damaged them; the insurance company is not named as a party to the lawsuit. In fact, it is against the rules of civil procedure to mention the name of the insurance company in the courtroom, in the presence of the jury.

I agree "It takes both sides to decide on an out of court [settlement]" but since, as the late great Steve Cannon used to say "I got the money", I always felt I might have at least as much influence on which cases were tried to a conclusion as the other parties had. When it appeared settlement negociations reached an impass and we decided trial was the only way to resolve the suit, my philosophy was I would rather be right half the time than half right all the time. As fate would have it, if my memory serves me correct, I was right over 90% of the time in those trials.

But insureds can sue their insurer direct for Breach of Contract (usually on issues like a claim for wrongful denial of coverage) and name the company in the Summons And Complaint. But that is contract law, not tort law. I was familiar with those type suits too. Those suits seldom were negociable; there was either coverage or there was no coverage. After a careful assessment of the true facts of the event in question, and making every attempt to find coverage under the policy contract based on those facts, as fate would have it we never lost one in trial.

For someone you claim is/was as ignorant of tort liability law and insurance contract law, I consider those success ratio's quite good. But if you want to credit it to luck, that's OK with me.

You can continue to belittle my knowledge of tort law and try to "school [me] on the law" if you want, but I choose to pay no attention to your insults and/or schooling because, your purported knowledge flies in the face of almost everything I learned about tort law from capable lawyers (both defense & plaintiff) as well as learned judges, during 32+ years of working in the trenches and in the management of tort liability cases.

It was necessary for my post to drift off thread to respont to you, but I felt it necessary. I am tired of turning the other cheek. I am also tired of this post!

[Dan Conner]

It has been obvious to me for a long time, and it should be obvious to any person of sound mind that reads exchanges between you and me, that it is next to impossible to carry on a reasoned discussion with you on most political issues. We have very differrent ideologies and I doubt either of us will change ideologies soon. Therefore, in order not to frustrate myself any further let me try to bow out with just a few concluding comments relating to your last post.

To reinforce my belief that I am able to "...distingusih or define a rant" I went to the Oxford Concise English Dictionary. It defines "rant" to include: bombastic language; vehemently or wildly; a tirade".

I do not care who trial lawyers make political contributions to; that is up to them. The reason I mentioned they were large Democrat Party contributors was because the issue we were discussing was tort reform and President Obama and the Democrat congress' position on tort reform.

If as you suggest, "In a national single payer system, doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc....are employees of the U.S. Government...and not subject to suit...in the performance of their duty..." tort reform would not be an issue in health care reform, and someone should tell doctors, nurses, hospitals, President Obama, the U.S. Congress, and certainly the trial lawyers that is the case.

Mixed in throughout your post is the implication that in tort liability suits injured plaintiffs sue the insurance company of the person or entity they claim caused their injury or damage. At the time of my retirement 10 years ago their were only two states (WI & LA) that had Direct Action Statutes with respect to tort liability cases i.e a law that allows an injured plaintiff to sue the insurance company of an alledged wrongdoer direct. All other states required the injured plaintiff sue the person or entity they were claiming injured or damaged them; the insurance company is not named as a party to the lawsuit. In fact, it is against the rules of civil procedure to mention the name of the insurance company in the courtroom, in the presence of the jury.

I agree "It takes both sides to decide on an out of court [settlement]" but since, as the late great Steve Cannon used to say "I got the money", I always felt I might have at least as much influence on which cases were tried to a conclusion as the other parties had. When it appeared settlement negociations reached an impass and we decided trial was the only way to resolve the suit, my philosophy was I would rather be right half the time than half right all the time. As fate would have it, if my memory serves me correct, I was right over 90% of the time in those trials.

But insureds can sue their insurer direct for Breach of Contract (usually on issues like a claim for wrongful denial of coverage) and name the company in the Summons And Complaint. But that is contract law, not tort law. I was familiar with those type suits too. Those suits seldom were negociable; there was either coverage or there was no coverage. After a careful assessment of the true facts of the event in question, and making every attempt to find coverage under the policy contract based on those facts, as fate would have it we never lost one in trial.

For someone you claim is/was as ignorant of tort liability law and insurance contract law, I consider those success ratio's quite good. But if you want to credit it to luck, that's OK with me.

You can continue to belittle my knowledge of tort law and try to "school [me] on the law" if you want, but I choose to pay no attention to your insults and/or schooling because, your purported knowledge flies in the face of almost everything I learned about tort law from capable lawyers (both defense & plaintiff) as well as learned judges, during 32+ years of working in the trenches and in the management of tort liability cases.

It was necessary for my post to drift off thread to respont to you, but I felt it necessary. I am tired of turning the other cheek. I am also tired of this post!

I am surprised at your limited comprehension. Insurance companies represent doctors (the insured) in malpractice suits and decide if it is to be pursued in court. While the doctor is sued, it is the insurance company that handles prosecution of the case. It is the insurance company lawyers the go to court, if necessary. Or, the insurnace company contracts private attorneys to represent them I thought you would know that. Oh well.

And talk about a tirade and rant. Your whole post is such. Right 90% of the time? I'm glad you were only involved with possible lawsuits and not a doctor. 90% don't cut it there.

Bob, I tire of you too. When a reasoned discussion starts with an exchange of ideas, you chosse to describe it as a rant. I suggest you evaluate your coherency before you make such demeaning remarks. If you dish it out, make sure you can take it.

[Dan Conner]

As I converse with others on this website I am struck by the lofty and sympathetic words of ones who say they really care about people and their plights, but when asked about accepting higher taxes to help them, they refuse and offer the excuse that we must wait and not act hastily. Then, they devote their posts railing against taxes and suggesting the "lower income" people have enough and probably get better medical care than in countries with universal health care. All of the reservations about healthcare revolve around cost.

I think one would have to be very shallow and gullible to believe these people really care about their fellow man. I guess they are able to attribute a cost to a human life, even though I can't. I thought that saving a human life is something that is without a value, unless it means costing more lives.

Today, the importance of money has transcended everything, including life. People believe it is more important than the life of another. However, the idiotic hypocrisy of it all is that many of those same people believe that no expense should be spared at saving their life.

Our country is confronted with a failed healthcare system, underserving some and completely failing others, with some in the public who don't care enough to pay a few extra taxes to save lives of those underserved or not served at all. Oh, they argue that they care about others, but when actions are evaluated alongside their words, it is obvious they care only about their money and not the needless and untimely death of others.

I think those that want to deny fellow Americans healthcare because they don't want to fund it, need to more objectively evaluate themselves and what they truly believe is important in life. How can we be a country without caring for each other. It will be "chicken hawks" who readily beat the drums of war as long as others have to fight and die. It's not wanting to pay anything to help others. Yet they talk as if it is "WE." Unfortunately, it is not about a country, nor about "we." Instead, it is only about me, me, me. That is not enduring quality for a country. No where is selfishness touted as an American value.

[Bob Jentges]

I am surprised at your limited comprehension. Insurance companies represent doctors (the insured) in malpractice suits and decide if it is to be pursued in court. While the doctor is sued, it is the insurance company that handles prosecution of the case. It is the insurance company lawyers the go to court, if necessary. Or, the insurnace company contracts private attorneys to represent them I thought you would know that. Oh well.

And talk about a tirade and rant. Your whole post is such. Right 90% of the time? I'm glad you were only involved with possible lawsuits and not a doctor. 90% don't cut it there.

Bob, I tire of you too. When a reasoned discussion starts with an exchange of ideas, you chosse to describe it as a rant. I suggest you evaluate your coherency before you make such demeaning remarks. If you dish it out, make sure you can take it.

Nice dodge!

If you think I did not understand the simple process you tried (unsuccessfully) to put forth after reading my previous posts in this thread, especally post #35, their is little hope I can get through to you. But in an attempt to sum-up the brief tort liability tutorial I will add this simple but critical clarification in connection with the first paragraph in your post.
---When an insured doctor is sued for medical malpractice his/her insurance
company does not handle the "prosecution of the case". The insurance
company, usually in consultation with the insured, selects a lawyer to
DEFEND the insured and reimburses the lawyer for reasonable defense
costs, and also indemnifies the insured for damages assessed against
him/her, up to the policy limit of coverage.

I respect medical doctors. I hope and think they are right in their diagnosis and treatment more than 90% of the time. But for a guy that just a few posts back ranted on about the wrong leg, the wrong kidney, etc., I wonder if you hold the same respect and confidence in their capabilities.

[Dan Conner]

Nice dodge!

If you think I did not understand the simple process you tried (unsuccessfully) to put forth after reading my previous posts in this thread, especally post #35, their is little hope I can get through to you. But in an attempt to sum-up the brief tort liability tutorial I will add this simple but critical clarification in connection with the first paragraph in your post.
---When an insured doctor is sued for medical malpractice his/her insurance
company does not handle the "prosecution of the case". The insurance
company, usually in consultation with the insured, selects a lawyer to
DEFEND the insured and reimburses the lawyer for reasonable defense
costs, and also indemnifies the insured for damages assessed against
him/her, up to the policy limit of coverage.

I respect medical doctors. I hope and think they are right in their diagnosis and treatment more than 90% of the time. But for a guy that just a few posts back ranted on about the wrong leg, the wrong kidney, etc., I wonder if you hold the same respect and confidence in their capabilities.

Well, Mr. know-it-all, my uncle is a surgeon. I am very familiar with a malpractice suit (frivolous, as you would call it). The insurance company lawyers were used, along with other doctors, used as expert witnesses. The case went to court, contrary to what the insurance company wanted. The plantiffs in this matter wanted to litigate the issue (contrary to you omnipotent view of yourself). Then, other than serving as a witness and testifying, at length, about the surgical procedure, he was uninvolved.

My uncle was not involved, in any way, selecting the attorney. He is not an expert in that area. Since the case involved several million dollars, the insurance company selected a very prominent and expensive attorney. I'm sure the insurance company would have consulted with my uncle in selection of the attorney, but the insurnace company had the expertise here, not a surgeon. My uncle made it clear to me that the unsurance company selected the attorney, particularly with the large sum of money involved. He also explained that since the insurnace company would be liable for a very large sum of money, should the plaintiff win, that they have authority to select the attorney, otherwise there were implications for him. The insurance company did not want to lose this large case. While you get very hung up on my semantics, you need to look more closely at your own misstatements, perceptions, and tone - you are wrong again.

Also, the jury found my uncle without any fault in the surgery and did not award the plaintiff anything. I guess that was a case the jury found it to be frivolous. Thank goodness not you.

Again, I think you need to research issues more before you make flat-out paranoid generalized statements. By the way, I don't dodge. I've left that to you. That is an area in which you succeed. Take for example posts #35 and #36. You seem to care about others until it involves money. Then, people are on their own.

[Bob Jentges]

Well, Mr. know-it-all, my uncle is a surgeon. I am very familiar with a malpractice suit (frivolous, as you would call it). The insurance company lawyers were used, along with other doctors, used as expert witnesses. The case went to court, contrary to what the insurance company wanted. The plantiffs in this matter wanted to litigate the issue (contrary to you omnipotent view of yourself). Then, other than serving as a witness and testifying, at length, about the surgical procedure, he was uninvolved.

My uncle was not involved, in any way, selecting the attorney. He is not an expert in that area. Since the case involved several million dollars, the insurance company selected a very prominent and expensive attorney. I'm sure the insurance company would have consulted with my uncle in selection of the attorney, but the insurnace company had the expertise here, not a surgeon. My uncle made it clear to me that the unsurance company selected the attorney, particularly with the large sum of money involved. He also explained that since the insurnace company would be liable for a very large sum of money, should the plaintiff win, that they have authority to select the attorney, otherwise there were implications for him. The insurance company did not want to lose this large case. While you get very hung up on my semantics, you need to look more closely at your own misstatements, perceptions, and tone - you are wrong again.

Also, the jury found my uncle without any fault in the surgery and did not award the plaintiff anything. I guess that was a case the jury found it to be frivolous. Thank goodness not you.

Again, I think you need to research issues more before you make flat-out paranoid generalized statements. By the way, I don't dodge. I've left that to you. That is an area in which you succeed. Take for example posts #35 and #36. You seem to care about others until it involves money. Then, people are on their own.

I do not "know-it-all" and never claimed I did. But I do know what I know, and unlike some also know what I do not know.

Your not understanding the difference between prosecuting a lawsuit and defending a lawsuit is beyond "sematics".

What I said about selecting a defense attorney was: "The insurance company, USUALLY in consultation with the insured, selects a lawyer..." (MY EMPHASIS).

There are distinct differences between frivolous suits, suits with doubtful liability, suits with possible liability, suits with probable liability, suits with strict liability, and suits with no liability. Based soley on the senerio you gave this would not appear to have been a frivolous suit because if it was, the defense would most certainly have made a motion to dismiss and if the presiding judge agreed he/she would would have dismissed the suit prior to trial.

You indicate the insurance company did not want to "go to court", which suggests to me they viewed the suit as one of at least probable liability. You further indicate the plaintiff wanted "to litigate", which suggests to me they viewed the suit as one of at least possible liability. You do not say if any settlement offers were made, but if the insurance company did not want to go to court I can only assume some were, but not large enough to convince the plaintif to settle rather than proceed to trial.

If after trial the jury found your uncle "without any fault" and awarded the plaintiff nothing, my conclusion would be that both the insurance company and the plaintiff analyzed the case incorrectly. That happens!

[Dan Conner]

I do not "know-it-all" and never claimed I did. But I do know what I know, and unlike some also know what I do not know.

Your not understanding the difference between prosecuting a lawsuit and defending a lawsuit is beyond "sematics".

What I said about selecting a defense attorney was: "The insurance company, USUALLY in consultation with the insured, selects a lawyer..." (MY EMPHASIS).

There are distinct differences between frivolous suits, suits with doubtful liability, suits with possible liability, suits with probable liability, suits with strict liability, and suits with no liability. Based soley on the senerio you gave this would not appear to have been a frivolous suit because if it was, the defense would most certainly have made a motion to dismiss and if the presiding judge agreed he/she would would have dismissed the suit prior to trial.

You indicate the insurance company did not want to "go to court", which suggests to me they viewed the suit as one of at least probable liability. You further indicate the plaintiff wanted "to litigate", which suggests to me they viewed the suit as one of at least possible liability. You do not say if any settlement offers were made, but if the insurance company did not want to go to court I can only assume some were, but not large enough to convince the plaintif to settle rather than proceed to trial.

If after trial the jury found your uncle "without any fault" and awarded the plaintiff nothing, my conclusion would be that both the insurance company and the plaintiff analyzed the case incorrectly. That happens!

I am surprised by your ignorance. I suggest you research the meaning of "prosecute". A definitiuon of the term is:

a. to institute legal proceedings against (a person).
b. to seek to enforce or obtain by legal process

That is what I meant. I never used the term "defend a lawsuit". That is your fabrication. Once again your imagination is vivid. You have a tendency to let your proclivity to find fault, to imagine something you think someone said. If you are going to critique a word or comment, I suggest you accurately read what was said. That's not a sign of a very good litigator.

Well, I'm glad you corrected yourself about attorney selection. Even though you were wrong on the prior post, it was good that your clarified what you said.

I don't choose to follow your rambling "show-and tell" desciption of frivolous and and your quasi-legal jargon. First, I don't put much stock in your legal analysis. The judge not only accepted the jury's decision, but stipulated that court costs would be the responsibility of the plaintiff because they brought a case with no merit (frivolous). The judge even entertained a countersuit for lost pay for my uncle, during the court proceedings, to compensate for lost time. I would say that was pretty frivolous.

Bob, I suggest you listen to all the evidence before you so quickly shoot from the hip. Your tendency to prejudge with questionable accruacy is worrisome. I suggest you avoid using "frivolous" as much as possible, since you have now proven you are not a very good judge of it.

Again, without knowing anything about the case, you readily interjected your worthless assessments of the situation. I thought I laid the case out prettty well for you earlier, but I guess not. The plaintiff insisted on pursuing the case to court making a ridiculously high monetary request. The insurance company would have settled for a reasonable amount, to avoid trial, but the plaintiff's demands were not reasonable. Consequently, they went ot court, but they lost bigtime. The plaintiff's attorney was admonished by the court for wasting the court's (and my uncle's) time.

I would appreciate it if you kept your meaningless assessments to yourself because they seem to have little relevance or accuracy. Again, you have shown that you were too quick to judge inaccurately and without all the facts. Obviously, you were best suited to partisanship in a legal proceeding, since you don't seem particularly accurate objective decision. I think you need to stick to the facts and drop you assessment/analysis. So far you are betting .000.

[Bob Jentges]

I am surprised by your ignorance. I suggest you research the meaning of "prosecute". A definitiuon of the term is:

a. to institute legal proceedings against (a person).
b. to seek to enforce or obtain by legal process

That is what I meant. I never used the term "defend a lawsuit". That is your fabrication. Once again your imagination is vivid. You have a tendency to let your proclivity to find fault, to imagine something you think someone said. If you are going to critique a word or comment, I suggest you accurately read what was said. That's not a sign of a very good litigator.

Well, I'm glad you corrected yourself about attorney selection. Even though you were wrong on the prior post, it was good that your clarified what you said.

I don't choose to follow your rambling "show-and tell" desciption of frivolous and and your quasi-legal jargon. First, I don't put much stock in your legal analysis. The judge not only accepted the jury's decision, but stipulated that court costs would be the responsibility of the plaintiff because they brought a case with no merit (frivolous). The judge even entertained a countersuit for lost pay for my uncle, during the court proceedings, to compensate for lost time. I would say that was pretty frivolous.

Bob, I suggest you listen to all the evidence before you so quickly shoot from the hip. Your tendency to prejudge with questionable accruacy is worrisome. I suggest you avoid using "frivolous" as much as possible, since you have now proven you are not a very good judge of it.

Again, without knowing anything about the case, you readily interjected your worthless assessments of the situation. I thought I laid the case out prettty well for you earlier, but I guess not. The plaintiff insisted on pursuing the case to court making a ridiculously high monetary request. The insurance company would have settled for a reasonable amount, to avoid trial, but the plaintiff's demands were not reasonable. Consequently, they went ot court, but they lost bigtime. The plaintiff's attorney was admonished by the court for wasting the court's (and my uncle's) time.

I would appreciate it if you kept your meaningless assessments to yourself because they seem to have little relevance or accuracy. Again, you have shown that you were too quick to judge inaccurately and without all the facts. Obviously, you were best suited to partisanship in a legal proceeding, since you don't seem particularly accurate objective decision. I think you need to stick to the facts and drop you assessment/analysis. So far you are betting .000.

This is getting to be more fun for me with each post you make!

A defendant in a civil suit (which is what your uncle was) does not "institute legal proceedings against (a person)"; or "seek to enforce or obtain by legal process". That is what a plaintiff in a civil suit does/tries to do.

I did not "correct myself" about attorney selection. My origional statement included the word "usually", and I emphasized the word "USUALLY" when I quoted my origional statement in my follow-up reply post to you.

My initial analysis of the case was based on the sketchy facts you gave me to work with. What I said in my analysis based on those sketchy facts was: "You do not say if any settlement offers were made, but if the insurance company did not want to go to court I assume some were, but not large enough to convince the plaintiff to settle...". That is almost completly on point with your later saying: "The insurance company would have settled but the plaintiff's demands were not reasonable."

To top-off the lunacy you accuse me of showing: "...partisianship in a legal proceeding...". For heaven sakes---a lawsuit is an adversarial proceeding! Participants, except for the judge, and those representing the participants are not doing their jobs if they do not promote their own position over that of their advisary. Pending lawsuits are not about peace and brotherhood; that comes after the suit is resolved in favor of one side or the other.

It has been said: "When...stop digging". If you want to put an end to my enjoyment in this post, stop digging!

[Dan Conner]

This is getting to be more fun for me with each post you make!

A defendant in a civil suit (which is what your uncle was) does not "institute legal proceedings against (a person)"; or "seek to enforce or obtain by legal process". That is what a plaintiff in a civil suit does/tries to do.

I did not "correct myself" about attorney selection. My origional statement included the word "usually", and I emphasized the word "USUALLY" when I quoted my origional statement in my follow-up reply post to you.

My initial analysis of the case was based on the sketchy facts you gave me to work with. What I said in my analysis based on those sketchy facts was: "You do not say if any settlement offers were made, but if the insurance company did not want to go to court I assume some were, but not large enough to convince the plaintiff to settle...". That is almost completly on point with your later saying: "The insurance company would have settled but the plaintiff's demands were not reasonable."

To top-off the lunacy you accuse me of showing: "...partisianship in a legal proceeding...". For heaven sakes---a lawsuit is an adversarial proceeding! Participants, except for the judge, and those representing the participants are not doing their jobs if they do not promote their own position over that of their advisary. Pending lawsuits are not about peace and brotherhood; that comes after the suit is resolved in favor of one side or the other.

It has been said: "When...stop digging". If you want to put an end to my enjoyment in this post, stop digging!

Man-o-man...now you are trying to split hairs! Plus, you are wrong! Look at B. You are trying to use a very childish retort quibbling over the meaning of a word....and you are wrong. However, I will let it be as a difference of opinion (even though your opinion is wrong). It's amazing how you try to obfuscate your lack of caring by quibbling over words. You have diverted an arguement from healthcare to your lay opinion of the law....or are you a JD?

Everything still stands about you feeling bad for people in a tragic circiumstance, but not doing anything to help them out of the dilemma. You have already said you are happy with your health insurance coverage, but you don't want to pay anything more to help cover those either with no insurance or underinsured.

You sure did correct yourself about the attorney. You went from saying the insurance company doesn't select and attorney and the doctor did. Now you say "USUALLY." Come on Bob, even I could have your lunch in court. You render decisions without adequately researching the case. That's a problem when preparing for court. Not to mention inadequate research.

You said your opinion was based on "sketchy" evidence? Is that the way you operate? You quickly make opinions and decisions without all the facts. You must be a real treat when and if you ever depose anyone. It's laughable that you just told me you offered an opinion based on "sketchy" evidence. My first response would be, "Why are you making a judgement without getting all the evidence?" That is exceedingly poor legal work and not very good in this forum either. It's amazing how I can feed you incomplete information about a case and you JUMP to an incorrect conclusion. I think that is a general problem with much of your judgements.

Guess what Bob...Do you know what they say about the word "assume?" I think you just made the a&^ out of you, but I don't think me yet. And finally, you admit you are are a partisan in your judgements of cases with incomplete evidence. Guess why they say that someone who represents him/herself in a court case has a fool for a client? This goes back to something I said a long time ago, that you are too close to the forest and INCAPABLE of objective thinking. Give you any snippet of information and you will jump to a conclusion...not good in legal profession. Even a partisan lawyer needs to understand the other side if he/she is to be effective in presenting their case. You have to be able to anticipate what the other side will do. You will never get there, because you are hellbent drawing incorrect conclusions.

Good try Bob. Now, start caring about other people needing healthcare coverage!!

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

LOL you two are funny. I think you should have coffee some time, or maybe play a round of golf. Perhaps a duel as well!

[Bob Jentges]

LOL you two are funny. I think you should have coffee some time, or maybe play a round of golf. Perhaps a duel as well!

I am pleased that I may not be the only one that is getting a laugh out of the exchange between Dan & me in connection with my tort reform proposal as one of the elements to be considered in reducing health care costs. But coffee, golf, a duel---surely you jest.

Even though I am having fun making my points and countering what Dan says, I think the situation has about run it's course. I plan to take some time after breakfast to make one more post and include some suggestions that might (optimist that I am & sense of humor that I have) put an end to this circus.

[Bob Jentges]

Man-o-man...now you are trying to split hairs! Plus, you are wrong! Look at B. You are trying to use a very childish retort quibbling over the meaning of a word....and you are wrong. However, I will let it be as a difference of opinion (even though your opinion is wrong). It's amazing how you try to obfuscate your lack of caring by quibbling over words. You have diverted an arguement from healthcare to your lay opinion of the law....or are you a JD?

Everything still stands about you feeling bad for people in a tragic circiumstance, but not doing anything to help them out of the dilemma. You have already said you are happy with your health insurance coverage, but you don't want to pay anything more to help cover those either with no insurance or underinsured.

You sure did correct yourself about the attorney. You went from saying the insurance company doesn't select and attorney and the doctor did. Now you say "USUALLY." Come on Bob, even I could have your lunch in court. You render decisions without adequately researching the case. That's a problem when preparing for court. Not to mention inadequate research.

You said your opinion was based on "sketchy" evidence? Is that the way you operate? You quickly make opinions and decisions without all the facts. You must be a real treat when and if you ever depose anyone. It's laughable that you just told me you offered an opinion based on "sketchy" evidence. My first response would be, "Why are you making a judgement without getting all the evidence?" That is exceedingly poor legal work and not very good in this forum either. It's amazing how I can feed you incomplete information about a case and you JUMP to an incorrect conclusion. I think that is a general problem with much of your judgements.

Guess what Bob...Do you know what they say about the word "assume?" I think you just made the a&^ out of you, but I don't think me yet. And finally, you admit you are are a partisan in your judgements of cases with incomplete evidence. Guess why they say that someone who represents him/herself in a court case has a fool for a client? This goes back to something I said a long time ago, that you are too close to the forest and INCAPABLE of objective thinking. Give you any snippet of information and you will jump to a conclusion...not good in legal profession. Even a partisan lawyer needs to understand the other side if he/she is to be effective in presenting their case. You have to be able to anticipate what the other side will do. You will never get there, because you are hellbent drawing incorrect conclusions.

Good try Bob. Now, start caring about other people needing healthcare coverage!!

Continuing with the theme in the final sentance in my post #42---Helloooooo
down there!

In a brief response to your paragraph #1, words have meanings, which some have difficulty comprehending even with the assistance of a dictionary. Whether I have a JD is a personal question I usually would not answer. But because it gives me a chance to mention a personal matter I am proud of i.e. one of my seven grandsons is named "JD", the answer to your question is no.

Your paragraph #2 is a mischaractization of my position. I am doing what I am required to do under present law and what I can do as a moral responsibility i.e. charity.

Regarding your paragraph #3, it seems I need to quote what I origionally said in my post #38 and repeated in my post #42: "The insurance company, USUALLY in consultation with the insured, SELECTS a lawyer..." (MY EMPHASIS). I trust that should help you understand. If you could ..."have [my] lunch in court" I guess I was lucky we never crossed paths in court during my 32+ years of working in lawsuits, or my 90%+ win record would have sufferred severly. I will say, based on my experience, lawyers dream about being able to cross-examine a witness like it seems you would be, based on your writings. One who lacks knowledge in a specific issue but is too stubborn to admit it has prepared themself a reciepe for embarrasment.

With respect to your paragraph #4, "sketchy evidence" is all you gave me to work with. But in this particular situation all I needed was your sketchy evidence to reach essentially the same conclusion as was the outcome in your uncles jury trial. I could have asked you for more evidence, but different from some I do not view The Free Press Forum as a venue to interrogate, depose, cross examine, etc., other Forum members.

Strange you would mention the word "assume" in your paragraph
#5. During my working years I had a sign on the office wall in my office I had that said: "NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING". I took it with me every time I was promoted, transferred, etc. I tried to abide by that philosophy in serious professional work situations matters. I do not consider corresponding with you in this venue in that catagory. The remainder of your paragraph is either so very basic or judgmentally wrong that I will not waste time addressing it.

[Dan Conner]

LOL you two are funny. I think you should have coffee some time, or maybe play a round of golf. Perhaps a duel as well!

Hey, I agree Jonathon. It would be good to meet Bob in person. Maybe he could meet without the conservatived bagage.

[Bob Jentges]

Back to the theme of this thread i.e. "Paying for health care".

http://www.blog.heritage.org/2009/10/08/morning-bell-the-baucus-bait-and-switch/

[Dan Conner]

Back to the theme of this thread i.e. "Paying for health care".

http://www.blog.heritage.org/2009/10/08/morning-bell-the-baucus-bait-and-switch/

Hey Bob--

Maybe you want to whine to Joe some more? For a guy who doesn't mind throwing insults around, you sure whine a lot to Joe Spear about being "picked on." Like I have said before don't dish it out if you can't take it.

[Bob Jentges]

Hey Bob--

Maybe you want to whine to Joe some more? For a guy who doesn't mind throwing insults around, you sure whine a lot to Joe Spear about being "picked on." Like I have said before don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I fail to see what the above quoted post has to do with my post that immediatly preceeded it, or for that matter this "Paying for health care" thread.

But for those that read the link I cited yesterday and found it of interest, here is another link that includes a link to the very recent Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) audit of the so-called Baucus Bill.

In the event their just might be a member out there thinking about questioning the integrity of PWC, it would be helpful if they would cite some examples.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/12/%e2%80%9creform%e2%80%9d-memos-you-pay-nore-for-health-care/

[Dan Conner]

I fail to see what the above quoted post has to do with my post that immediatly preceeded it, or for that matter this "Paying for health care" thread.

But for those that read the link I cited yesterday and found it of interest, here is another link that includes a link to the very recent Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) audit of the so-called Baucus Bill.

In the event their just might be a member out there thinking about questioning the integrity of PWC, it would be helpful if they would cite some examples.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/12/%e2%80%9creform%e2%80%9d-memos-you-pay-nore-for-health-care/

Yes, Price Waterwhouse was used in an audit before of Healthcare legislation. I thought it very interesting that the audit was commissioned by conservatives (health insurnace companies). Not much credi8bility to that report. By trhe way, health insurance companies commissioned the previous audit during healthcare reform.

It's amazing that healthcare reform opponents now stoop to commissioning biased research and then refer to it, as if there is credibility there.

[Matt Christianson]

I wasn't aware that health insurance companies and conservatives are now synonymous with one another. In Massachuchetts, now that they are several years into their government mandated insurance policy, costs (healthcare bills and insurance premiums)have risen 30-50%. While I don't know specifically the data set the sponsors of this study dealt with, I'm sure that this fact came into account. Perhaps, also, the insurance companies aren't using this study as a prediction, but, rather a promise that premiums will go up based on the fact that they will be forced to insure high risk patients, remove spending caps, and be forced to compete with a goverment entity with which they cannot compete. And I think this point has been raised ad nauseum, but I'll raise it again. No one can compete with the government when they are not profit driven and are heavily subsidized by a never ending stream of revenue, i.e. taxes.
I think we can also acknowledge that the timing of the release of this report is suspect, leaving big insurance open for critizism. It's hard for the public and members of the Senate Finance committee to thouroughly vet the findings of this study with only a days notice before the Finance Committee is scheduled to vote on the Baucus bill.

[Dan Conner]

I wasn't aware that health insurance companies and conservatives are now synonymous with one another. In Massachuchetts, now that they are several years into their government mandated insurance policy, costs (healthcare bills and insurance premiums)have risen 30-50%. While I don't know specifically the data set the sponsors of this study dealt with, I'm sure that this fact came into account. Perhaps, also, the insurance companies aren't using this study as a prediction, but, rather a promise that premiums will go up based on the fact that they will be forced to insure high risk patients, remove spending caps, and be forced to compete with a goverment entity with which they cannot compete. And I think this point has been raised ad nauseum, but I'll raise it again. No one can compete with the government when they are not profit driven and are heavily subsidized by a never ending stream of revenue, i.e. taxes.
I think we can also acknowledge that the timing of the release of this report is suspect, leaving big insurance open for critizism. It's hard for the public and members of the Senate Finance committee to thouroughly vet the findings of this study with only a days notice before the Finance Committee is scheduled to vote on the Baucus bill. Well, let me just say that health insurnace companies surely are not affiliated with the Democratic party, particularly during these healthcare reform days. So, I feel safe when I say health insurnace companies represent conservatives. Also, conservative is many time described as an opponent of change. I don't know where you are going with the Massacheusetts health care reform. The Congressional debate on helathcare reform has nothing to do with Massacheusetts or state healthcare reform. It is about national healthcare reform. At this time, I know little about the Massacheusetts experiment and I am not very concerned about not knowing. Instead, I am interested in other national healthcare programs, like those in almost all the rest of the industrialized countries of the world....except us, of course.

I understand the Price Waterhouse Coopers study has already been greatly discredited. Apparently, it did not consider most all of the cost savings considered in the proposed legislation. It was certainly a worst case scenario.

You and I certainly agree the timing of the report was very suspect. However, there might be a positive (from my perspective) outcome from the report. I understand many in Congress, including some Republicans, were not happy with the release of the report. It was too biased and appeared to be too heavy-handed in its attempted influence of Congress. There might be "blowback." It has generally been viewed as additional health reform disinformation. The most amazing thing of all is that Mayo energetically supports healthcare reform, with a public option. In fact, I am going to a meeting there in the near future to discuss healthcare reform.

[Matt Christianson]

Well, let me just say that health insurnace companies surely are not affiliated with the Democratic party, particularly during these healthcare reform days. So, I feel safe when I say health insurnace companies represent conservatives. Also, conservative is many time described as an opponent of change. I don't know where you are going with the Massacheusetts health care reform. The Congressional debate on helathcare reform has nothing to do with Massacheusetts or state healthcare reform. It is about national healthcare reform. At this time, I know little about the Massacheusetts experiment and I am not very concerned about not knowing. Instead, I am interested in other national healthcare programs, like those in almost all the rest of the industrialized countries of the world....except us, of course.

I understand the Price Waterhouse Coopers study has already been greatly discredited. Apparently, it did not consider most all of the cost savings considered in the proposed legislation. It was certainly a worst case scenario.

You and I certainly agree the timing of the report was very suspect. However, there might be a positive (from my perspective) outcome from the report. I understand many in Congress, including some Republicans, were not happy with the release of the report. It was too biased and appeared to be too heavy-handed in its attempted influence of Congress. There might be "blowback." It has generally been viewed as additional health reform disinformation. The most amazing thing of all is that Mayo energetically supports healthcare reform, with a public option. In fact, I am going to a meeting there in the near future to discuss healthcare reform.

I was just using the Mass. example of how government mandated insurance policies can drive up costs. The current legislation has an invidual mandate in it so it thought it was an applicable example.
To reply to your rep/dem affiliation with insurance companies, from what I understand (I apologize for not having a source handy on this but I'm sure a little research would confirm it)the insurance lobby donates to the campaigns of those in power. So the first 8 years of this decade Republicans were heavily given to and now the there is a Democratic shift in term of political donations.
I'm sure you're excited for the opportunity to discuss healthcare at such a prestigious institution. I certainly would be. Your point that they support reform supports my previous point of healthcare support of the legislation. I believe that they, with the massive Mayo network(sounds delicious..sorry) and others are supportive of reform because they will be handed a large group of new customers. Perhaps there is more to the story and I am being a bit too cynical. I am very proud and fortunate to have such a fine hosptial/clinic nearby and I hope they truly have the will to reduce costs and continue to provide excellent care throughout the midwest. But I just can't help but wonder sometimes of healthcare's, as a whole, intentions.

[Dan Conner]

I was just using the Mass. example of how government mandated insurance policies can drive up costs. The current legislation has an invidual mandate in it so it thought it was an applicable example.
To reply to your rep/dem affiliation with insurance companies, from what I understand (I apologize for not having a source handy on this but I'm sure a little research would confirm it)the insurance lobby donates to the campaigns of those in power. So the first 8 years of this decade Republicans were heavily given to and now the there is a Democratic shift in term of political donations.
I'm sure you're excited for the opportunity to discuss healthcare at such a prestigious institution. I certainly would be. Your point that they support reform supports my previous point of healthcare support of the legislation. I believe that they, with the massive Mayo network(sounds delicious..sorry) and others are supportive of reform because they will be handed a large group of new customers. Perhaps there is more to the story and I am being a bit too cynical. I am very proud and fortunate to have such a fine hosptial/clinic nearby and I hope they truly have the will to reduce costs and continue to provide excellent care throughout the midwest. But I just can't help but wonder sometimes of healthcare's, as a whole, intentions.I really don't feel Massacheusetts is a relevant comparison to a proposed national one. While there might be a few things one might pick up from that experiment, I think the overwhelming experience is irrelevant.

Your point about contributions are true, but should be couched accordingly: Rupert Murdoch donates to Republicans and Democrats, as well, but there is no doubt he is a very conservative (reactionary) Republican. I think in political terms, donating in this manner is referred to as "hedging your bet." Most companies do it, Republican or Democrat. However, I refer to health insurance companies as conservative (Republican) because they both stand for the status-quo. Neither of them want any changes to occur in healthcare. To me that pretty much locks the two together, on this issue at least.

Isn't that great, Mayo looks at healthcare reform as an opportunity, not a threat. Isn't there some old saying that goes like: When confronted with a bunch of lemons, you might as well look to make lemonade? Mayo is looking at healthcare reform, not only as an opportunity to get more patients, but they already operate relatively efficient, making the adjustment less overwhelming. They know that presents yet another opportunity. The Obama administration has asked that Mayo be used as a template for other healthcare providers. I believe Mayo has offered to consult with other providers to help them improve and become more efficient. I believe Mayo will also learn and become yet more efficient. I heard the Mayo CEO give a speech, where he stressed that providers need to get back to serving the patient, not the pocketbook. Then, he mentioned that success and profits would come.

I think that Mayo is point on when they stress the need to get back to the patient and do your best there. Then, success will follow. Today, there is too much preoccupation with making money. We've all seen that with insurance companies. I've just seen the news over the last 2 days where a 4-month old baby was denied health coverage under preexisting-condtion because it was overweight? The baby was 4 months old!! To some that is considered an indication of good health. In another, a mother sacrificed her vision to save the vision of her children. All because an insurnace company wouldn't pay enough of the bill. What is the purpose of healthcare when ift drives families to bankruptsy, and turn a productive family into a deadbeat one?

When are we as a country going to learn that people's lives are what is important here. Soldiers don't leave their wounded or dying buddies to die on the battlefield. Many firefighters risk their own lives to save others. Police officers many times risk their lives to help others or catch criminals. What's the matter with the rest of us? Why aren't we willing to risk anything to help save the lives of others. When does the not caring part start and the compassion end? I believe we are a nation only because we have things in common and are willing to help each other. If we are just a bunch of noncaring people, then what is it that keeps us together as a nation? I don't see anywhere that selfishness, uncaring, or greed are a part of our national values. I don't believe you can be a Christian or a patriot and be selfish, uncaring, and greedy. We live here together and hopefully thrive together. Our children don't improve by increasing the beatings, but they will with encouragement. Why are adults any different?

[Matt Christianson]

I really don't feel Massacheusetts is a relevant comparison to a proposed national one. While there might be a few things one might pick up from that experiment, I think the overwhelming experience is irrelevant.

Your point about contributions are true, but should be couched accordingly: Rupert Murdoch donates to Republicans and Democrats, as well, but there is no doubt he is a very conservative (reactionary) Republican. I think in political terms, donating in this manner is referred to as "hedging your bet." Most companies do it, Republican or Democrat. However, I refer to health insurance companies as conservative (Republican) because they both stand for the status-quo. Neither of them want any changes to occur in healthcare. To me that pretty much locks the two together, on this issue at least.

Isn't that great, Mayo looks at healthcare reform as an opportunity, not a threat. Isn't there some old saying that goes like: When confronted with a bunch of lemons, you might as well look to make lemonade? Mayo is looking at healthcare reform, not only as an opportunity to get more patients, but they already operate relatively efficient, making the adjustment less overwhelming. They know that presents yet another opportunity. The Obama administration has asked that Mayo be used as a template for other healthcare providers. I believe Mayo has offered to consult with other providers to help them improve and become more efficient. I believe Mayo will also learn and become yet more efficient. I heard the Mayo CEO give a speech, where he stressed that providers need to get back to serving the patient, not the pocketbook. Then, he mentioned that success and profits would come.

I think that Mayo is point on when they stress the need to get back to the patient and do your best there. Then, success will follow. Today, there is too much preoccupation with making money. We've all seen that with insurance companies. I've just seen the news over the last 2 days where a 4-month old baby was denied health coverage under preexisting-condtion because it was overweight? The baby was 4 months old!! To some that is considered an indication of good health. In another, a mother sacrificed her vision to save the vision of her children. All because an insurnace company wouldn't pay enough of the bill. What is the purpose of healthcare when ift drives families to bankruptsy, and turn a productive family into a deadbeat one?

When are we as a country going to learn that people's lives are what is important here. Soldiers don't leave their wounded or dying buddies to die on the battlefield. Many firefighters risk their own lives to save others. Police officers many times risk their lives to help others or catch criminals. What's the matter with the rest of us? Why aren't we willing to risk anything to help save the lives of others. When does the not caring part start and the compassion end? I believe we are a nation only because we have things in common and are willing to help each other. If we are just a bunch of noncaring people, then what is it that keeps us together as a nation? I don't see anywhere that selfishness, uncaring, or greed are a part of our national values. I don't believe you can be a Christian or a patriot and be selfish, uncaring, and greedy. We live here together and hopefully thrive together. Our children don't improve by increasing the beatings, but they will with encouragement. Why are adults any different?

Yep there's no doubt that companies hedge their bets all of the time with politicians. But your comparison of insurance and Republicans is slightly falwed. I'll agree that the insurance companies rather leave things the way they are but I think the vast majority of Republicans will agree that the system is need of reform. I completely agree with the assumption that the system should be repaired at all levels. Again, I'm glad we have the Mayo health system to point to as one that is on the right path and I hope what they are doing is a template for future plans.
While your examples of people falling through the cracks in the 2 afore mentioned examples are disturbing I believe under any system there are bound to be tragic stories that both side can point to and say the system is broken. I hope in whatever happens that such cases will be minimal, or ideally, nonexistant.
I can appreciate your emotional plea to help are fellow man. I am a Christian and I hope I can be viewed as others as a patriot. I guess this boils down to our respective ideologies. The 'liberal' wants everyone to be equal and wishes to have everyone served from the silver platter equally. I'd say the important word in that sentance is 'served'. Served by their neighbours and their government.
I too, as a conservative, wish we all can do very well in life. Not only financially(careers), but spiritually and emotionally(friends and family). I choose carefully to which charities I give to and always try to be generous to my church and my family. I don't believe that government should be handing out money or services willy nilly to all that come knocking. That said, I concede that there are important and proper functions of the government. I even believe that the are important services that need to continue and be streamlined to help the desperate and down-trodden.
I believe that the best way to help our fellow man is to empower him to succeed. There's nothing wrong with helping someone to his feet to get a fresh start but I don't think it's the government's job to do so all of the time.

[Dan Conner]

Yep there's no doubt that companies hedge their bets all of the time with politicians. But your comparison of insurance and Republicans is slightly falwed. I'll agree that the insurance companies rather leave things the way they are but I think the vast majority of Republicans will agree that the system is need of reform. I completely agree with the assumption that the system should be repaired at all levels. Again, I'm glad we have the Mayo health system to point to as one that is on the right path and I hope what they are doing is a template for future plans.
While your examples of people falling through the cracks in the 2 afore mentioned examples are disturbing I believe under any system there are bound to be tragic stories that both side can point to and say the system is broken. I hope in whatever happens that such cases will be minimal, or ideally, nonexistant.
I can appreciate your emotional plea to help are fellow man. I am a Christian and I hope I can be viewed as others as a patriot. I guess this boils down to our respective ideologies. The 'liberal' wants everyone to be equal and wishes to have everyone served from the silver platter equally. I'd say the important word in that sentance is 'served'. Served by their neighbours and their government.
I too, as a conservative, wish we all can do very well in life. Not only financially(careers), but spiritually and emotionally(friends and family). I choose carefully to which charities I give to and always try to be generous to my church and my family. I don't believe that government should be handing out money or services willy nilly to all that come knocking. That said, I concede that there are important and proper functions of the government. I even believe that the are important services that need to continue and be streamlined to help the desperate and down-trodden.
I believe that the best way to help our fellow man is to empower him to succeed. There's nothing wrong with helping someone to his feet to get a fresh start but I don't think it's the government's job to do so all of the time.Matt, so good to hear from you and in such a civil manner. You seem open-minded. I mentioned that Republicans are hitched to the insurnace companies because I feel neither desire any change in the status-quo. Changes in healthcare have been advocated by Democrats for over 50 years now. Harry Truman made and attempt to change it. I'm sure you can rmember the Clinton attempt to change it. Anyway, the Republicans have not proposed any changes to healthcare in the last 50 years, other that Bush's drug plan. And he did that in response to the ground swell of anger over the prescription drugs and the attempts by people to get their drugs cheaper overseas. Also, in these months of healthcare deliberatiuon, the Republicans have loaded proposed legislation with hundreds of unproductive and delaying amendments intended to only frustrate the process.

As far as the 2 people falling through the cracks, there are hundreds of thousands of stories just like theirs. These were just anecdotal representations of them. I think it is more important to remember that 20,000-40,000 people die each year because of a lack of health insurance. When national traffic deaths reached that high, many years ago, the Federal government rightfully got involved with automotive safety, yielding such important life-saving devices as safety belts and air bags, to name just a few. Business, industry, churches, and charities did nothing about these things, but they needed to be done. The same exists for healthcare. Millions of people are dying, become disabled, are bankrupted, or denied coverage every day. Business, industry, churches, and charities have done little to nothing about that. One reason is the magnitude of the problem. This leaves Government as the only entity with the resources and reach to solve the problem. All of these private entities have coexisted with these problems for over 50 years with no fix. Now, I believe it should be government's turn to try to fix it.

I read your interpretation of "liberal", but I disagree with your definition. This "liberal" has no desire of intention to make everyone "equal." What I am saying as a "liberal", is that everyone has a right to a basic dignity and quality of life. I don't believe we should be living the law of the jugle or survival of the fittest - at least not and be called a civilization. I'm glad you are a Christian because I think you would acknowledge that Jesus believed we had a responsibility to help our "neighbor" as ourselves. To not judge our neighbor and not serve any other gods, like money. Remember the story about Jesus and the temple of the money changers?

Jesus didn't say only have churches and charities take care of the less fortunate. He asked all of us. And what collective "all" is there besides government? For many many years we have watched people die, become disabled, lose all they own, or commit suicide when confronted with the disasters of lack of healthcare or the inability to pay for it. I believe that in a nation as rich as ours, healthcare is a right. By the way, all the other industrialized nations in the world feel the same way. If we care for our fellow citizens, how could we feel any different? I also know that Jesus railed against riches. He considered the worship of money a violation of the 1st Commandment about putting other gods before him.

If our nation (and coincident government) really is that, how can we not help each other? If not, then are we a nation? Are we to expect that people asked to serve our nation in time of war ask what's in it for me, or find someone else? I think soldiers volunteer to serve out of a need to want to do something bigger than themselves. To do something for others. If they can offer to make sometimes such a supremely high sacrifice for us and others, is it so much that we help lift others from poverty, death and pestilence? Surely, we are better than that. I didn't serve our country to have millions die needlessly. I believe this is a national imperitive. It's time we give a damn about others. I think we will be favorably impressed about how fast all those previously left behind will catch up.

I believe it is totally contradictory to Christianity to allow others to die, become disabled, go bankrupt, etc. and not offer assistance, when there is a ready alternative. Jesus offered assistance and so should we. Giving to charities is good and helpful, but there is an enormous human need in our country, far outstripping the resources of charitable causes and churches. Or else, these sources of help would have already remedied the problem.. Government is the only entity with the resources and coverage to meet that need. Let charity and churches supplement Government, but Government must meet a basic need.

I think we get confused about "the role of Government." It should be to "promote the general welfare" of the public. And that is what I am talking about here. There is nothing in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence saying Government has no role in the public welfare. In fact, it kind of promotes that role for government. I think we have been propagandized for many years about the "communist boogeyman." I don't care what helping each other is called because I believe that is the only right thing to do. And I believe Jesus would agree.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Matt, so good to hear from you and in such a civil manner. You seem open-minded. I mentioned that Republicans are hitched to the insurnace companies because I feel neither desire any change in the status-quo.

I consider myself a libertarian Republican and I am very much opposed to the status-quo.

Changes in healthcare have been advocated by Democrats for over 50 years now. Harry Truman made and attempt to change it. I'm sure you can rmember the Clinton attempt to change it. Anyway, the Republicans have not proposed any changes to healthcare in the last 50 years, other that Bush's drug plan. And he did that in response to the ground swell of anger over the prescription drugs and the attempts by people to get their drugs cheaper overseas. Also, in these months of healthcare deliberatiuon, the Republicans have loaded proposed legislation with hundreds of unproductive and delaying amendments intended to only frustrate the process.

The Bush drug benefit was vote-buying at its finest, and will only hasten the bankruptcy of Medicare/Medicaid.

As far as the 2 people falling through the cracks, there are hundreds of thousands of stories just like theirs. These were just anecdotal representations of them. I think it is more important to remember that 20,000-40,000 people die each year because of a lack of health insurance.

I am skeptical about this statistic, partially because I first heard it at 20k and now it's suddenly 20-40k and next week it will probably be 100k. I'd wager that most of these 20-40k get denied for continued drug coverage or whatever after they've already been sick for a very long time, since hospitals are already required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. People don't die from lack of health insurance, they die from diseases or accidents or old age.

When national traffic deaths reached that high, many years ago, the Federal government rightfully got involved with automotive safety, yielding such important life-saving devices as safety belts and air bags, to name just a few. Business, industry, churches, and charities did nothing about these things, but they needed to be done.

There is evidence that technologies which made driving safer haven't really helped overall, because drivers who feel safer drive riskier. The number of vehicle passengers who die may have gone down (I'm not sure on the exact statistics on this) but pedestrian fatalities have gone up to match.

Also, auto insurance companies are very concerned about making driving safer, since they have to pay when people get hurt or die. That's why they do their own safety tests and give better rates to people who are safer drivers.

The same exists for healthcare. Millions of people are dying, become disabled, are bankrupted, or denied coverage every day. Business, industry, churches, and charities have done little to nothing about that. One reason is the magnitude of the problem. This leaves Government as the only entity with the resources and reach to solve the problem. All of these private entities have coexisted with these problems for over 50 years with no fix. Now, I believe it should be government's turn to try to fix it.

You imply here that the government has not been involved in health care at all for the last 50 years. To the contrary, government has been extremely involved, through Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, VA, Indian Health Service, health insurance mandates, licensing requirements, etc.

I believe that government interference in health care for the past 50 years is the primary cause of our problems. Prior to all of this government involvement, health care was a relatively small portion of the average family's budget. For those who couldn't afford care, there were numerous charity hospitals, and all doctors treated a percentage of their patients pro bono voluntarily. My stepfather-in-law still has the receipt from the hospital bill when he was born in 1936 for $12. Now you'd be lucky to get out of a hospital birth for less than $12,000. This is far greater than the general rate of inflation; I believe that the reason for this is the vast increases in government involvement in health care, beginning during the Great Depression and getting steadily worse since then. Government itself has driven prices up toward the point of unaffordability, and it has crowded out the private charity market in the mean time. Why should I give to the Red Cross, people ask themselves, when the state is already using all my taxes to pay for that same stuff anyway?

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

I read your interpretation of "liberal", but I disagree with your definition. This "liberal" has no desire of intention to make everyone "equal." What I am saying as a "liberal", is that everyone has a right to a basic dignity and quality of life. I don't believe we should be living the law of the jugle or survival of the fittest - at least not and be called a civilization. I'm glad you are a Christian because I think you would acknowledge that Jesus believed we had a responsibility to help our "neighbor" as ourselves. To not judge our neighbor and not serve any other gods, like money. Remember the story about Jesus and the temple of the money changers?

Jesus didn't say only have churches and charities take care of the less fortunate. He asked all of us. And what collective "all" is there besides government? For many many years we have watched people die, become disabled, lose all they own, or commit suicide when confronted with the disasters of lack of healthcare or the inability to pay for it. I believe that in a nation as rich as ours, healthcare is a right. By the way, all the other industrialized nations in the world feel the same way. If we care for our fellow citizens, how could we feel any different? I also know that Jesus railed against riches. He considered the worship of money a violation of the 1st Commandment about putting other gods before him.

If our nation (and coincident government) really is that, how can we not help each other? If not, then are we a nation? Are we to expect that people asked to serve our nation in time of war ask what's in it for me, or find someone else? I think soldiers volunteer to serve out of a need to want to do something bigger than themselves. To do something for others. If they can offer to make sometimes such a supremely high sacrifice for us and others, is it so much that we help lift others from poverty, death and pestilence? Surely, we are better than that. I didn't serve our country to have millions die needlessly. I believe this is a national imperitive. It's time we give a damn about others. I think we will be favorably impressed about how fast all those previously left behind will catch up.

I believe it is totally contradictory to Christianity to allow others to die, become disabled, go bankrupt, etc. and not offer assistance, when there is a ready alternative. Jesus offered assistance and so should we. Giving to charities is good and helpful, but there is an enormous human need in our country, far outstripping the resources of charitable causes and churches. Or else, these sources of help would have already remedied the problem.. Government is the only entity with the resources and coverage to meet that need. Let charity and churches supplement Government, but Government must meet a basic need.

I think we get confused about "the role of Government." It should be to "promote the general welfare" of the public. And that is what I am talking about here. There is nothing in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence saying Government has no role in the public welfare. In fact, it kind of promotes that role for government. I think we have been propagandized for many years about the "communist boogeyman." I don't care what helping each other is called because I believe that is the only right thing to do. And I believe Jesus would agree.

Dan, charity via government is not charity at all, but theft and slavery. Even if that doesn't bother you, you should still realize that socialized charity is inefficient, wasteful, and creates dependency and abuse. I very much disagree that Jesus would approve of socialized charity at all.

If a beggar on a street corner asks you for some spare change, and you reach into the pocket of the guy next to you in order to give the beggar the money, that is not charity. Interposing a layer or two of government doesn't change the equation. If you want to help the beggar, then help the beggar with your own money. In all likelihood the other guy there will too, and even if he doesn't, he will still use his money in a way that eventually helps the beggar help himself, such as investing in his business which employs more people. Or he will buy something for himself, which employs others. Those people in turn will have more money to give to charity as well.

Throwing all of our charity money into a big pot and telling the needy to help themselves will result in everyone taking more than they actually need--if they don't someone else will. The natural wastefulness and greed that socialized charity creates ensures that an ever-larger portion of our income will need to be taxed to fill the pot, which eventually drives more and more people to become takers than givers.

If government is to promote the "general welfare" as you say, then why are you arguing for it to provide for individual welfare? Government's role is to provide an environment in which people can safely better themselves -- government should at the most enforce contracts and protect against foreign invasion, not to provide individuals with other people's money when they're down on their luck.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Our government is subsidizing poverty, which is why the War on Poverty has gone on for decades with no positive result.

Foreign aid is similarly damaging. If you were corn farmer in Zambia, and every week you took your bushel of corn to market to sell, you could earn a bit and expand your operations, eventually providing more corn for your poor countrymen at a lower price. However, if one week you arrive at the market to discover that Uncle Sam has delivered a ton of corn which is free for everyone, you will not sell any of your corn at all, even at a loss. Eventually you'll realize it's not worth growing your own corn and you'll become dependent on Uncle Sam's weekly deliveries as well, with no way out of poverty, ever.

If we want to regrow charity in this nation, we need to get the government out of it. The United States is still the most charitable nation on earth despite decades of government efforts to replace it with socialized charity. Jesus, as you say, wants us to help our fellow man, not to give him our neighbor's money. Do you think the Good Samaritan parable would have been as effective if the Good Samaritan had beaten and robbed another traveler on the road to pay for the first traveler's care?

[Dan Conner]

While my response was to Matt, I find it immaterial what you consider yourself to be. Call yourself what you want. Republicans have obstucted the healthcare change process ever since it has been dliberated by Congress. Even conservative Republicans have admitted their intent to obstruct.

You believe what you want about the number dying for lack of healthcare insurance. The figure most commonly reported in public is 20,000. If you feel that is false, then how many do you believe die without it, and where do you get that information? You are definitely wrong that everyone gets needed medical care. Every publication has acknowlkedged many people dying for lack of healthcare. First, many people don't seek prompt care of problems until they become too sick to heal or until the cancer metastisizes. Others just die at home not getting any care. I think you need to look at the free clinics being offered around the country. So far, for 2009, over 8 million people have sought free care from volunteer doctors and nurses. The volunteer doctors said that the care they have given doesn't come close to meeting the healthcare needs in the public. They said the healthcare situation in our country is deplorable and shameful, but you will probably not choose to believe that. You believe only that which justifies not helping others. You might feel all is fine, but it isn't. People are dying for lack of healthcare.

So you know there is evidence that people are driving more risky because of added safety features, yielding no improvement? Well, I'll challenge you one that . Prove it! Statistics have shown that wearing seat belts and air bags have saved many many lives. The death rate dropped after mandatory seat belts was enacted. So, come up with some credible evidence to prove your point.

I never said Governemnt was not involved in healthcare. However, they have not been involved nearly enough to meet the tremendous unmet need in the public. There would be untold numbers of additional deaths caused by unavailable healthcare/insurnace if Government was not as involved as much as they are. Even Republicans acknowledge that SCHIP has gone a long way to give additional children needed life saving healthcare. It is a little ridiculous to say that because Government has been a little involved in healthcare that that means healthcare problems are solved. The issue is how much involved. Today a large number of people want the Government to institute single-payer. Now that's involved. Then, you can blame Government for not remedying the healthcare problem. You know I bought a car, but I haven't solved the financial problems for car manufacturers. Your conclusion doesn't follow.

The only correct statement you made in the next paragraph was that medical expenses have greatly increased over the last 70+ years, but you did nothing to prove that the Government caused the increase. In fact, I would argue insurnace companies caused it. Neither statemeent was proved and are equally valid. You make a lot of unsubstantiated statements and draw broad conclusions from these speculations. By the way, Government gave anti-trust exclusions to the healthcare industry in 1945 or 46. To me that would be more relevant to increases in the cost of healthcare.

I think you should continue to give to the Red Cross no matter what is instituted. The Red Cross does far more than healthcare. Paying for national healthcare should be no reason to dodge donations to charity.

Well, I'm sorry you feel the way you do about the Government helping people, even though it is a Constitutional obligation. Theft? Slavery? I'm afraid I would challenge both of those. Theft is a crime, and if healthcare changes are passed as the law of the land, that's not theft. Slavery? I don't think you really know what slavery is. It might benefit you to read "Roots" or visit the museum in Washington displaying and discussing the terrible things done to slaves. We are genuinely spoiled if we think taxation to furnish heathcare for everyone is slavery. That's like thinking a paper cut is like open-heart surgery. That word is used for dramatic affect, not reality.

Again, I think you need to be better informed. Government dispensing of VA and other healthcare benefits cost less than 10% to administer. That is far less wasteful and more efficient that the 20+% it takes for private insurnace company administration. I think you make more unsubstantiated claims. You conclude without facts. It's like Will Rogers said, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not their own facts."

I'm not talking about the condescending example you use for charity. Government assistance is not charity. It's is an obligation we have to help each other. And don't worry, I won't be reaching into your pockets. We all benefit from the wonderful things our countrey has offered. Police, Fire protection an elaborate road system, education, water, sewer, crop supports, etc., etc. Too many things to enumerate. I think we are all a little spoiled and take these things for granted. Even the electrical system out here was originated through the REA. There was the GI bill, one of the single biggest educational boosts in our country. I think you are looking at the half-filled glass and seeing nothing, when I see it half-full. I am greatly thankful for our country and my opportunities. However, with that goes an obligation to support it for our posterity.

You really go off the deep end near the end of your post when you say throw money in a pot and tell the beggars to help themselves. I also think it is insulting that you call people who need and have used assistance "beggars." Most of the people needing healthcare assistance have a job and most have insurance, but they are unable to pay deductibles and coinsurance. Are they "beggars" in your eyes. What makes me most angry is that many of these people haven't begged for anything. They are embarrassed to get the help, but they desparately need it. I think you should find another term to refer to people needing healthcare assistance because calling them "beggars is rude, in poor taste, and offensive.

Frankly, I tire of the rest of your post, so I will ignore it. It generally seems rambling and illogical. I don't know how foreign assistance got into it. Anyway, let's just say we vehemenetly disagree about as much as we can about the role of Government and about our obligation to help others. I really do feel your position is being selfish and self-serving, not an American value to aspire to.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

While my response was to Matt, I find it immaterial what you consider yourself to be. Call yourself what you want. Republicans have obstucted the healthcare change process ever since it has been dliberated by Congress. Even conservative Republicans have admitted their intent to obstruct.

If there intent is to obstruct more government intervention in our lives, then that's fine with me. If there intent is to continue to give the health industry lobbyists handouts and protections, then I certainly don't side with that.

You believe what you want about the number dying for lack of healthcare insurance. The figure most commonly reported in public is 20,000. If you feel that is false, then how many do you believe die without it, and where do you get that information? You are definitely wrong that everyone gets needed medical care. Every publication has acknowlkedged many people dying for lack of healthcare. First, many people don't seek prompt care of problems until they become too sick to heal or until the cancer metastisizes. Others just die at home not getting any care. I think you need to look at the free clinics being offered around the country. So far, for 2009, over 8 million people have sought free care from volunteer doctors and nurses. The volunteer doctors said that the care they have given doesn't come close to meeting the healthcare needs in the public. They said the healthcare situation in our country is deplorable and shameful, but you will probably not choose to believe that. You believe only that which justifies not helping others. You might feel all is fine, but it isn't. People are dying for lack of healthcare.

Earlier you said lack of health insurance, now it's lack of health care. Which is it?

I believe that it is largely government intervention in our health care industry that has made it so expensive that people can't afford the care they need. Can you explain how it could otherwise be that health care cost increases have exceeded the general rate of inflation for so long? If affordable quality health care is missing only because of the greed of current health care providers, then what's stopping you from starting your own affordable quality health care company? If there are such handsome profits to be made by screwing the patients, then why can't you start a hospital or insurance company that doesn't screw the patients, and only makes a tiny or zero profit? People will sing your praises and you'll have plenty of business all the time!

So you know there is evidence that people are driving more risky because of added safety features, yielding no improvement? Well, I'll challenge you one that . Prove it! Statistics have shown that wearing seat belts and air bags have saved many many lives. The death rate dropped after mandatory seat belts was enacted. So, come up with some credible evidence to prove your point.

Of course they save the lives of those who are protected by them, but other road users are not so lucky. This is known as the Peltzman effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effect). Read more about it here (http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/920710.html).

I never said Governemnt was not involved in healthcare. However, they have not been involved nearly enough to meet the tremendous unmet need in the public. There would be untold numbers of additional deaths caused by unavailable healthcare/insurnace if Government was not as involved as much as they are. Even Republicans acknowledge that SCHIP has gone a long way to give additional children needed life saving healthcare. It is a little ridiculous to say that because Government has been a little involved in healthcare that that means healthcare problems are solved.

When the government does something to help someone, it's easy to look at that which is easily visible: the helped person or group. It is not so easy to see that which is on the other side of the equation. While I sort of doubt that you will actually read anything I recommend because you already disagree with me on so much, I ask you to read Economics in One Lesson (http://jim.com/econ/) by Henry Hazlitt.

The issue is how much involved. Today a large number of people want the Government to institute single-payer. Now that's involved. Then, you can blame Government for not remedying the healthcare problem. Your conclusion doesn't follow.

Health care used to be a small percentage of a typical family's expenditures. Now it's what, close to 18% (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml) of the GDP? How did it get to be so expensive compared to everything else? Prices go up when supplies go down or when competition is limited. My argument is that government intervention has caused, to a large degree, this increase in the relative cost of health care. Prior to the 1940s, there was very little government involvement in health care. Now about half of every health care dollar flows through government channels.

The only correct statement you made in the next paragraph was that medical expenses have greatly increased over the last 70+ years, but you did nothing to prove that the Government caused the increase. In fact, I would argue insurnace companies caused it.

Oh, believe me, I think the insurance companies caused it, too. But the only way they were able to do so was through government protections that kept new competition from being able to enter the field and undercut them. As I said in another thread, health insurance is no longer insurance at all, but a complex third-party payment system which hides prices and thoroughly confuses consumers.

Neither statemeent was proved and are equally valid. You make a lot of unsubstantiated statements and draw broad conclusions from these speculations. By the way, Government gave anti-trust exclusions to the healthcare industry in 1945 or 46. To me that would be more relevant to increases in the cost of healthcare.

As I said in another thread, monopolies can only persist when they have government protections from competition. I want to end those protections and force the health care providers and insurers to compete again.

I think you should continue to give to the Red Cross no matter what is instituted. The Red Cross does far more than healthcare. Paying for national healthcare should be no reason to dodge donations to charity.

I don't dodge donations to charity and give where I'm able, and I'm sure the same is true for you, but all the taxes we pay to keep the bankrupt institutions like Medicare afloat really eat into our ability to help others. Government "charity" has destroyed the private charity market.

Well, I'm sorry you feel the way you do about the Government helping people, even though it is a Constitutional obligation.

It is not at all Constitutional obligation, as I have stated several times. The government cannot help one person without taking from someone else. That is not "helping", but forcibly redistributing individuals' wealth by majority rule. All taxation is at its root theft, unless consented to by everyone subject to it. This is why all taxes (and all government) should be as local as possible, so that we can "vote" with our feet by moving elsewhere if taxes are increased beyond what we are willing to tolerate.

Theft? Slavery? I'm afraid I would challenge both of those. Theft is a crime, and if healthcare changes are passed as the law of the land, that's not theft.

So if a majority of Mankatoans voted that we could all come over to your house and help ourselves to what we wanted, you'd have no problem with that? It may be legitimized, but it is still theft.

Slavery? I don't think you really know what slavery is. It might benefit you to read "Roots" or visit the museum in Washington displaying and discussing the terrible things done to slaves. We are genuinely spoiled if we think taxation to furnish heathcare for everyone is slavery. That's like thinking a paper cut is like open-heart surgery. That word is used for dramatic affect, not reality.

Slavery is the opposite of freedom, and of course there are varying degrees of the severity of it. When the government taxes your income, they are effectively saying that they own that portion of your time and talents that you labored to produce the money paid as taxes. You, for that portion of the day which you labor for Uncle Sam, are a slave to the government. You may not be beaten and fed table scraps every day as "the slaves" were, but you will be thrown in jail if you decide not to pay. We are essentially well-treated slaves ... we're more productive when we think we are free.

Again, I think you need to be better informed. Government dispensing of VA and other healthcare benefits cost less than 10% to administer. That is far less wasteful and more efficient that the 20+% it takes for private insurnace company administration. I think you make more unsubstantiated claims. You conclude without facts. It's like Will Rogers said, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not their own facts."

Health insurers "waste" this money because they have no real competition, no real reason to keep a tight ship. Also, your 10% figure, wherever it comes from, doesn't take into account the bureaucracy and other compliance costs needed to collect the taxes to pay for it. I want to bring competition back to the health insurance and health care markets so that companies are forced to cut as much waste as possible.

... more in next post ...

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

I'm not talking about the condescending example you use for charity. Government assistance is not charity. It's is an obligation we have to help each other. And don't worry, I won't be reaching into your pockets.

You are correct on two counts: we do have an obligation to help each other, and government assistance is not charity. However, our obligation is to be met voluntarily, not through government force. The instant the government has to force someone to "give" to help someone else, that person is no longer fulfilling their obligation but responding to a threat.

You ARE reaching in to my pocket every time you use the government to help someone else. Where do you think the government gets its money? It cannot give anyone anything that it has not already taken from someone else. Government IS force. Everything it does is by force.

We all benefit from the wonderful things our countrey has offered. Police, Fire protection an elaborate road system, education, water, sewer, crop supports, etc., etc. Too many things to enumerate.

We have somewhat of a different worldview, so I'm sure you won't appreciate my perspective that all of these things could be provided just as well by voluntary transactions than they have been by governments. (And probably better and cheaper, too.) The things that cannot be provided by the market are few and far between. I'd say national defense is probably one of them.

I think we are all a little spoiled and take these things for granted. Even the electrical system out here was originated through the REA.

The REA subsidized expansion into the country at the cost of those living in the cities, which set in motion a permanent need to be subsidized as well as sprawl. Now our city council here in Mankato is worried what we're going to do without local government aid, for example. Living away from population centers means increased costs for certain things. Subsidizing those costs made more people move away from the cities and created a permanent dependency on government subsidy.

There was the GI bill, one of the single biggest educational boosts in our country.

And all the government money coming to the table raised the cost of tuition for everyone, making school less affordable for those who weren't GIs. Then all the grants and subsidized loans and other government programs made it even worse. Education is another one of those sectors where costs have risen faster than the rate of general inflation, thanks to all the government programs intended to help people. When the government gets involved, you can expect costs to skyrocket.

I think you are looking at the half-filled glass and seeing nothing, when I see it half-full. I am greatly thankful for our country and my opportunities. However, with that goes an obligation to support it for our posterity.

Oh, I have plenty of optimism so long as we can reverse the trend of government expansion before we find ourselves completely surrounded by it with no freedoms left. You see government as the savior, the solution to every ailment. I see it as the cause of the vast majority of our country's problems.

You really go off the deep end near the end of your post when you say throw money in a pot and tell the beggars to help themselves. I also think it is insulting that you call people who need and have used assistance "beggars." Most of the people needing healthcare assistance have a job and most have insurance, but they are unable to pay deductibles and coinsurance. Are they "beggars" in your eyes. What makes me most angry is that many of these people haven't begged for anything. They are embarrassed to get the help, but they desparately need it. I think you should find another term to refer to people needing healthcare assistance because calling them "beggars is rude, in poor taste, and offensive.

Sorry to offend, but you misread my intent. I was offering it as an illustration of why it is not charitable to use someone else's money to help someone. In my next paragraph, I referred to those needing help as "the needy", not as beggars.

I don't fault people for having to turn to government assistance; instead I fault the government for creating the conditions which led them to that point in the first place.[/quote]

Frankly, I tire of the rest of your post, so I will ignore it. It generally seems rambling and illogical. I don't know how foreign assistance got into it. Anyway, let's just say we vehemenetly disagree about as much as we can about the role of Government and about our obligation to help others. I really do feel your position is being selfish and self-serving, not an American value to aspire to.

I am not selfish. I rather want to live in a voluntary society that is as free from government force as possible. I believe that when we are free we can be of the most help to our fellow countrymen. The foreign assistance paragraph was yet another illustration of how when the government attempts to help it ends up doing more harm than good.

I want to live my life by the non-aggression principle. Government has a near monopoly on aggression. You may see why I don't have much love for big government.

[Dan Conner]

If there intent is to obstruct more government intervention in our lives, then that's fine with me. If there intent is to continue to give the health industry lobbyists handouts and protections, then I certainly don't side with that.



Earlier you said lack of health insurance, now it's lack of health care. Which is it?

I believe that it is largely government intervention in our health care industry that has made it so expensive that people can't afford the care they need. Can you explain how it could otherwise be that health care cost increases have exceeded the general rate of inflation for so long? If affordable quality health care is missing only because of the greed of current health care providers, then what's stopping you from starting your own affordable quality health care company? If there are such handsome profits to be made by screwing the patients, then why can't you start a hospital or insurance company that doesn't screw the patients, and only makes a tiny or zero profit? People will sing your praises and you'll have plenty of business all the time!



Of course they save the lives of those who are protected by them, but other road users are not so lucky. This is known as the Peltzman effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effect). Read more about it here (http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/920710.html).



When the government does something to help someone, it's easy to look at that which is easily visible: the helped person or group. It is not so easy to see that which is on the other side of the equation. While I sort of doubt that you will actually read anything I recommend because you already disagree with me on so much, I ask you to read Economics in One Lesson (http://jim.com/econ/) by Henry Hazlitt.



Health care used to be a small percentage of a typical family's expenditures. Now it's what, close to 18% (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml) of the GDP? How did it get to be so expensive compared to everything else? Prices go up when supplies go down or when competition is limited. My argument is that government intervention has caused, to a large degree, this increase in the relative cost of health care. Prior to the 1940s, there was very little government involvement in health care. Now about half of every health care dollar flows through government channels.



Oh, believe me, I think the insurance companies caused it, too. But the only way they were able to do so was through government protections that kept new competition from being able to enter the field and undercut them. As I said in another thread, health insurance is no longer insurance at all, but a complex third-party payment system which hides prices and thoroughly confuses consumers.



As I said in another thread, monopolies can only persist when they have government protections from competition. I want to end those protections and force the health care providers and insurers to compete again.



I don't dodge donations to charity and give where I'm able, and I'm sure the same is true for you, but all the taxes we pay to keep the bankrupt institutions like Medicare afloat really eat into our ability to help others. Government "charity" has destroyed the private charity market.



It is not at all Constitutional obligation, as I have stated several times. The government cannot help one person without taking from someone else. That is not "helping", but forcibly redistributing individuals' wealth by majority rule. All taxation is at its root theft, unless consented to by everyone subject to it. This is why all taxes (and all government) should be as local as possible, so that we can "vote" with our feet by moving elsewhere if taxes are increased beyond what we are willing to tolerate.



So if a majority of Mankatoans voted that we could all come over to your house and help ourselves to what we wanted, you'd have no problem with that? It may be legitimized, but it is still theft.



Slavery is the opposite of freedom, and of course there are varying degrees of the severity of it. When the government taxes your income, they are effectively saying that they own that portion of your time and talents that you labored to produce the money paid as taxes. You, for that portion of the day which you labor for Uncle Sam, are a slave to the government. You may not be beaten and fed table scraps every day as "the slaves" were, but you will be thrown in jail if you decide not to pay. We are essentially well-treated slaves ... we're more productive when we think we are free.



Health insurers "waste" this money because they have no real competition, no real reason to keep a tight ship. Also, your 10% figure, wherever it comes from, doesn't take into account the bureaucracy and other compliance costs needed to collect the taxes to pay for it. I want to bring competition back to the health insurance and health care markets so that companies are forced to cut as much waste as possible.

... more in next post ...Hey Jonathon...think about it. If one has no money for health insurance, it surely makes it difficult to get meaningful healthcare. One follows the other. People without health insurance generally have no doctor, no one following their case. Since they are limited to emergency rooms, there is little that is done in preventative healthcare, or even curing problems before they become major. I think you are looking at things too "black and white." There are lots of gray areas.

I can guarantee you that Government will become more involved in healthcare, and rightfully so. Health insurance companies have totally screwed it up. Your fear of Government involvement is just more bogeyman stuff. You fear too much. All this fear? All advanced industrialized countries have far more Government involvement in healthcare than the US. That might explain why the US dollar is slipping compared to most currencies. You can hold onto all the fears you want, but I choose progress and growth. None of these have happened under our current healthcare system, yet it sucks up 16% of our GDP...more than any industrialized country in the world. It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to figure out our country needs to make a lot of changes, in addition to healthcare, if we hope to be a player in the future world economy.

I have a meeting to go to and I think it is foolish to debate you. Frankly, I don't understand you reasoning. You say that only the people who wear seat belts are protected and not others? To tell you that's ridiculous, considering the fact that the law requires everyone to wear seat belts. Also, infants must be in approved child seats. And as long as you are dipping into my pockets and driving on our highways, you will need to wear a seat belt. Being injured in a car accident, while not wearing a seat belt, might be a good reason for health insurnace company to deny coverage. Afterall, the injury occurred during the commission of a crime. Now, does that logic meet with you?

You just can't resist fearing bogeymen everywhere. You talk about the affect of Government help? Well every European country's government helps far far more than ours and they are beating our pants off economically. I think you need to separate your emotion from the facts. Your fear of Government is illogical and the facts supporting it are wrong. Otherwise, the world is upside down. You will continue with your fears while our country further slips into oblivion. Maybe you fear you would become helpless and dependent, but I don't think that necessarily applies to others. Also, I think you, like me, should have your hands full judging yourself, being as flawed as we are, to be so preoccupied about judging others. Again, I'll quote the Bible: "Judge not, lest thou be judged." I think you and I just need to worry about being good people without dragging anyone else into it.

Otherwise, I'm done with the debate. I have answered your questions on the prior posts and others. I don't choose to live in fear, but you can continue, if you wish. I choose to look ahead and see a prosperous and happy future, and there will be more Government involvement in healthcare. Hey that''ll give you more reason to keep writing here anyway.

[Bob Jentges]

In his post #63 Dan Conner states he is "done with the debate" so I do not consider my offering some thoughts being an interloper between he and Jonathon and/or Matt. However I do so with great hesitancy because from past experiences their is probably no more effective way in bringing Dan back into the debate than for me to post an opinion.

When reading Dan's last post to Matt I see he praises Matt for "civility" and being "open minded". However, when reading Dan's last two posts in reply to Jonathon (whose posts I found well thought out like Matt's were) Dan's approach differs significantly. Assessing civility and open mindedness should not depend on whether or not one agrees with a position/opinion stated in another members post.

Quite sometime back Dan asked me to offer some ideas to reduce the cost of health insurance/care. One I suggested was tort reform. He ridiculed the idea and called it a "non-idea idea", what ever that means. This mornings Our View editorial discusses tort reform and why most Democrats seem to resist it. Here is the link:

http://mankatofreepress.com/editorials/local_story_287170959.html?appSession=712004029021 076

There has been a great deal of rhetoric over private health insurers denial of claims. Some of you may find the graph in the link below interesting. In summary, it demonstrates that for the period between March '07 & March '08
Medicare's percentage of claim lines denied was greater than any of the other seven major private health companies included in the survey. The survey does not opine about what percentage of the denials were legitimate, but that is not the issue as I see it. The issue would seem to be that when it comes to health care, whether government run or private, neither is more "compassionate" than the other. Here is the link:

http://:739.photobucket.com/albums/xx40/mmatters/DenialsByInsurer2008.jpg

I think this health care reform debate has become too emotional. The way I see it the debate should center around freedom and what we and futute generations can afford, based on reason, logic and intellect.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Hey Jonathon...think about it. If one has no money for health insurance, it surely makes it difficult to get meaningful healthcare. One follows the other. People without health insurance generally have no doctor, no one following their case. Since they are limited to emergency rooms, there is little that is done in preventative healthcare, or even curing problems before they become major. I think you are looking at things too "black and white." There are lots of gray areas.

If your impression is that what I see is black an white, it is because I view government as antithetical to liberty. I happen to favor liberty over government, because government always grows to the point of oppression. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I know that you have the good intention of providing affordable health care to everyone, but my belief is that if we try to solve the problem the way you want to, we'll just create worse problems down the road.

I can guarantee you that Government will become more involved in healthcare, and rightfully so. Health insurance companies have totally screwed it up.

Yes, health insurance companies have screwed it up. And they have only been able to do so because of the government interventions which allowed (and in many cases required) them to do so. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this.

Your fear of Government involvement is just more bogeyman stuff. You fear too much. All this fear?

It is not "fear" of government, Dan. It is my philosophically- and economically-based rejection of government as the best way to solve problems. My reasoned (not emotional) view is that the government has caused the very problems we now face, and that adding more government to the mix will exacerbate, rather than resolve, things.

All advanced industrialized countries have far more Government involvement in healthcare than the US.

As I said before, the U.S. has been heavily subsidizing other countries, especially on defense, which frees up more tax money for them to use on social programs where we could not. That, and I believe that most of these countries have recently been voting to introduce market-based reforms in order to control the costs that have resulted from social-based care.

That might explain why the US dollar is slipping compared to most currencies.

The U.S. dollar is slipping because investors are losing faith in our promise and our ability to repay our debts and massive long-term liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) without inflating our dollar into worthlessness.

You can hold onto all the fears you want, but I choose progress and growth.

I'm pretty sure labeling things like this isn't helping the discussion.

None of these have happened under our current healthcare system, yet it sucks up 16% of our GDP...more than any industrialized country in the world. It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to figure out our country needs to make a lot of changes, in addition to healthcare, if we hope to be a player in the future world economy.

We agree on the problem, just not the root causes and the solution.

I have a meeting to go to and I think it is foolish to debate you. Frankly, I don't understand you reasoning.

I don't blame you; we are looking at the world from different perspectives, so things that make sense to me won't make sense to you and vice versa. If you take the time to read a few of the things I linked to, like Economics in One Lesson (http://jim.com/econ/), the Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.jonathangullible.com/PoL/), How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't (http://www.scribd.com/doc/8009736/Irwin-Schiff-How-an-Economy-Grows-and-Why-It-Doesnt), and so on, then maybe you'll begin to see my perspective as not quite so crazy as you think it is.

You say that only the people who wear seat belts are protected and not others? To tell you that's ridiculous, considering the fact that the law requires everyone to wear seat belts. Also, infants must be in approved child seats. And as long as you are dipping into my pockets and driving on our highways, you will need to wear a seat belt. Being injured in a car accident, while not wearing a seat belt, might be a good reason for health insurnace company to deny coverage. Afterall, the injury occurred during the commission of a crime. Now, does that logic meet with you?

Did you read the links I provided on this? The point is that when drivers feel safer because they are wearing seat belts, some of these drivers will drive more recklessly, which increases the dangers to other users of the road such as pedestrians. One of the articles I linked to referenced a study that road fatalities are approximately the same in various countries regardless of the level of safety device mandates. As regulations are added, people adjust their behavior in a way that offsets the intended result of the regulations.

I'm not actually advocating this, of course, but the most effective way to make the roads as safe as possible for everyone might be to make cars as dangerous as possible to the drivers. Wouldn't you drive a little more carefully if, instead of an airbag on your steering wheel, there were a large metal spike pointing at your sternum? You'd probably only drive 20 mph and be very watchful for other cars and pedestrians, and come to a careful and complete stop at every intersection. Again, I'm not advocating this in real life, but just trying to get you to see that the actual result of legislation is often nowhere near its stated intent.

You just can't resist fearing bogeymen everywhere. You talk about the affect of Government help? Well every European country's government helps far far more than ours and they are beating our pants off economically. I think you need to separate your emotion from the facts. Your fear of Government is illogical and the facts supporting it are wrong. Otherwise, the world is upside down. You will continue with your fears while our country further slips into oblivion. Maybe you fear you would become helpless and dependent, but I don't think that necessarily applies to others. Also, I think you, like me, should have your hands full judging yourself, being as flawed as we are, to be so preoccupied about judging others. Again, I'll quote the Bible: "Judge not, lest thou be judged." I think you and I just need to worry about being good people without dragging anyone else into it.

Otherwise, I'm done with the debate. I have answered your questions on the prior posts and others. I don't choose to live in fear, but you can continue, if you wish. I choose to look ahead and see a prosperous and happy future, and there will be more Government involvement in healthcare. Hey that''ll give you more reason to keep writing here anyway.

In my estimation, you have responded to about one third of my questions. The rest of your posts' content is largely accusations of me of living in fear, fearing the government, not being forward-thinking, not thinking of others, not being "progressive", etc. Often you will reply to a minor point in a lengthy post I make and simply ignore my arguments presented in the rest. How that qualifies as "debate" I'm not sure.

Despite all this, I have tried to remain civil, straightforward, and thorough in my replies to you. In this, I haven't always succeeded. I hope we haven't completely alienated all the other readers of this forum.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

When reading Dan's last post to Matt I see he praises Matt for "civility" and being "open minded". However, when reading Dan's last two posts in reply to Jonathon (whose posts I found well thought out like Matt's were) Dan's approach differs significantly. Assessing civility and open mindedness should not depend on whether or not one agrees with a position/opinion stated in another members post.

I have, in recent months, come to realize that open-minded means "agrees with me on something" and closed-minded means "does not agree with me".

[Dan Conner]

If your impression is that what I see is black an white, it is because I view government as antithetical to liberty. I happen to favor liberty over government, because government always grows to the point of oppression. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I know that you have the good intention of providing affordable health care to everyone, but my belief is that if we try to solve the problem the way you want to, we'll just create worse problems down the road.

If you view government as antithetical to liberty, then you are an anarchist, not a libertarian. Our democratic government will not be growing to the point of oppression unless you, as a constituent, do your job and stay informed and vote. I disagree that more problems will be created down the road. All great societies do things for everyone, including ours. You pay taxes for roads and many many things that contribute to growth. I fail to see where you or I have been oppressed. We might be spoiled and take things for granted, but certainly not oppressed. Heck, you are able to speak your mind here anytime you want. That is not oppression.

Yes, health insurance companies have screwed it up. And they have only been able to do so because of the government interventions which allowed them to do so. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this.

Well, you conclude correctly, but for the wrong reason. It has been because of a lack of oversight that insurance companies have been screwing up, not because of it. THey have even been exempted from anti-trust laws. However, insurance companies will be experiencing far more regulation, regardless of whether we have government option or not. If you feel government intervention caused it, explain. I think you need to support that wild assessment. You make things sound like insurance companies were here to heal us all for little cost, but the government made them charge more. If that's the case, then why do the healthcare insurnace companies so vehemently oppose the government option? Certainly, under your presumption, they should welcome competition from the Government option because they know they can beat it? If you believe that, I've got some swamp land for you.

It is not "fear" of government, Dan. It is my philosophically- and economically-based rejection of government as the best way to solve problems. My reasoned (not emotional) view is that the government has caused the very problems we now face, and that adding more government to the mix will exacerbate, rather than resolve, things.

There is little reasoned in your answer, or you would support what you say with facts and evidence. You don't even offer evidence for your beliefs. If you can't it must be that it is emotional. Face it, you fear Government, but for an unknown reason. This paragraph was just feelings you've offered, not facts or evidence.

As I said before, the U.S. has been heavily subsidizing other countries, especially on defense, which frees up more tax money for them to use on social programs where we could not. That, and I believe that most of these countries have recently been voting to introduce market-based reforms in order to control the costs that have resulted from social-based care.

Again, no evidence of facts. The US is one of the smallest country donors in the world, when comparing GDP's of donor countries. I think you are slapping yourself and our country on the back for something we don't deserve, and I know you don't like that because I read what you feel Obama deserved. The money we send for defense is self-serving. This is given for our own security interests. Sometimes that has been wise because it has helped avert war. Then you subvert so much of what you feel when you said it is OK to spend on social programs, if we don't spend so much on foreign assistance? Aren't you contradicting yourself? I think you are inconsistent here. I have no idea what you are saying in the rest of the paragraph.

The U.S. dollar is slipping because investors are losing faith in our promise and our ability to repay our debts and massive long-term liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) without inflating our dollar into worthlessness.

All I can say is WRONG! The debt caused by Social Security and Medicare has existed for many many years. And in those previous years our dollar was strong and revered in the world. You allegation is totally unsupported by the facts. The dollar has been falling like a rock the last few months because of the financial messes with the banks, unemployment, foreclosures, bank bailouts, etc. Our dollar was tremendously strong before that, with Social Security and Medicare debts. It was the laxity of Government oversight of the financial industry that is leading to the demise of the dollar.

I'm pretty sure labeling things like this isn't helping the discussion.

I think you better refer to the dictioanry. I used no labels here[B]


We agree on the problem, just not the solution. I don't blame you; we are looking at the world from different perspectives, so things that make sense to me won't make sense to you and vice versa. If you take the time to read a few of the things I linked to, like

[B]I don't need "Economics in One Lesson". I have had several economics courses in school, far more detailed than one lesson. I think it would be better if you expanded your knowledge and took some economics courses at MSU. I have little faith in a subject as complex as economics learned in one lesson.

Economics in One Lesson (http://jim.com/econ/), the
Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.jonathangullible.com/PoL/), How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't (http://www.scribd.com/doc/8009736/Irwin-Schiff-How-an-Economy-Grows-and-Why-It-Doesnt), and so on, then maybe you'll begin to see my perspective as not quite so crazy as you think it is.



Did you read the links I provided on this? The point is that when drivers feel safer because they are wearing seat belts, some of these drivers will drive more recklessly, which increases the dangers to other users of the road such as pedestrians. Well, I disagree with the entire premise. Maybe some would drive more recklessly, but this doesn't explain the drop in the death toll after these laws were passed. I now wear a seat belt and I am thankul for the air bags. I know many others thankful for them too. I think these kinds of references are used to justify not making any change. I believe some people are afraid of change and are adverse to it.

One of the articles I linked to referenced a study that road fatalities are approximately the same in various countries regardless of the level of safety device mandates. As regulations are added, people adjust their behavior in a way that offsets the intended result of the regulations.

Again, I disagree. Show me the statistics.

I'm not actually advocating this, of course, but the most effective way to make the roads as safe as possible for everyone might be to make cars as dangerous as possible to the drivers.

This is ridiculous and illogical. If you want to do that, go ahead.

Wouldn't you drive a little more carefully if, instead of an airbag on your steering wheel, there were a large metal spike pointing at your sternum? You'd probably only drive 20 mph and be very watchful for other cars and pedestrians, and come to a careful and complete stop at every intersection. Again, I'm not advocating this in real life, but just trying to get you to see that the actual result of legislation is often nowhere near its stated intent.

Why arewn't you advocating for it then? If you feel you would be safer, then why don't you do it? Strip of the air bags, seat belts, gas tank explosion preventatives, or safety measures to prevent rollovers, or antiskid brakes, etc. Go ahead, I challenge you to do it. Maybe I would be enticed to buy a life insurnace policy on you.

In my estimation, you have responded to about one third of my questions. The rest of your posts' content is largely accusations of me of living in fear, fearing the government, not being forward-thinking, not thinking of others, not being "progressive", etc. Often you will reply to a minor point in a lengthy post I make and simply ignore my arguments presented in the rest. How that qualifies as "debate" I'm not sure.

I have addressed all your questions possible. However, we could easily get into an argument about who addresses more questions. I only have to address the questions I want. That's that liberty thing you talk about. I don't have to respond to what I don't want to. I assume you can appreciate that.

Despite all this, I have tried to remain civil, straightforward, and thorough in my replies to you. In this, I haven't always succeeded. I hope we haven't completely alienated all the other readers of this forum. I believe I have been very civil and my replies to you as well. I hope we haven't alienated others as well. However, the purpose of this forum is to air beliefs, feelings, and assessments of issues of the day. And that's what I have tried to do.

[Bob Jentges]

In his post #63 Dan Conner states he is "done with the debate" so I do not consider my offering some thoughts being an interloper between he and Jonathon and/or Matt. However I do so with great hesitancy because from past experiences their is probably no more effective way in bringing Dan back into the debate than for me to post an opinion.

When reading Dan's last post to Matt I see he praises Matt for "civility" and being "open minded". However, when reading Dan's last two posts in reply to Jonathon (whose posts I found well thought out like Matt's were) Dan's approach differs significantly. Assessing civility and open mindedness should not depend on whether or not one agrees with a position/opinion stated in another members post.

Quite sometime back Dan asked me to offer some ideas to reduce the cost of health insurance/care. One I suggested was tort reform. He ridiculed the idea and called it a "non-idea idea", what ever that means. This mornings Our View editorial discusses tort reform and why most Democrats seem to resist it. Here is the link:

http://mankatofreepress.com/editorials/local_story_287170959.html?appSession=712004029021 076

There has been a great deal of rhetoric over private health insurers denial of claims. Some of you may find the graph in the link below interesting. In summary, it demonstrates that for the period between March '07 & March '08
Medicare's percentage of claim lines denied was greater than any of the other seven major private health companies included in the survey. The survey does not opine about what percentage of the denials were legitimate, but that is not the issue as I see it. The issue would seem to be that when it comes to health care, whether government run or private, neither is more "compassionate" than the other. Here is the link:

http://:739.photobucket.com/albums/xx40/mmatters/DenialsByInsurer2008.jpg

I think this health care reform debate has become too emotional. The way I see it the debate should center around freedom and what we and futute generations can afford, based on reason, logic and intellect.

Dan, I take it you have no comment on the editorial and/or graph cited in the above quote. I understand. Although I will not go so far as to say I am "Done with the debate" I will bow-out for now and leave it to you and Jonathon and others.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, I take it you have no comment on the editorial and/or graph cited in the above quote. I understand. Although I will not go so far as to say I am "Done with the debate" I will bow-out for now and leave it to you and Jonathon and others.Great suggestion. That's .5% of the problem fixed. Only 99.5% to go.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, I take it you have no comment on the editorial and/or graph cited in the above quote. I understand. Although I will not go so far as to say I am "Done with the debate" I will bow-out for now and leave it to you and Jonathon and others.A key and very important factor in the two denials is that the Medicare denial means the provider (doctor or hospital) don't get paid. In the case of the private insurer, the insurnace policy holder doesn't get paid. Since Medicare required consignment by the doctor, only the part Medicare allows is payable and the patient is not liable for the remainder. In other wards, Medicare denials have no significant impact on the patient. Denial by private insurnace sure does.

[Bob Jentges]

A key and very important factor in the two denials is that the Medicare denial means the provider (doctor or hospital) don't get paid. In the case of the private insurer, the insurnace policy holder doesn't get paid. Since Medicare required consignment by the doctor, only the part Medicare allows is payable and the patient is not liable for the remainder. In other wards, Medicare denials have no significant impact on the patient. Denial by private insurnace sure does.

Thank you for the good information. I do not know, but it would seem to follow that Medicad would operate in similar fashion. Maybe that explains why many doctors do not accept Medicad patients and more than a few are reassessing accepting new Medicare patients.

But as I said in my previous post, the statistics in the graph seem to substanciate that private health insurers percentage of denials is no greater (in fact lower) than government insurance (in this case Medicare) regardless of who does not get paid i.e. the provider or the patient.

[Dan Conner]

Thank you for the good information. I do not know, but it would seem to follow that Medicad would operate in similar fashion. Maybe that explains why many doctors do not accept Medicad patients and more than a few are reassessing accepting new Medicare patients.

But as I said in my previous post, the statistics in the graph seem to substanciate that private health insurers percentage of denials is no greater (in fact lower) than government insurance (in this case Medicare) regardless of who does not get paid i.e. the provider or the patient.I understand what you are saying, but I think you can seen it is a big difference who doesn't get paid. Also, there are precedures for preapproval.

[Dan Conner]

Here's an article covering Arlen Specter (former Republican) saying the Republicans have been obstructing legislation. I'm sure they want Obama to fail.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/specter-gop-is-a-party-of_n_325100.html

Also, I thought it interesting that every Republican voted against Frankens legislation to stop Halliburton from prohibiting women from reporting being raped. How can Halliburton muzzle people from reporting felonies?

[Matt Christianson]

Of course they are they are obstructing this legislation. For the reasons Bob, Jon and I have previously stated. If you'd feel the same you'd expect it. And we know that the amendment wasn't titled 'raping a person is wrong:yes or no." I believe that it would have simply allowed people to sue contractors who are hired by the government. It's not about reporting felonies. A rape is still a felony. This case involved civil litigation.

[Matt Christianson]

Actualy it passed so it does allow this. Here's the actual Statement of purpose.
To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

I don't nessesarily agree or disagree with the amendment I just thought Dan's statement that the amendment was to "to stop Halliburton from prohibiting women from reporting being raped" was a bit agregious.

[Bob Jentges]

Actualy it passed so it does allow this. Here's the actual Statement of purpose.
To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

I don't nessesarily agree or disagree with the amendment I just thought Dan's statement that the amendment was to "to stop Halliburton from prohibiting women from reporting being raped" was a bit agregious.

To begin, with I find using Arlen Spector as the basis for the claim that Republicans are acting as obstructionsist humerous, and to refer to him as a "former Republican", hillarious. Spector was a Democrat before he was a Republican before he was a Democrat. I predict after 2100 he will be referred to as "former".

It would be necessary for me to know the specific language and intent before I could agree or disagagree with the ammendment. But I agree with you Matt, about Dan's statement being "a bit agregious". It is difficult for me to accept that any person (except a rapist) would want anyone to be prohibited from reporting being raped! Also, I say enough partisan rhetoric about Halliburton already---the Obama Administration still contracts with then.

I have found that arbitration can be a successful dispute resolution tool. Back in the day when I was invlolved in the civil lawsuit process the State of Minnesota required that before any civil/tort lawsuit went to trial the parties must submit to non-binding arbitration. Simply put arbitration was mandatory, but non-binding. Moreover, an arbitration clause is included in many types of contracts.

Some people will certainly disagree but I consider HuffPo in the same vein as many partisan websites from either end on the political spectrum---always looking for a villan with the intent of trying to incite people.

[Matt Christianson]

Here is an interesting article on the damage the surtax on medical device makers will cause to the industry and its workforce.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/48633

[Bob Jentges]

Here is an interesting article on the damage the surtax on medical device makers will cause to the industry and its workforce.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/48633

I agree. Indiana is a large manufacturer of medical devices and that is one reason why their Democrat Senator Evan Bayh is saying he will vote against cloture. Minnesota is also a large manufacturer of those devices so if Senators Klobuchar & Franken were interested in the welfare of our state they would follow Bayh's lead---but they have said they won't!

Here is a recent article from Reason Magazine by Steve Chapman with the interesting sub title: "Using government-run health insurance to fix the status quo is like using a brick to improve a window".

http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/29/the-unhealthy-public-option

[Dan Conner]

Of course they are they are obstructing this legislation. For the reasons Bob, Jon and I have previously stated. If you'd feel the same you'd expect it. And we know that the amendment wasn't titled 'raping a person is wrong:yes or no." I believe that it would have simply allowed people to sue contractors who are hired by the government. It's not about reporting felonies. A rape is still a felony. This case involved civil litigation.Again, I suggest you read the legislation. It allowed contracts where people would not be able to testify against the c0ompany. They defined that to include being raped. I don't even feel that's constitutional. I don't see how a contract can be used to sign-away all your rights. I don't see how a contract could be successfully used to conceal a felony. Franken tried to cure that in legislation, but Republicans, the moralists they are, chose to opt to protect rapists and corporations. They could have offered amendments to the proposal, but decided to just vote against it. Afterall, the rights of corporations, even foreign corporations, are more important than people's rights.

[Dan Conner]

I agree. Indiana is a large manufacturer of medical devices and that is one reason why their Democrat Senator Evan Bayh is saying he will vote against cloture. Minnesota is also a large manufacturer of those devices so if Senators Klobuchar & Franken were interested in the welfare of our state they would follow Bayh's lead---but they have said they won't!

Here is a recent article from Reason Magazine by Steve Chapman with the interesting sub title: "Using government-run health insurance to fix the status quo is like using a brick to improve a window".

http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/29/the-unhealthy-public-optionReally too bad? It is only reasonable that when an industry highly profits in healthcare they need to return something to it, other than profits and dividends to stockholders. In this case, it's returning something back to the system that allowed them those hight profits. Also, I don't fear that they will be on the soup lines anytime soon because of this. All device manufacturers will have the tax, so get over it and compete.

[Dan Conner]

To begin, with I find using Arlen Spector as the basis for the claim that Republicans are acting as obstructionsist humerous, and to refer to him as a "former Republican", hillarious. Spector was a Democrat before he was a Republican before he was a Democrat. I predict after 2100 he will be referred to as "former".

It would be necessary for me to know the specific language and intent before I could agree or disagagree with the ammendment. But I agree with you Matt, about Dan's statement being "a bit agregious". It is difficult for me to accept that any person (except a rapist) would want anyone to be prohibited from reporting being raped! Also, I say enough partisan rhetoric about Halliburton already---the Obama Administration still contracts with then.

I have found that arbitration can be a successful dispute resolution tool. Back in the day when I was invlolved in the civil lawsuit process the State of Minnesota required that before any civil/tort lawsuit went to trial the parties must submit to non-binding arbitration. Simply put arbitration was mandatory, but non-binding. Moreover, an arbitration clause is included in many types of contracts.

Some people will certainly disagree but I consider HuffPo in the same vein as many partisan websites from either end on the political spectrum---always looking for a villan with the intent of trying to incite people.I didn't know you were empowered to define Republicans, conservatives, or others. Spector was a Republican. He caucused with them, the Republicans were angry when he left, he voted with them most of the time...Whbat's that saying...it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck... Spector was a Republican and has been for many years. All I can say is wrong again. I've noticed that anything you don't like or don't approve of, you just redefine. A Republican that doesn't neatly vote as you deem necessary is not a Republican. That's not only wrong, but you seem to be in denial. In time, the right-wing zealots will lose a lot more Republicans because they chose to redefine the party as extreme right-wing reactionaries.

[Matt Christianson]

Really too bad? It is only reasonable that when an industry highly profits in healthcare they need to return something to it, other than profits and dividends to stockholders. In this case, it's returning something back to the system that allowed them those hight profits. Also, I don't fear that they will be on the soup lines anytime soon because of this. All device manufacturers will have the tax, so get over it and compete.

ANd God forbid anyone profits. It's a lot more far reaching than just the medical device companies. This will affect companies in and around the Mankato area negatively. Yes they will compete but they will raise prices causing greater cost and higher insurance premiums. They will also limit compensation to their workers...usually the blue collar middle class folks, and affect their hiring practices. Use foresight and think big picture once in awhile.

[Dan Conner]

ANd God forbid anyone profits. It's a lot more far reaching than just the medical device companies. This will affect companies in and around the Mankato area negatively. Yes they will compete but they will raise prices causing greater cost and higher insurance premiums. They will also limit compensation to their workers...usually the blue collar middle class folks, and affect their hiring practices. Use foresight and think big picture once in awhile.Oh, those poor medical device manufacturers! I think their profits will still survive after a little more tax, but here's a boo-hoo from me. They can cry in my pocket, if they wish. I'm sure companies in an around Mankato will do fine, even with the tax. WOW! I sense a concern about the workers? Great. Now maybe laid off workers and the other unemployed will get some of the life-saving medical treatment they need. It kind of makes the whining of the medical device makers seem small, doesn't it?

I think human lives trumps here. I know you have been concerned about being laid off in the future. You better hope you aren't victimized by a selfish public when and if you desperately need life-saving healthcare.

I am thinking big picture. So have all the other industrialized countries in the world who are healthier, happier, and better off financially. We are the only industrialized country living in the past with a system killing our own people and that doesn't work.

[Matt Christianson]

Oh, those poor medical device manufacturers! I think their profits will still survive after a little more tax, but here's a boo-hoo from me. They can cry in my pocket, if they wish. I'm sure companies in an around Mankato will do fine, even with the tax. WOW! I sense a concern about the workers? Great. Now maybe laid off workers and the other unemployed will get some of the life-saving medical treatment they need. It kind of makes the whining of the medical device makers seem small, doesn't it?

I think human lives trumps here. I know you have been concerned about being laid off in the future. You better hope you aren't victimized by a selfish public when and if you desperately need life-saving healthcare.

I am thinking big picture. So have all the other industrialized countries in the world who are healthier, happier, and better off financially. We are the only industrialized country living in the past with a system killing our own people and that doesn't work.

I can't wait to have your awesome healthcare system in place. Too bad I'll be homeless because i lost my job. But I'll have access to affordable healthcare!!! Will they let me live in the hospital?

The liberals have better wise up and realize that their supposed base, the working class, will run them out of office on a rail when they pass unsustainable healthcare legislation at the expense of everything else intrical to American society. You're not thinking big picture if you don't see the interconnectivity from penal surtaxes on businesses to Main St working families' job security. Healthcare means nothing if you don't have job

[Dan Conner]

I can't wait to have your awesome healthcare system in place. Too bad I'll be homeless because i lost my job. But I'll have access to affordable healthcare!!! Will they let me live in the hospital?

The liberals have better wise up and realize that their supposed base, the working class, will run them out of office on a rail when they pass unsustainable healthcare legislation at the expense of everything else intrical to American society. You're not thinking big picture if you don't see the interconnectivity from penal surtaxes on businesses to Main St working families' job security. Healthcare means nothing if you don't have jobThere you go yet again with more fear. You guys have to learn to accept change without meaningless fear. It's laughable to think that an extremely modest natioanl healthcare plan will cause you to be unemployed. That's na enormous stretch!

In case you forget, the CBO marked up the House and Senate plans. Both are expected to save the Treasury money. In other words, they wpon't contribute to the deficit, they will help reduce it.

Despite all this, if appears you like be afraid. So, I guess continue fearing these positive events in our country, or find a way to deal with it like every other adult in our country will have to do. I'm just trying to help you when I say national healthcare will be good for our country and you. If it happens, we'll all get a chance to verify that. I do know over 35 million uninsured people will appreciate it.

[Bob Jentges]

Here is a link to an article in a publication generally considered left-of-center (The New Yorker) by a self described "progressve" economist. He does not get into ideology, constitutionality, etc., but confines his analysis to the economics of the Pelosi proposal. His objective analysis is that it is not sustainable financially/economically!

http://www.am1500.com/link/Some-Vaguely_Heretical_Thoughts_on_HealthCare_Reform_fr om_The_New_Yorker

[Bob Jentges]

Here is a link to a Washington Post column by David Broder this morning. He says the current Democrat health care reform proposals are budget busters, and if President Obama stands by his promise he will not sign off. As most of you know, Mr. Broder is highly respected and considered by most as the dean of beltway journalists. He is no Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannety or even Sarah Palin (whose new book sold 300,000 copies the first day).

If you have not read the column and want to read it you should do so soon, before it is removed from the web site for tomorrows edition of the Post.

If you miss it, maybe The Free Press will reprint it one of these days.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002618.html?hpid=opinionbox1

[Dan Conner]

Great news!! The Senate just finished voting for cloture. The Senate healthcare bill will now go to the Senate floor for debate and vote by simple majority. I think this is wonderful news for the American people. 31 million more people will be covered with health insurance. A big win for everyone.

Now the Senate will debate, amend and vote on healthcare reform. After the HGouse Senate conference a final bill will be voted on by both houses of Congress in a simple majority. God Bless America!!

Here's a link about how some of the elderly feel about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/21/old-folks-to-senate-vote_n_366447.html

[Bob Jentges]

I suppose post #88 qualifies for this Paying for health care thread, but in my opinion there may have been more directly on point threads that could have been used. Some might conclude the reason this thread was used was because of the name of the person that entered post #87, which was about a Washington Post article by David Broder suggesting the health care bill under consideration in the Senate would bust the budget! Could involve a case of BDS---probably covered as a pre-existing condition which I favor.

I do not claim to be a parlimentarian, but I think post #88 might have left out one step in the Senate process. Now that there were the 60 votes necessary to begin debate I beleive it will also be necessary to get 60 votes to end debate. When that happens, and I expect it will in spite of the dances of Democrat Senators Landrieu, Lincoln, Ben Nelson and one or two others, then the simple majority vote for passage in the Senate would take place.

The exception would be if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D NV) does not follow regular order and tries a procedure called reconcilliation.

If I am wrong about the Senate process I am open to hearing from someone who can correct my misunderstanding of the process.

[Dan Conner]

I suppose post #88 qualifies for this Paying for health care thread, but in my opinion there may have been more directly on point threads that could have been used. Some might conclude the reason this thread was used was because of the name of the person that entered post #87, which was about a Washington Post article by David Broder suggesting the health care bill under consideration in the Senate would bust the budget! Could involve a case of BDS---probably covered as a pre-existing condition which I favor.

I do not claim to be a parlimentarian, but I think post #88 might have left out one step in the Senate process. Now that there were the 60 votes necessary to begin debate I beleive it will also be necessary to get 60 votes to end debate. When that happens, and I expect it will in spite of the dances of Democrat Senators Landrieu, Lincoln, Ben Nelson and one or two others, then the simple majority vote for passage in the Senate would take place.

The exception would be if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D NV) does not follow regular order and tries a procedure called reconcilliation.

If I am wrong about the Senate process I am open to hearing from someone who can correct my misunderstanding of the process.While I too am not a parliamentary expert, I believe you are wrong. Voting for cloture ends the filibuster debate. The bill now procedures to the Senate, for formal consideration, discussion of Amendments, limited debate, and final passage by simple majority. Since cloture was passed, a filibuster is not now an option. Therefore, I believe the bill now is only subject to traditional majority vote. The cloture vote now prohibits filibuster and brings the bill to the floor of the full Senate. Here is information about the other limitations:

After cloture has been invoked, the following restrictions apply:

No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.
No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
Certain procedural motions are not permissible.
The presiding officer gains additional power in controlling debate.
No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of.

I understand there still are some parliamentary procedures that can obstruct the process, but I don't know if they can halt it entirely.

Now the healthcare bill will be more substantively discussed and passed by simple majority, which is great news for the American people, but maybe not such good news for insurance companies. What the heck. Our Government is here to serve the people anyway, not corporate interests and it is a major win for people over corporate interests. Those corporate interests have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in their "profit deprived state" (a little tongue in cheek) to defeat this legislation, but the Senate decided the will of the people outweighed profits of a narrow special interest. That's a big win for the people!!

Also, I believe this post is relevant to this thread.

[Bob Jentges]

While I too am not a parliamentary expert, I believe you are wrong. Voting for cloture ends the filibuster debate. The bill now procedures to the Senate, for formal consideration, discussion of Amendments, limited debate, and final passage by simple majority. Since cloture was passed, a filibuster is not now an option. Therefore, I believe the bill now is only subject to traditional majority vote. The cloture vote now prohibits filibuster and brings the bill to the floor of the full Senate. Here is information about the other limitations:

After cloture has been invoked, the following restrictions apply:

No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.
No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
Certain procedural motions are not permissible.
The presiding officer gains additional power in controlling debate.
No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of.

I understand there still are some parliamentary procedures that can obstruct the process, but I don't know if they can halt it entirely.

Now the healthcare bill will be more substantively discussed and passed by simple majority, which is great news for the American people, but maybe not such good news for insurance companies. What the heck. Our Government is here to serve the people anyway, not corporate interests and it is a major win for people over corporate interests. Those corporate interests have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in their "profit deprived state" (a little tongue in cheek) to defeat this legislation, but the Senate decided the will of the people outweighed profits of a narrow special interest. That's a big win for the people!!

Also, I believe this post is relevant to this thread.

We can agree or disagree on whether your earlier post was relevant to this thread. But I do appreciate your opinion that I am wrong about the requirement it will take 60 votes to end debate, without adding any personal ridicule and/or insults. If we can keep that civility I certainly am willing to communicate direct with you in this Forum.

I was aware that a filibuster to open debate can be overcome by invoking cloture, which was accomplished Saturday evening. But I still think a filibuster is available once debate starts, as an attempt to keep the matter from coming to a simple majority vote on passage. I thought I had seen that procedure used when watching Senate debates on on CSpan2 in other matters. If I recall correctly, cloture votes to end debate have been filed more than once during the same debate. I will agree the "no more than 30 hours of debate" point you make could be the decider, however; I do not know.

The reason I hold the view I do on the matter is beacuse if that were not the case, a successful cloture vote to begin debate would almost certainly assure passage in the instant situation. The Rebublicans have 40 votes and it only takes a simple majority (50+VP Biden) to pass the bill.

Some Democrats and one Independent/Democrat have said they voted for cloture to begin debate, but would not vote for final passage if some provisions i.e. public option, abortion language, etc., were still in the bill at the time of the vote on passage. Whether they hold to their positions on that is yet to be seen. But whether they do or do not, there are only about a handfull of those Senators, so more than 50 votes for final passage is almost a certainty, even without their yes votes. If that is the case, it seems to me the debate might be an exercise in futility.

I have heard two versions of the amendment process. If it only takes a majority vote against to defeat an amendment it seems unlikely any Republican amendment would pass. Someone told me it takes 60 votes to bring amendments up for a vote. I do not know that for sure either, but if that is the case it seems it might be difficult to pass any amendments. Lots of things I do not know about the amendment process on the Reid proposal. I hope to learn more as time passes.

I have been of the opinion the 60 vote for cloture to end debate and proceed to a final vote under the regular order rule (60 votes for cloture) was instituted to protect the rights of the minority, against being over run by the majority, regardless of which political party is in power.

If I am correct in that opinion i.e. 60 votes necessary to close debate and move to a final vote on passage, maybe the larger question is would the waivering Democrats vote against cloture if the things they disagree about remain in the bill before final vote? That might be a good lesson in the principles and integrity of some of the Senators!

I read that Joe Leiberman and Blanche Lincoln have said that even though they voted for cloture to begin debate they would "block" any bill that included the public option. On ABC's This Week this morning it was reported Ben Nelson said he would support an expected Republican filibuster if the present public option remains in the bill. I do not understand why those three would say that, or how they could accomplish that, if a filibuster is not still a viable option.

But since we both admit we are not Senate parlimentarians, unless someone with more expertise in these areas than we have can enlighten us (at least me) on the question in this Forum, I will wait to see how the situation plays out. I have almost no power to change it anyway.

Having said all that, I never have favored the status quo. I would like to see some health care reform pass and signed into law. My disagreements have been primarily the process, and secondarily the content.

[Dan Conner]

We can agree or disagree on whether your earlier post was relevant to this thread. But I do appreciate your opinion that I am wrong about the requirement it will take 60 votes to end debate, without adding any personal ridicule and/or insults. If we can keep that civility I certainly am willing to communicate direct with you in this Forum.

I was aware that a filibuster to open debate can be overcome by invoking cloture, which was accomplished Saturday evening. But I still think a filibuster is available once debate starts, as an attempt to keep the matter from coming to a simple majority vote on passage. I thought I had seen that procedure used when watching Senate debates on on CSpan2 in other matters. If I recall correctly, cloture votes to end debate have been filed more than once during the same debate. I will agree the "no more than 30 hours of debate" point you make could be the decider, however; I do not know.
The reason I hold the view I do on the matter is beacuse if that were not the case, a successful cloture vote to begin debate would almost certainly assure passage in the instant situation. The Rebublicans have 40 votes and it only takes a simple majority (50+VP Biden) to pass the bill.

Some Democrats and one Independent/Democrat have said they voted for cloture to begin debate, but would not vote for final passage if some provisions i.e. public option, abortion language, etc., were still in the bill at the time of the vote on passage. Whether they hold to their positions on that is yet to be seen. But whether they do or do not, there are only about a handfull of those Senators, so more than 50 votes for final passage is almost a certainty, even without their yes votes. If that is the case, it seems to me the debate might be an exercise in futility.

I have heard two versions of the amendment process. If it only takes a majority vote against to defeat an amendment it seems unlikely any Republican amendment would pass. Someone told me it takes 60 votes to bring amendments up for a vote. I do not know that for sure either, but if that is the case it seems it might be difficult to pass any amendments. Lots of things I do not know about the amendment process on the Reid proposal. I hope to learn more as time passes.

I have been of the opinion the 60 vote for cloture to end debate and proceed to a final vote under the regular order rule (60 votes for cloture) was instituted to protect the rights of the minority, against being over run by the majority, regardless of which political party is in power.True

If I am correct in that opinion i.e. 60 votes necessary to close debateI think cloture could be more accurately described as a way of ending/preventing a filibuster, because if would be a filibuster that prevents the legilation from reaching the Senate floor for a formal vote and move to a final vote on passage, maybe the larger question is would the waivering Democrats vote against cloture if the things they disagree about remain in the bill before final vote? That might be a good lesson in the principles and integrity of some of the Senators!I believe the reson for jubilance, on the part of Democrats, at the cloture vote is that now the actual bill will be voted on, by simple majority, since the cloture vote was successful. They celebrated realizing that they very well might lose 3 or 4 Democratic votes on the final bill, but that there would still be enough votes to pass the bill. The 3 or four waivering Democrats rationalized their cloture vote by saying they thought healthcare reform was definitely needed, but they have an issue with the Government option. However, they thought the bill should be debated and voted on.

I read that Joe Leiberman and Blanche Lincoln have said that even though they voted for cloture to begin debate they would "block" any bill that included the public option. On ABC's This Week this morning it was reported Ben Nelson said he would support an expected Republican filibuster if the present public option remains in the bill. I do not understand why those three would say that, or how they could accomplish that, if a filibuster is not still a viable option.I will research that

But since we both admit we are not Senate parlimentarians, unless someone with more expertise in these areas than we have can enlighten us (at least me) on the question in this Forum, I will wait to see how the situation plays out. I have almost no power to change it anyway.

Having said all that, I never have favored the status quo. I would like to see some health care reform pass and signed into law. My disagreements have been primarily the process, and secondarily the content.Right, I agree we will continue to disagree about many things. And I will be as civil as I get in return. I also appreciate the omission of ad-hominem personal attacks. I will try to respect you as you respect me. I wish to communicate substance, not insults. I don't view communicating directly with you as essential, but I do think we have wasted a lot of electronic media on issues unrelated to the issues of the day.

I will research the issue for a more definitive answer. However, as I understand the process, there are two distinct stages for legislation in the Senate. The first issue is to decide whether proposed legislation will be brought onto the floor of the Senate for a general vote. The only way to prevent the scheduled legislation from reaching the "floor of the Senate" is through filibuster. Cloture kills the opportunity to filibuster. I believe that is the last time a filibuster can be invoked for a particular piece of legislation, but I will check that out. There are only a few votes that require "supermajorities" and stopping filibusters is one of them. As fare as I know cloture is the only additional consideration given teh minority, besides the amendment process. Also, remember, the process is not relegated to the majority after cloture. First, the two bills (House and Senate bill) will have to be resolved via conference and the resulting bill voted on. Maybe that's the point for a possible filibuster. Also, the amendment process can decidely change votes on the final bill.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, I will be interested to see what your "research" developes, as well as input from others on the issues. But I would hope that Senators Joe Leiberman and Ben Nelson know when a filibuster is an option. With all due respect because I like both of them, notice I said "hope" as opposed to expect!

I think legislation is usually brought to the Senate floor for debate through a Unanamous Consent Agreement. If no Senator objects debate begins, but a filibuster is still an option during the debate process, and it takes a successful cloture vote to end the filibuster. If one Senator objects to the UC a cloture vote is necessary to get the matter to the floor for debate. I just do not understand how an issue gets to the Senate floor for debate i.e. UC or cloture vote, should determine whether or not a filibuster is an option later during debate. But I am ready to learn.

I will not be doing any research of my own because whatever it is, it is, and I can not change it. I prefer going on my merry way with my regular day-to-day activities thinking I am right, until the process plays itself out and I learn one way or the other.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, I will be interested to see what your "research" developes, as well as input from others on the issues. But I would hope that Senators Joe Leiberman and Ben Nelson know when a filibuster is an option. With all due respect because I like both of them, notice I said "hope" as opposed to expect!

I think legislation is usually brought to the Senate floor for debate through a Unanamous Consent Agreement. If no Senator objects debate begins, but a filibuster is still an option during the debate process, and it takes a successful cloture vote to end the filibuster. If one Senator objects to the UC a cloture vote is necessary to get the matter to the floor for debate. I just do not understand how an issue gets to the Senate floor for debate i.e. UC or cloture vote, should determine whether or not a filibuster is an option later during debate. But I am ready to learn.

I will not be doing any research of my own because whatever it is, it is, and I can not change it. I prefer going on my merry way with my regular day-to-day activities thinking I am right, until the process plays itself out and I learn one way or the other.Well, I stand corrected, I think. I called several senators' offices about filibustering and cloture. While there are usually several opportunities to filibuster, and therefore cloture, it all depends on the cloture resolution. In many instances filibuster can be limited. While each amendment can be filibustered, that can be limited too.

I could not talk to a person in enough of the know to be very definitve about upcoming debate and possible impending filibusters. I guess we will find out, as we hear in the news what the progress of the bill is.

I did think it a little unusual, that in the many Senators offices I called, there was really no one who completely understood the parliamentary process, other that that laid out on Thomas.

Her's a section out of the Senate rules: "Debate, Filibusters, and Cloture

The presiding officer of the Senate may not use the power to recognize Senators to control the flow of business. If no Senator holds the floor, any Senator seeking recognition has a right to be recognized, and then, usually, to speak for as long as he or she wishes (but only twice a day on the same question). Once recognized, a Senator can move to call up any measure or offer any amendment or motion that is in order. Senate rules do not permit a majority to end debate and vote on a pending question.


Generally, no debatable question can come to a vote if Senators still wish to speak. Senators who oppose a pending bill or other matter may speak against it at indefinite length, or delay action by offering numerous amendments and motions. A filibuster involves using such tactics in the hope of convincing the Senate to alter a measure or withdraw it from consideration. The only bills that cannot be filibustered are those few considered under provisions of law that limit time for debating them.


The only procedure Senate rules provide for overcoming filibusters is cloture, which cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed in a petition signed by 16 Senators. Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of Senators (normally 60), except on proposals to change the rules, when cloture requires two-thirds of Senators voting. If the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, amendment, or other matter, its further consideration is limited to 30 additional hours, including time consumed by votes and quorum calls, during which each Senator may speak for no more than one hour.

Here is a thorough reference for the rules of the Senate: http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=HowCongressWorks.RulesOfSenat e

[Bob Jentges]

Thank you for your research Dan, and sharing it with Forum readers.

Like I think you seem to be, I too am a little chagrined that "...in the many Senators offices [you] called, there was really no one who completly understood the parlimentary process,...". Maybe the rules of the Senate are as difficult to comprehend as some of the 2000+ page bills Senators (and House members) would like to pass that will have a significant effect on our lives, as well as those of future generations. Hopefully at least the Senate majority and minority leaders understand it i.e. parlimentary process and bill!

I feel a little better now, but certainly not confident enough to think a filibuster during floor debate will kill the bill. But it may precipitate what I hope would be significant improvements (from my point of view) in the end product produced during floor debate.

It seems that will depend on what amendments pass and how sincere a handfull wavering Senators are about not allowing passage if changes they want are not made through the ammendment process.

From a practical standpoint, if it does indeed take 60 votes to proceed to a majority up or down vote on an amendment, it seems to me what happens will be predicated by how Democrats react to proposed amendments. However, even if Democrats vote to allow a vote that does not necessarily mean they will vote for the amendment later. But depending on the amendment, if Democtats vote it down they risk the chance of not stopping a filibuster and possibly killing the entire bill themselves.

A Rasmussen poll released today (11/23) shows public support for the Democrat proposal continues to drop. It is now 38% favor and 56% oppose. I hope the Senators are listening to the people and put together something the people will support.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

I would prefer something pass the Senate; what is the question! Maybe one, two, or even three hundred pages of bi-partisan ideas that would increase accessability and actually bring down health care costs, without increasing the deficit/debt. I think that is essentually is what President Obama said he wanted to begin with. Good grief---what has happened in the interm?

[Dan Conner]

Thank you for your research Dan, and sharing it with Forum readers.

Like I think you seem to be, I too am a little chagrined that "...in the many Senators offices [you] called, there was really no one who completly understood the parlimentary process,...". Maybe the rules of the Senate are as difficult to comprehend as some of the 2000+ page bills Senators (and House members) would like to pass that will have a significant effect on our lives, as well as those of future generations. Hopefully at least the Senate majority and minority leaders understand it i.e. parlimentary process and bill!

I feel a little better now, but certainly not confident enough to think a filibuster during floor debate will kill the bill. But it may precipitate what I hope would be significant improvements (from my point of view) in the end product produced during floor debate.
It seems that will depend on what amendments pass and how sincere a handfull wavering Senators are about not allowing passage if changes they want are not made through the ammendment process.

From a practical standpoint, if it does indeed take 60 votes to proceed to a majority up or down vote on an amendment, it seems to me what happens will be predicated by how Democrats react to proposed amendments. However, even if Democrats vote to allow a vote that does not necessarily mean they will vote for the amendment later. But depending on the amendment, if Democtats vote it down they risk the chance of not stopping a filibuster and possibly killing the entire bill themselves.

A Rasmussen poll released today (11/23) shows public support for the Democrat proposal continues to drop. It is now 38% favor and 56% oppose. I hope the Senators are listening to the people and put together something the people will support.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

I would prefer something pass the Senate; what is the question! Maybe one, two, or even three hundred pages of bi-partisan ideas that would increase accessability and actually bring down health care costs, without increasing the deficit/debt. I think that is essentually is what President Obama said he wanted to begin with. Good grief---what has happened in the interm?While I understand your chagrin about the workings of the Senate, I don't understand your concern about the length of the healthcare reform legislation. If a law was passed implementing single-payer, it would probably be pretty short, but this law is undoubtedly very complicated with many nuances and facets to it. Much like most legislation, many ideas are cobbled together in order to get the votes necessary for passage. It's part of the art of compromise.

I have explained to many about Social Security - The law is long and complicated because it endeavors to be fair to all. While it originally only offered retirement, widows, spouses, disability, and children have been since added. All were seen as groups needing financial help upon the death or retirement of wage earners. Unfortunately, the effort to be as fair as possible, necessarily complicates the law and the implementing regulations. Simple "black and white" laws are uncomplicated and short (many times), but fair laws are many times very very complicated and long. The Social Security Act is very long too.

[Bob Jentges]

For those interested, here is a link to a 11/25 article by Machael Barone in the Washington Examiner titled: Damn the deficit: Full speed ahead on health care.

I think the article is germaine to this Paying for health care thread.

http://washingtioexaminer.com/politics/Damn-the-deficit_-Full-speed-ahead-on-health-care-8583120-73022217.html

[Dan Conner]

For those interested, here is a link to a 11/25 article by Machael Barone in the Washington Examiner titled: Damn the deficit: Full speed ahead on health care.

I think the article is germaine to this Paying for health care thread.

http://washingtioexaminer.com/politics/Damn-the-deficit_-Full-speed-ahead-on-health-care-8583120-73022217.htmlBob, You didn't explain why you feel it necessary that healthcare legislation be short. What specifically is your concerns about the length of the law? Are you saying short is good and long is bad?

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, You didn't explain why you feel it necessary that healthcare legislation be short. What specifically is your concerns about the length of the law? Are you saying short is good and long is bad?

I will not say that "short" is always good and "long" is always bad when it comes to any legislation, but I will opine that targeted, concisely written legislation, as opposed to comprehensive legislation, is almost always better. Without getting overly lengthy I will try to further address your question with the following observations.

When I left the public sector (teaching & coaching) and began working in the private sector my job responsibilities included writing reports. After writing a few lengthy reports my first supervisor (a lawyer), not so tactfully suggested that in writing their is a critical difference between volume and quality. He cited words Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter when responding to in inquiry, that I remember to this day: "If I had more time I could write shorter letters."

When working with appellate lawyers in preparing legal briefs to the state Supreme Court, and suggesting something be added I was often told that unless it was directly on point with the instant issue it would be best not to include it. Judges and Justices appreciate brevity.

So when writing something my message to myself has long been, without being simplistic, Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).

As to the 2000+ page health care reform bill, I think more of our elected officials would have read the bill, and understood what they read, if it had
been shorter and more focused on just a few incramental basic reforms to get the process started. For example, they might have started with the accessability issue (coverage for the uninsured) and maybe reducing the cost of health care. Later they could propose additional incramental improvements in the system.

I could write more, but this post is probably already too long so I will leave a link to an 11/25 article by Ken Connor in Center For A Just Society, that is somewhat related to the issue and thread.

http://centerforajustsociety.org/press/article.asp?pr=5738

We will have a total of 23 (kids & spouse and grandchildren) here for Thanksgiving Dinner so I have chores to get at. I will leave you and anyone that might read this post by wishing HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

[Dan Conner]

I will not say that "short" is always good and "long" is always bad when it comes to any legislation, but I will opine that targeted, concisely written legislation, as opposed to comprehensive legislation, is almost always better. Without getting overly lengthy I will try to further address your question with the following observations.

When I left the public sector (teaching & coaching) and began working in the private sector my job responsibilities included writing reports. After writing a few lengthy reports my first supervisor (a lawyer), not so tactfully suggested that in writing their is a critical difference between volume and quality. He cited words Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter when responding to in inquiry, that I remember to this day: "If I had more time I could write shorter letters."

When working with appellate lawyers in preparing legal briefs to the state Supreme Court, and suggesting something be added I was often told that unless it was directly on point with the instant issue it would be best not to include it. Judges and Justices appreciate brevity.

So when writing something my message to myself has long been, without being simplistic, Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).

As to the 2000+ page health care reform bill, I think more of our elected officials would have read the bill, and understood what they read, if it had
been shorter and more focused on just a few incramental basic reforms to get the process started. For example, they might have started with the accessability issue (coverage for the uninsured) and maybe reducing the cost of health care. Later they could propose additional incramental improvements in the system.

I could write more, but this post is probably already too long so I will leave a link to an 11/25 article by Ken Connor in Center For A Just Society, that is somewhat related to the issue and thread.

http://centerforajustsociety.org/press/article.asp?pr=5738

We will have a total of 23 (kids & spouse and grandchildren) here for Thanksgiving Dinner so I have chores to get at. I will leave you and anyone that might read this post by wishing HAPPY THANKSGIVING!Well, I feel and have been trained as you, but I don't pretend to know anything about legislating or writing laws. Also, I don't think it practical that I judge a law based on the number of pages. I think a better more reasoned judgement might be about the content of the law. While I haven't read the entire content of the law, I have read small segments.

As we have done many times, having a tendency to judge other fields of expertise, I think it is best that we restrict our judgements to those areas where we have some expertise. Since you told me you were a coach, I'm sure you didn't appreciate a kabitzing parent, with little knowledge of the sport, interjecting judgements about either you or other players. I wouldn't either. I think interjecting our judgement simply based on the length of a document isn't appropriate either. We are not experts in that area, nor have we made serious inquiry into the process, or the writers of the legislation, to better understand why it might be so long. A better approach might be to ask one of the drafters of that legislation and then better form an opinion. I don't think it is a good idea to judge the case here, without any of the facts.

[Bob Jentges]

Well, I feel and have been trained as you, but I don't pretend to know anything about legislating or writing laws. Also, I don't think it practical that I judge a law based on the number of pages. I think a better more reasoned judgement might be about the content of the law. While I haven't read the entire content of the law, I have read small segments.

As we have done many times, having a tendency to judge other fields of expertise, I think it is best that we restrict our judgements to those areas where we have some expertise. Since you told me you were a coach, I'm sure you didn't appreciate a kabitzing parent, with little knowledge of the sport, interjecting judgements about either you or other players. I wouldn't either. I think interjecting our judgement simply based on the length of a document isn't appropriate either. We are not experts in that area, nor have we made serious inquiry into the process, or the writers of the legislation, to better understand why it might be so long. A better approach might be to ask one of the drafters of that legislation and then better form an opinion. I don't think it is a good idea to judge the case here, without any of the facts.

My small part in getting ready for Thanksgiving Dinner for the crowd is complete. The rest is up to those that actually finish the food prearation.

I, like you "...haven't read the entire content of the law, I have read small segments." I have also (like I expect you have) read numerous opinion articles about the content of the law. I expect most of those authers read major portions, if not all of the "law" when formulating their opinions.

Based on my eight years as a coach I also agree with you that a "...kabitzing parent", or fan for that matter, frustrated me on occassion. But I listened and often learned something. I think our elected officials should approach their work in legislating/governing with a similar attitude.

I am including a link to a late afternoon/early evening 11/25 opinion article by Charles Krauthammer, which I first read a few minutes ago. Certainly he is of the conservative bent, but I believe he is well respected by most people, regardless of their ideology. He is a trained medical doctor/psyciatrist. I believe his article is a very worthwhile read. He has said he has read all of the "law", and I take him at his word.

Without trying to discourage anyone from reading the enitre Krauthammer article I will say that he seems to agree with me on the KISS principle mentioned in my post earlier this morning, and also agrees with my opinion that effective health care reform legislation would be best undertaken one reform at a time.

People often complain about the "fine print" in insurance policies, but some of those same people seem to accept most, if not all of what is written in these 2000+ pages each health care proposals with few concerns.

Again, I highly recommend the Krauthammer article.

http://investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/article.aspx?id=513541

[Dan Conner]

My small part in getting ready for Thanksgiving Dinner for the crowd is complete. The rest is up to those that actually finish the food prearation.

I, like you "...haven't read the entire content of the law, I have read small segments." I have also (like I expect you have) read numerous opinion articles about the content of the law. I expect most of those authers read major portions, if not all of the "law" when formulating their opinions.

Based on my eight years as a coach I also agree with you that a "...kabitzing parent", or fan for that matter, frustrated me on occassion. But I listened and often learned something. I think our elected officials should approach their work in legislating/governing with a similar attitude.

I am including a link to a late afternoon/early evening 11/25 opinion article by Charles Krauthammer, which I first read a few minutes ago. Certainly he is of the conservative bent, but I believe he is well respected by most people, regardless of their ideology. He is a trained medical doctor/psyciatrist. I believe his article is a very worthwhile read. He has said he has read all of the "law", and I take him at his word.

Without trying to discourage anyone from reading the enitre Krauthammer article I will say that he seems to agree with me on the KISS principle mentioned in my post earlier this morning, and also agrees with my opinion that effective health care reform legislation would be best undertaken one reform at a time.

People often complain about the "fine print" in insurance policies, but some of those same people seem to accept most, if not all of what is written in these 2000+ pages each health care proposals with few concerns.

Again, I highly recommend the Krauthammer article.

http://investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/article.aspx?id=513541I take your suggestion under advisement, but I doubt I'll read his column, because I know what he'll say without reading it.

I think comparing legislation to insurance policies is comparing apples and oranges. They are not related. Insurance is kind of like a contract, but legislation is making a law. Totally different processes are used to formulate the two. In addition, a policy is usually a pretty standard agreement between the company and the policy holder. Legislation creates the legal "atmosphere" in which activities should occur. In so doing, the law must be definitive to prevent "loopholes", it must be clear to avoid misapplying it, and it is passed in a compromising process. Legislatures are all about compromise. Accordingly, in the art of compromise, concessions are made to legislators you agree to vote in favor. I belive this substantially contributes to the complexity of the law.

Most importantly, considering the fact that healthcare costs consume about 1/6th of our GDP, involves millions of providers, enormous insurance companies, Government, and costs about $2.4 trillion dollars a year, I don't find it surprising that the legislation is immensely complex and lengthy.

I too have coached sports activity when my kids were in school. I coached football. I cheerfully accepted parental ideas about how to better win, but I didn't appreciate the "political" parents who would demean other kids in some political ploy to make their child look better, or create an opportunity for their child to play more.

Also, I think many of our legislators are listening to their constituents. While there might be a few that could listen better, I think that applies to all of us. I just attended a public meeting with Tim Walz this last weekend. The audience was given lots of time for input...and Tim listened. However, I think people all too often confuse listening with sychophancy. I'm sure Tim has listened and will consider voter input, but the decision is still his to make. Listening to voters doesn't mean doing everything they want.

I think Tim and Obama have ushered in a new era in our politics where they better listen to the public. Obama has a website seeking public opinion and he has made numerous speeches where he has listened as well as talk. This was't the case in the past. Hopefully, we have elected a thoughtful, deliberative and compassionate President, but not a sycophant.

[Bob Jentges]

See previous post #102. "...I think many of our legislators are listening to their constituants."

If by the word "many" the poster meant a majority and by "our" he meant Senators Klobuchar & Franken and Representative Walz, retractions might be accepted!

[Bob Jentges]

Warren Buffett, probably the wealthiest person in the USA is a highly respected investor, was a huge contributor to the Obama Campaign, is still a staunch Obama supporter and proponent of health care reform.

Mr. Buffet was interviewed on CNBC recently. To paraphrase and quote some of the remarks he made:
---He says the present proposals do not attack the "cost situation".
---He would concentrate on and "...attack costs, costs, costs", and not put-
up a bill with 2,000 pages addressing all kinds of other issues.
---He hopes Congress will develope a new health care reform proposal that
will "...restrict costs more than any of the current plans would".

Mr. Buffet's ideas seem similar to those of some others who have been discussing health care reform in various posts in this Forum. Having said that, I suppose we can expect that at least one Forum member would accuse Mr. Buffet (a liberal Democrat) of not caring for the ..."45,000 people that die each year in the United States for lack of health care".

Dr. Thomas Sowell has a very good factual article, also repleat with logic and common sense, on health care costs I read today. If anyone is interested it can be read at:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/02/alice_in_health_care104606.html

PS#1 The next time a member posts a video for me to view he should have
some idea of the detail in that video to be sure it makes his
point. I have suggested this to this member previously on written
articles he linked, but the reactionary headline reader is so concerned
about seeing his "big picture" that he overlooks the details that
help form the real, complete "big picture". The reactionary side
of him seems to prevent him from applying logic, if he has any.

PS#2 Based on the "Comments" in the online edition of The Free Press to Ron
Yezzi's recent Your View it does not seem like his idea that Democrats
need to do a better job of selling their health care proposals has much
support. People just aren't buying. To repeat my thoughts: You can't
make a silk purse out of a sows ear, and you can't make chicken salad
out of chicken feathers.

PS#3 A Your View letter in the print edition of The Free Press this morning
said "...some say the Roman Empire was not conquered, but rotted
from within." Apparrantly that writer does not understand, as at least
one Forum member understands, i.e. the Roman Empire was one of the
greatest empires in history. But to demonstrate I am not prejudiced or
bias and for fairness, I will say that emipres can be great and still fall or
fail if they get to big to manage and do not follow basic principles.

[Dan Conner]

Warren Buffett, probably the wealthiest person in the USA is a highly respected investor, was a huge contributor to the Obama Campaign, is still a staunch Obama supporter and proponent of health care reform.

Mr. Buffet was interviewed on CNBC recently. To paraphrase and quote some of the remarks he made:
---He says the present proposals do not attack the "cost situation".
---He would concentrate on and "...attack costs, costs, costs", and not put-
up a bill with 2,000 pages addressing all kinds of other issues.
---He hopes Congress will develope a new health care reform proposal that
will "...restrict costs more than any of the current plans would".

Mr. Buffet's ideas seem similar to those of some others who have been discussing health care reform in various posts in this Forum. Having said that, I suppose we can expect that at least one Forum member would accuse Mr. Buffet (a liberal Democrat) of not caring for the ..."45,000 people that die each year in the United States for lack of health care".

Dr. Thomas Sowell has a very good factual article, also repleat with logic and common sense, on health care costs I read today. If anyone is interested it can be read at:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/02/alice_in_health_care104606.html

PS#1 The next time a member posts a video for me to view he should have
some idea of the detail in that video to be sure it makes his
point. I have suggested this to this member previously on written
articles he linked, but the reactionary headline reader is so concerned
about seeing his "big picture" that he overlooks the details that
help form the real, complete "big picture". The reactionary side
of him seems to prevent him from applying logic, if he has any.

PS#2 Based on the "Comments" in the online edition of The Free Press to Ron
Yezzi's recent Your View it does not seem like his idea that Democrats
need to do a better job of selling their health care proposals has much
support. People just aren't buying. To repeat my thoughts: You can't
make a silk purse out of a sows ear, and you can't make chicken salad
out of chicken feathers.

PS#3 A Your View letter in the print edition of The Free Press this morning
said "...some say the Roman Empire was not conquered, but rotted
from within." Apparrantly that writer does not understand, as at least
one Forum member understands, i.e. the Roman Empire was one of the
greatest empires in history. But to demonstrate I am not prejudiced or
bias and for fairness, I will say that emipres can be great and still fall or
fail if they get to big to manage and do not follow basic principles.There he goes again. This writer dismisses the writings of anyone, no matter how knowledgable, because they voted for Obama? Seems to me this is another illustration of the Obama hate this writer has bottled up inside. Now he rejects world leaders because of an association with Obama. While he denies he is prejudiced, I question that. It seems that Warren Buffett has a certain economic credibility when he speaks, certainly more than this writer.

Another thing, the above writer hopes to establish credibility, without even a rudimentary understanding of history. The Roman Empire was not "one of the greatest empires" in world history, it was the greatest empire. Its rule spanned 2000 years. Our country has been around less than 250 years, let alone ruled the known world. While there are many reasons for its demise, decadence was one of them. This writer stands for the very "rot" that destroyed Rome. He wants greed and selfishness to rule the day and corporate money to buy our Congress.

While I think the writer and I agree with some of the reasons for Rome's demise, I don't think he is capable of recognizing that the internal "rot" that destroyed Rome is what he proposes for the U.S. He stands for greed, avarice, selfishness, hoarding, judgementalism. All major contributors to Romes demise. It was a latter day emperor of Rome, Nero, who was famous for "fiddling while Rome burned." This writer proposes the same. He believes in leaving people in squalid poverty, without health care, to die like they were an expendable. It's the philosophy of I've got mine and to heck with anyone else. Many people might use a descriptor of self-absorbed. Oh, and by the way, Rome was "conquered." I think you need to again do a little research. Do you think they gavce away their empire? The internal "rot" might have weakened it, but they were ultimately conquered. It's just that there was not an empire of such supremacy that followed.

I am very surprised about many who have given so little to our country, but want to take so much, even if it adversely affects others. Certainly our country will be in its decline as long as their is a significant number of people who resist floating everyone's boat. Instead of floating all together, they want us all to sink separately. I would have thought they were taught better than that.

As a footnote, I would like to remind the above writer that his above rant is irrelevant to this thread. I know he is a stickler to see that others stay on the subject, but I guess his hate does thus "bubble over", no doubt affecting his judgement. I would suggest that posts, like the above, be included in the relevant thread. I don't view if as relevant ot health care.

[Bob Jentges]

There he goes again. This writer dismisses the writings of anyone, no matter how knowledgable, because they voted for Obama?

I thought maybe changing threads from yesterday might give you a chance to clear your head for a fresh start. But no, you continue to reply with the same old confusion about what I post as you always do. I would put you at the top of my list of the illogical, critical unthinking critical thinkers I have ever communicated with. Now, while you try to decipher the preceeding sentance, at least you have something to be confused about. Just trying to help.

In my post#105 I did not disagree with what Warren Buffet said about health care reform cost issues. In paragraph three of my post I said his "...ideas seem similar..." to mine. I paraphrased and quoted Buffet's ideas from the CNBC video you provided---thank you:)

Maybe you should read the first three paragraphs of my post #105 again, before you go into your famous ready---fire---aim, mode!

[Dan Conner]

I thought maybe changing threads from yesterday might give you a chance to clear your head for a fresh start. But no, you continue to reply with the same old confusion about what I post as you always do. I would put you at the top of my list of the illogical, critical unthinking critical thinkers I have ever communicated with. Now, while you try to decipher the preceeding sentance, at least you have something to be confused about. Just trying to help.

In my post#105 I did not disagree with what Warren Buffet said about health care reform cost issues. In paragraph three of my post I said his "...ideas seem similar..." to mine. I paraphrased and quoted Buffet's ideas from the CNBC video you provided---thank you:)

Maybe you should read the first three paragraphs of my post #105 again, before you go into your famous ready---fire---aim, mode!I feel sorry for the above writer. He is so hateful! He drones on about how he doesn't want health care reform to benefit those who die without it, he hates unions, he somehow loves health insurance companies (figure that out), and now he says he agrees with Warren Buffett. The writer has not wanted health care for others, but now he does? He said it's not a right, but now he does? He loves our current health care system the way it is and now he wants to change it? He has called our health care the best in the world, but now wants to reform it? The above writer is like trying to grab jello. He manages to slip through the fingers when he is caught.

Hey, maybe the writer has become less selfish and more sharing? Probably not. I think he hates and is paranoid to much. Thank goodness our country isn't filled with these people, or we would "rot" from the inside.

The writer accuses the Democratic of not attacking the cost situation, yet the government option or single payer are the most effective at doing exactly that. In fact the health insurnace companies have said they can't compete with either option. So then, after filibustering for months the government option and singlepayer, now he says the current plan doesn't attack cost? That laughable, because the Democrats have adopte all the Republican suggestions to do exactly that. So again, the writer refutes his onw argument. He now admits the Republican plan does nothing to attack cost. It really is tiring debating in circles withsome one that ends up debating himself. You would think he has no principles himself.

[Bob Jentges]

For someone to even suggest that my principles and positions stated in this Forum have been inconsistant is, in my opinion, bordering on moronic.

Now I understand how a person must feel when they are standing face-to-face with another person, talking to them, while the other person is staring up at the sky with eyes glazed over, and wearing ear plugs.

Because that other person is not open to objective listening they misstate everything that is said to them, not only at the instant time on a specific topic but said during previous meetings on other topics and then goes out and spews misinformation over and over again everytime they open their mouth, about everything that the person has ever tried to explain to them. Such an approach is not beomming to anyone, let alone someone who claims/feigns compassion and foolishly believes they and their radical ideology will save humanity.

What is even more scary is if the pious fountain of words like prejudice, paranoid, selfish, hate, lies, and other insults thinks they are doing any good for their side by operating continuously from the attack mode. I used those words and I am not sorry---they have been used toward me repeatedly in this Forum by Dan, but I think only Dan.

I have lived my life in a competive enviroment, but trying to deal with someone who is continuously angry like Dan seems to be is a new experience for me. I blame myself for not walking away from someone like that sooner. Others in this Forum have walked away and probably feel much better for it.

But I will not be driven from making posts in the Forum, and welcome anyone who still reads the Forum that would like to carry on a reasonable discussion, whether they agree with me or not.

When advocates of a policy position have a civil debate with those that may be skeptical of that same policy position it is called democracy. As the saying goes: When two people always agree on everything only one of them is doing any thinking. Reasonable people can disagree, often sharply, without being disagreeable. They can also agree to disagree on some issues. Both of those elements of disagreement are positive elements of a democratic society.

Because I can read you like a book Dan, if you are even thinking about it do not bother with the "poor Bob" or "I feel sorry for" or other disingenuious words or phrases. Rest assured I will be just fine!

[Dan Conner]

For someone to even suggest that my principles and positions stated in this Forum have been inconsistant is, in my opinion, bordering on moronic.

Now I understand how a person must feel when they are standing face-to-face with another person, talking to them, while the other person is staring up at the sky with eyes glazed over, and wearing ear plugs.

Because that other person is not open to objective listening they misstate everything that is said to them, not only at the instant time on a specific topic but said during previous meetings on other topics and then goes out and spews misinformation over and over again everytime they open their mouth, about everything that the person has ever tried to explain to them. Such an approach is not beomming to anyone, let alone someone who claims/feigns compassion and foolishly believes they and their radical ideology will save humanity.

What is even more scary is if the pious fountain of words like prejudice, paranoid, selfish, hate, lies, and other insults thinks they are doing any good for their side by operating continuously from the attack mode. I used those words and I am not sorry---they have been used toward me repeatedly in this Forum by Dan, but I think only Dan.

I have lived my life in a competive enviroment, but trying to deal with someone who is continuously angry like Dan seems to be is a new experience for me. I blame myself for not walking away from someone like that sooner. Others in this Forum have walked away and probably feel much better for it.

But I will not be driven from making posts in the Forum, and welcome anyone who still reads the Forum that would like to carry on a reasonable discussion, whether they agree with me or not.

When advocates of a policy position have a civil debate with those that may be skeptical of that same policy position it is called democracy. As the saying goes: When two people always agree on everything only one of them is doing any thinking. Reasonable people can disagree, often sharply, without being disagreeable. They can also agree to disagree on some issues. Both of those elements of disagreement are positive elements of a democratic society.

Because I can read you like a book Dan, if you are even thinking about it do not bother with the "poor Bob" or "I feel sorry for" or other disingenuious words or phrases. Rest assured I will be just fine!It's too bad this writer has to resort to namecalling to make a point, but then I guess I would have to ask....What point?

The writer has, from the beginning, asserted health care is not a right. Heck, he even believes having food is not a right. He has said that he doesn't want to pay any taxes to subsidize health insurance for others. He frequently uses the Constitution to re-enforce his stingy attitude toward others, but then he doesn't even know the history of the Constitution. He thought the Federalist Papers were the building blocks to construct the Constitution. He was apparently unaware of the Constitutional Conventions, the Articles of Confederation and the plans used to construct the Constitution. He thought the 2000-year Roman Empire was a failure, but somehow the US, which has only been in existence for a little over 200 years, and not an empire, is a success. The writer says that global warming is a hoax, but offers no objective evidence. He hates labor unions and he loves insurance companies. With a record like that everyone would be safe taking the other direction from the writer's suggestion.

The writer thinks the strength of our country comes from selfishness, greed, and the reluctance to do anything for it, except demand tax cuts. Yes, a real team player. Instead of wanting to float everyone's boat, he wants to shoot holes in everyone else's. Too bad, but our country is in deep trouble with this approach.

While the writer insists health care and food are a privilege, he complains about what medical coverage is or is not covered for his family. That's an unusual showing of thanks for such a privilege.

He claims his written word is misinerpreted, but yet the the Forum is replete with statements attesting to the above. I guess he must be embarrassed by his political stand. Somehow, he feels our nation grows through division, instead of inclusion.

I have never known division, selfishness and greed to be any religious value. And I fail to understand his rationale to deny life saving medical treatment because someone is uninsured and can not afford coverage. Then, there is the defense of insurance companies, who deny millions for pre-existing conditions. And he thinks that's OK, but his only contribution to lowering medical care costs is reducing the 1/2% spent on litigation. So, the writer wants to deny people, whose health has been ravaged by incorrectly done medical procedures, any reprieve or alternative.

This writer comes straight out of the Republican, Rush Limbaugh, talking points. It's self, wealth, and corporations trumping everyone else. I think he needs to be more inclusive and trying adding instead of division.

I know the above writer has indicated he is having fun and playing me like a Statovarius, but I don't always see his humor in hurting others. Hopefully, that's not a national credo. Frankly, I don't see any humor in denying people life saving treaments so one can save a few bucks. I see no humor in denigrating peoples' rights to form labor unions and negotiate for their mutual wellbeing. I see no humor in putting your head in the sand to deny the obviously metastisizing global warming. Unfortunately, the writer might get some sadistic thrill from that, but he harms countless others in this sadistic joke. Pardon me, but I don't find that very humorous. I think the above writer needs to do a better job of considering the plight of others and obsess less about humoring himself.

[Dan Conner]

I listened to a great speech by President Obama aobut enacting health care. Basically, he said we have mulled over health care for about a year now. Many ideas have been incorporated from both sides, and now it's time to "git'er dun." The President indicated he wanted a straight up or down vote on health care reform, with or without Republican participation.

The room was pretty filled with supportive health care providers. I think it is about time. Hopefully, the Congress will do the right thing by the American people and vote for health care reform.

[Bob Jentges]

I listened to a replay of President Obama's speech (#34,35,36?) on CSPAN the other night and liked Paul Ryan's presentation at the "Summit" much better. I cited a link to Ryans presentation in one of my earlier posts. But in the event anyone who might be interested has not read it, it can be found in the Washington Post Archives at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022504074.html

The WSJ had an editorial yesterday pointing out that the President has not rebutted what Ryan said, nor has any Democrat. That editorial can be read at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704548604575097602436388116.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

There was another interesting editorial in the Detroit News Wednesday by a Michigan Blue Cross executative. For those interested that can be read at:
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100303/OPINION01/3030339/1008/Don-t-vilify-Michigan-s-Blue-Cross--it-practices-Obama-s-health-reforms

Since I have not posted for a few days someone may be in withdrawl from lack of oppurtunity to attack me, and anxious to do that, maybe I should expect a reply without them reading any or all of the above links. But if/when that happens I suggest the familiar mantra "you love insurance companies" be dispensed with from that reply. I have addressed that more than once in previous posts and have no intent do address it again.

With respect about seeing the "big picture", I think the myopic "big picture" is to ram health care reform through now. Unless one is on an ego trip I think the far sighted "big picture" is fiscal responsiblity for our country.

So we should address bringing down the cost of health care first, and when that has been accomplished, work on a process to provide access to health care for everyone. It's as simple as that!

[Bob Jentges]

For those who read the articles the three articles linked in my post #111, you might also find the editorial by Kent Conrad (D ND), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee in this mornings Washington Post an interesting read. The title is: "Reconcilliation is not an option for health-care reform".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030503248.html

[Dan Conner]

For those who read the articles the three articles linked in my post #111, you might also find the editorial by Kent Conrad (D ND), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee in this mornings Washington Post an interesting read. The title is: "Reconcilliation is not an option for health-care reform".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030503248.htmlAmazing. The writers is now a Democrat. I knew he would see the light. He must not believe in Liz Cheney any more.

[Bob Jentges]

Amazing. The writers is now a Democrat. I knew he would see the light.

Read the link!

No, Kent Conrad is a Democrat, but apparently one who has some understanding of the purpose of the Senate implimenting the Budget Reconcilliation rule!

[Dan Conner]

Read the link!

No, Kent Conrad is a Democrat, but apparently one who has some understanding of the purpose of the Senate implimenting the Budget Reconcilliation rule!WOW! Now the writer can't even comprehend? I was talking about Conrad being a Democrat. You weere the writer. However, I'm glad that you now accept Democrats as authoritative sources. The light came on, even if a little late.

[Dennis Mikkelson]

WOW! Now the writer can't even comprehend? I was talking about Conrad being a Democrat. You weere the writer. However, I'm glad that you now accept Democrats as authoritative sources. The light came on, even if a little late.

Just found out prov. govt. employees of BC have Blue Cross Blue Shield Gold coverage. National health care must not be good enough for all.

[Bob Jentges]

Just found out prov. govt. employees of BC have Blue Cross Blue Shield Gold coverage. National health care must not be good enough for all.

Sounds familiar doesn't it Dennis!! It will be interesting to see what Dan has to say about that.

I will take this oppurtunity to respond to Dan's post #115, which was in response to my #114.

Touche!

His continued incorrect use of the words "this writer" confused me as to which person he was referring to. I told him that would happen, but to him the phrase "words have meanings", has no meaning.

Having said that, an objective person does not need to be a Democrat to agree with what a Democrat says, when you agree with it. I agreed with most of what Kent Conrad said in his op-ed. I realize that is a different approach than Dan takes. His reactionary approach is to automatically disagree with everything a Republican might say, usually without even reading it. Could that be a sign of extreme bias?

But as I think more about what/how Dan writes, that paranoid streak in me rears-up again and and I fear his attempt to confuse may be by Progressive design!

[Bob Jentges]

Now that the Democrat's health care reform has been passed and signed into law, people have studied it and learned more about whats in it, which is how Speaker Pelosi said it is supposed to work.:mad: Most do not like what they learned.

If one addresses the cost issue only, I have read that there are two honest camps. Those who believe Obamacare will blow up the budget and see that as a problem, and those who believe Obamacare will blow up the budget and do not see that as a problem.

Also, there was an interesting article in the New York Times yesterday indicating the Obama Administration was going on a campaign to "sell" Obamacare to the public (58% want it repealed). Seems strange since the bill has been signed into law, but maybe the purpose is to change opinions before the November elections which, if go as presently expected could lead to repeal and/or reform during the next Congress.

http://www.nyt.com/2010/06/07/health/policy/07campaign.html

[Bob Jentges]

http://www.politico.com/state/ppm153_pp.html

Remember when the President, Democrat politicions and the mainstream media
were all over selling Obamacare by trying to convince us it would reduce health care costs and also reduce the deficit? They were two of the main reasons for reform to begin with. Well, as the above link indicates the Democrat play book now says not to make those claims!

I know of one fellow who would call that change of position an admission the first selling points were a "lie", but not me. My suggestion is the Democrats send-out the "real" Barry Soetaro (not the one who satirically uses the name as an alias in Free Press "Comments") to sell the KOOL AID drinkers that HCR is a good deal anyway. Almost anyone can fool some of the people all the time, so some of them will almost certainly buy it again, even though the logical people, who did not buy it origionally, will not buy it now either!

[Bob Jentges]

http://online.wsj.com/Article/SB10001424052748702720004575478200948908976.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

But this is not how Obama & some Democrats promised it would work!:mad: