Building better health care in the United States of America

[Howard Dittrich]

A recent post of mine under the "Paying for health care" thread was off topic. It centered more on a few thing that I felt needed to be address to improve heath care in the United States, not on paying for health care. Here is a new thread to discuss what the forum members beleive is needed to improve overall health care in the U.S.

As a starting point I have added the points stated in my post dated of 4-18-09 and one addtional comment.

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 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?

Did some checking of the adult obesity rates for the U.S. and Canada. In the U.S. "31%" of the adult population "are obese with a BMI in excess of 30.0." "23.1% of Canadians aged 18 or older, an estimated 5.5 million adults, had a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more." As obesity directly leads to health problems, how do we get the obesity rate lower in the U.S.? This question also touches on an area not yet covered. Can and should we consider individual reasonability when creating/improving health care?

What else do we need to consider?

[Bob Jentges]

Yes Howard. I think we should "consider individual reasonability when creating/improving health care". We can consult with doctors all we want, but if we do not exercise individual responsibility and follow the doctors advice it does little good to consult with a doctor. For example, if the doctor tells us we need to lose weight or quite smoking cigaretts for health reasons and we do not, seeing the doctor for a weight or breathing problem was fruitless.

[Dan Conner]

Yes Howard. I think we should "consider individual reasonability when creating/improving health care". We can consult with doctors all we want, but if we do not exercise individual responsibility and follow the doctors advice it does little good to consult with a doctor. For example, if the doctor tells us we need to lose weight or quite smoking cigaretts for health reasons and we do not, seeing the doctor for a weight or breathing problem was fruitless.

I think we should only consider our own responsibilities. It's amazing how you limited government proponents now want government to evaluate individual responsibility. You want big brother do you? You propose a socialist act more socialist than I have ever dreamed of. I think people, including you, need to worry about our own responsibilities, before they evaluate that subjective area for others.

I don't know why you so readily want to stick your nose in other people's business anyway. Who appointed you the "responsbility judge." I think all of us have our hands full just handling our own responsibilities. However, if you feel you have mastered your human and citizen responsibilities, who "considered" your responsibility? Talk about a big brother socialism. I suppose you also want to control who gets married, establish acceptable sex acts, be the determiner of the state sanctioned religion, etc., etc. You are getting far to intrusive for me.

[Bob Jentges]

I think we should only consider our own responsibilities. It's amazing how you limited government proponents now want government to evaluate individual responsibility. You want big brother do you? You propose a socialist act more socialist than I have ever dreamed of. I think people, including you, need to worry about our own responsibilities, before they evaluate that subjective area for others.

I don't know why you so readily want to stick your nose in other people's business anyway. Who appointed you the "responsbility judge." I think all of us have our hands full just handling our own responsibilities. However, if you feel you have mastered your human and citizen responsibilities, who "considered" your responsibility? Talk about a big brother socialism. I suppose you also want to control who gets married, establish acceptable sex acts, be the determiner of the state sanctioned religion, etc., etc. You are getting far to intrusive for me.

As usual you took what I said about exercising individual personal responsibility and turned it inside-out, upside down, and backwards. Anyone, except apparrently you, that has read even a few of my postings in the Forum understands that my position is the government that governs least governs best.

[Dan Conner]

As usual you took what I said about exercising individual personal responsibility and turned it inside-out, upside down, and backwards. Anyone, except apparrently you, that has read even a few of my postings in the Forum understands that my position is the government that governs least governs best.

That's pretty easily said Bob. Then, why don't you just say that. There's no use to risk looking contradictory by stating all sorts of personally invasive requirements for Government. Come on, having the Government enforcing responsibility? That's pretty extreme. I suppose you want to be the responsibility cop? Rather extreme. You seem to excessively dwell on personal issues...of course, always for others. I think we all need to work on perfecting our own lives before we obsess about others.

[Howard Dittrich]

Dan and Bob,

Thanks for hitting on the responsibility point. If and when we create a national single payer health care system, who makes those choices for us?

Let us say we have a 50 year old male smoker that is 100 pound over weight and needs a new heart. Even with the new heart the doctors say he probably will only live 5 more years. In the next room at the hospital we have another 50 year old man, non smoker, not over weight that also needs a heart. With a new heart the doctors give him 20 plus years to live. All other factors concerning these two gentlemen are equal. We only have one heart and we will not be getting anymore. Who makes the decision on were the heart goes? Should they take into consideration the life style choices that the overweight smoker made? These are very tuff questions that need answers; I would not want to have to make choices like these.

Used a heart for the example, but it could be any thing from medicine to money. Not sure how situations like these are handled today, but ability to pay must play a role.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan and Bob,

Thanks for hitting on the responsibility point. If and when we create a national single payer health care system, who makes those choices for us?

Let us say we have a 50 year old male smoker that is 100 pound over weight and needs a new heart. Even with the new heart the doctors say he probably will only live 5 more years. In the next room at the hospital we have another 50 year old man, non smoker, not over weight that also needs a heart. With a new heart the doctors give him 20 plus years to live. All other factors concerning these two gentlemen are equal. We only have one heart and we will not be getting anymore. Who makes the decision on were the heart goes? Should they take into consideration the life style choices that the overweight smoker made? These are very tuff questions that need answers; I would not want to have to make choices like these.

Used a heart for the example, but it could be any thing from medicine to money. Not sure how situations like these are handled today, but ability to pay must play a role.

I do not have an answer to your question, Howard. All I can offer is, single payer or not, no person or organization should ever be faced with such a terrible, terrible decision.

[Dan Conner]

Dan and Bob,

Thanks for hitting on the responsibility point. If and when we create a national single payer health care system, who makes those choices for us?

Let us say we have a 50 year old male smoker that is 100 pound over weight and needs a new heart. Even with the new heart the doctors say he probably will only live 5 more years. In the next room at the hospital we have another 50 year old man, non smoker, not over weight that also needs a heart. With a new heart the doctors give him 20 plus years to live. All other factors concerning these two gentlemen are equal. We only have one heart and we will not be getting anymore. Who makes the decision on were the heart goes? Should they take into consideration the life style choices that the overweight smoker made? These are very tuff questions that need answers; I would not want to have to make choices like these.

Used a heart for the example, but it could be any thing from medicine to money. Not sure how situations like these are handled today, but ability to pay must play a role.

The question is...who makes those decisions now? I can't see much of any change in a single payer system. I don't know what the parameters are for doctors, but this shouldn't change. Actually, if might be fairer in a single payer system. The factor of personal wealth will not mean as much. The doctors might decide to give it to the patient with the best prognosis, even though he was the poorer of the two.

[Bob Jentges]

Howard, here is a recent opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal that may be of interest to you, even if you have heard/read similar opinions previously.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019html

[Dan Conner]

Dan and Bob,

Thanks for hitting on the responsibility point. If and when we create a national single payer health care system, who makes those choices for us?

Let us say we have a 50 year old male smoker that is 100 pound over weight and needs a new heart. Even with the new heart the doctors say he probably will only live 5 more years. In the next room at the hospital we have another 50 year old man, non smoker, not over weight that also needs a heart. With a new heart the doctors give him 20 plus years to live. All other factors concerning these two gentlemen are equal. We only have one heart and we will not be getting anymore. Who makes the decision on were the heart goes? Should they take into consideration the life style choices that the overweight smoker made? These are very tuff questions that need answers; I would not want to have to make choices like these.

Used a heart for the example, but it could be any thing from medicine to money. Not sure how situations like these are handled today, but ability to pay must play a role.

Here is an unbiased link discussing a single-payer system in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

[Bob Jentges]

Here is an unbiased link discussing a single-payer system in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

Recently Stenny Hoyer (D MD), majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives (unbiased I expect) held a Health Care Forum in his district. C-Span covered it. I watched about an hour of it. I made a few notes.

First, Rep. Hoyer said "We have the best health care in the world." I have had no personal experience to compare the quality of U.S. health care with that in other countries. In our overseas travels we have been fortunate not to need health care. But my wife and me, as well as our 5 children and their respective spouses and our 13 grand children have been well satisfied with our USA medical care up to this point in time. However, it was nice to hear a politician being positive about something in the USA.

Second, about health care, Rep. Hoyer said: "We just need to make it available to everyone." Without conceeding that is not the case in almost all circumstances now, who could disagree with Rep. Hoyers statement.

Third, Rep. Hoyer said each family/individual that has private health insurance coverage now has about $1,100 anually added to their premium to pay for the costs of treatment received by the uninsured.

Fourth, Rep. Hoyer said the House was working on the details to fill-in the general outline President Obama gave them (I guess I'm not the only one that does not have all the details worked-out). He said he did not think "single payer" would be part of the plan because there just were not the votes for it. That was somewhat a surprise considering the strong majority the Democrat Party has in the U.S. House. But who knows; yesterday was the two year anniversary of when Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D NV) made the infamous statement on the Senate floor: "This war is lost".

The final thing I had in my notes was that Rep. Hoyer said the plan would give people the option to keep the private insurance they have, or become part of the government plan. None of those at the forum asked what I think is a very critical question i.e. if one chose to keep their private plan and continue paying a premium for that plan, would they also be taxed to help pay for those who chose the government plan, and if so how would that tax compare with the $1,100 amount discussed in my "Third" above?

If anyone in the Free Press Forum has an answer to my question I would be interested in hearing it. I question whether anyone in the in-the-tank mainstream media will ask. Maybe I will just need to wait until the debate in congress for an answer.

[Dan Conner]

Recently Stenny Hoyer (D MD), majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives (unbiased I expect) held a Health Care Forum in his district. C-Span covered it. I watched about an hour of it. I made a few notes.

First, Rep. Hoyer said "We have the best health care in the world." I have had no personal experience to compare the quality of U.S. health care with that in other countries. In our overseas travels we have been fortunate not to need health care. But my wife and me, as well as our 5 children and their respective spouses and our 13 grand children have been well satisfied with our USA medical care up to this point in time. However, it was nice to hear a politician being positive about something in the USA.

Second, about health care, Rep. Hoyer said: "We just need to make it available to everyone." Without conceeding that is not the case in almost all circumstances now, who could disagree with Rep. Hoyers statement.

Third, Rep. Hoyer said each family/individual that has private health insurance coverage now has about $1,100 anually added to their premium to pay for the costs of treatment received by the uninsured.

Fourth, Rep. Hoyer said the House was working on the details to fill-in the general outline President Obama gave them (I guess I'm not the only one that does not have all the details worked-out). He said he did not think "single payer" would be part of the plan because there just were not the votes for it. That was somewhat a surprise considering the strong majority the Democrat Party has in the U.S. House. But who knows; yesterday was the two year anniversary of when Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D NV) made the infamous statement on the Senate floor: "This war is lost".

The final thing I had in my notes was that Rep. Hoyer said the plan would give people the option to keep the private insurance they have, or become part of the government plan. None of those at the forum asked what I think is a very critical question i.e. if one chose to keep their private plan and continue paying a premium for that plan, would they also be taxed to help pay for those who chose the government plan, and if so how would that tax compare with the $1,100 amount discussed in my "Third" above?

If anyone in the Free Press Forum has an answer to my question I would be interested in hearing it. I question whether anyone in the in-the-tank mainstream media will ask. Maybe I will just need to wait until the debate in congress for an answer.

Well, that's great Bob, but I have had occasion to use the Canadian health care system. It was great. In addition to getting great service, I received crutches free of charge. And here I don't even pay Canadian income tax. In addition, I have cousins who live in Canada, that I see several times a year. They do very well, but they are thankful for their health care and the coverage given to all people in Canada. When comparing their system with ours, they don't hesitate at all in choosing what they have over what we have. They believe health care should be to heal people, not make insurance companies rich.

Geneerally speaking I have received very good health care in the US, but unlike you, I care about the 50 million people who have not health insurance. Also, I feel terrible about the people in 1/2 of all the bankruptcies in our country who get in that situation because of mountainous health care bills.

I realize you only care about how you are covered. You have repeatedly said that, but there are millions who don't have your coverage. I would extend that coverage to everyone else because they are human beings entitled to that care. While you obsess about "personal responsibility, 18,000 people die a year because of no helath insurance coverage. However, I realize you feel what the heck, you are happy, so let 'em die.

I

[Liz Ratcliff]

Dan and Bob,

Thanks for hitting on the responsibility point. If and when we create a national single payer health care system, who makes those choices for us?

Let us say we have a 50 year old male smoker that is 100 pound over weight and needs a new heart. Even with the new heart the doctors say he probably will only live 5 more years. In the next room at the hospital we have another 50 year old man, non smoker, not over weight that also needs a heart. With a new heart the doctors give him 20 plus years to live. All other factors concerning these two gentlemen are equal. We only have one heart and we will not be getting anymore. Who makes the decision on were the heart goes? Should they take into consideration the life style choices that the overweight smoker made? These are very tuff questions that need answers; I would not want to have to make choices like these.

Used a heart for the example, but it could be any thing from medicine to money. Not sure how situations like these are handled today, but ability to pay must play a role.

Hi Howard... who makes this decision now? These circumstances aren't isolated to single payer health care systems. I don't feel that the decision should be made on who has the most money or better health policy - as it likely is now... The situation you cited does outline a dilemma, but it can be a dilemma no matter what kind of health care system we have.

[Bob Jentges]

Well, that's great Bob, but I have had occasion to use the Canadian health care system. It was great. In addition to getting great service, I received crutches free of charge. And here I don't even pay Canadian income tax. In addition, I have cousins who live in Canada, that I see several times a year. They do very well, but they are thankful for their health care and the coverage given to all people in Canada. When comparing their system with ours, they don't hesitate at all in choosing what they have over what we have. They believe health care should be to heal people, not make insurance companies rich.

Geneerally speaking I have received very good health care in the US, but unlike you, I care about the 50 million people who have not health insurance. Also, I feel terrible about the people in 1/2 of all the bankruptcies in our country who get in that situation because of mountainous health care bills.

I realize you only care about how you are covered. You have repeatedly said that, but there are millions who don't have your coverage. I would extend that coverage to everyone else because they are human beings entitled to that care. While you obsess about "personal responsibility, 18,000 people die a year because of no helath insurance coverage. However, I realize you feel what the heck, you are happy, so let 'em die.

I

Unbelievable! You included my post #12 yet you did not address my question.

You bring up your favorable experience with the Canadian health care system, which I hope would be the standard rather than the exception. But last Summer some friends of ours were members of a Canadian tour group. They tell me that during a bus trip as part of the tour one member of the group became ill. They further said he was refused medical care/treatment unless he could come up with the equivalent $1000 cash. I hope that was the exception, rather than the standard.

Your "let 'em die" was uncalled for. I have never said or even implied that anyone should die if they did not have health insurance. What I have said a number of times is that I would prefer that anyone who wants health insurance should have access to it. The issue as I see it is the best way to pay for health insurance for anyone that wants it.

Maybe you would join me in continuing to search for an answer to my question.

[Dan Conner]

Unbelievable! You included my post #12 yet you did not address my question.

You bring up your favorable experience with the Canadian health care system, which I hope would be the standard rather than the exception. But last Summer some friends of ours were members of a Canadian tour group. They tell me that during a bus trip as part of the tour one member of the group became ill. They further said he was refused medical care/treatment unless he could come up with the equivalent $1000 cash. I hope that was the exception, rather than the standard.

Your "let 'em die" was uncalled for. I have never said or even implied that anyone should die if they did not have health insurance. What I have said a number of times is that I would prefer that anyone who wants health insurance should have access to it. The issue as I see it is the best way to pay for health insurance for anyone that wants it.

Maybe you would join me in continuing to search for an answer to my question.


Well Bob, don't give me that baloney. "Let 'em die" was totally appropriate. There are 18,000 dying a year in the US because of no insurance and you want to keep things the way they are? You use the word uncalled for, but what is it when you use "being responsible" in place of insuring everyone? I'm sorry, but I can not interpret the "conservative/reactionary" approach to health care as anything but cruel and uncaring. It's like the continuation of Bush's Texas execution policy in Texas and being proud of it.

Republicans were so proud of Bush because he accommplished such noteworthy things as catapult Texas to the national lead in executions. More executions than all the rest of the states put together. Quite an achievement and the Republicans still loved him. He presided over the State of Texas which is now near or at the bottom of everything, but he keeps the line on taxes...big deal.

I thought we would want to be proud of our state and see it improve. Is that what a company does...gut it until it is the worst in it's field? Or do you support it and make the necessary capital investments to allow it to grow and improve. So many have got caught up in the selfish position of not wanting to do anything for anyone else, that we will all go down the toilet with them. Who can blame them for revolting then?

It's pathetic that people have turned into such selfish, self-serving, conservatives that their states and Federal Government are on swift tobaggan rides to the bottom. Poor education, poor health car, poor infrastructure, etc. In the end, we will be poor competitors in the world of commerce.

As far as your "friends" I think they are full of it. I visit Canada EVERY year. I have received medical treatment there several times, other US relatives of mine have received treatment there several times and as recent as last summer, I have cousins living there. I'm sorry, but I don't trust your self-serving anecdotal "friends" and their BS about a $1000 charge in Canada. I have never experienced it. Neither have my relatives, including the residents. I think it is pathetic that you continue to stick your head in the sand about health care. THE US HAS THE WORST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OF ANY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. That is a fact. 18,000 people die in th US each year because of no health insurance. That is a fact. NO ONE IN CANADA DIES FOR LACK OF HEALTH INSURANCE. That is a fact.

Why do conservatives stupidly argue against national health care? Do they want people to continue to die, are they just against change in general, are they selfish and don't want others to have what they do, or, do they want to regress to some primitive time and call that progress? Come on Bob get with the 21st century and start caring about others. Don't worry, you'll still be ale to afford to do what you do now, you'll still have great health care, but you'll allow others to have great health care too. Try it, you might feel better about doing something for others.

And you talk about searching for answers? I haven't witnessed any search on your part. You just sit and complain and ridicule most of the proposals for change---that's a pretty ridiculous search to me. Where has you search taken you? I haven't even witnessed you looking anywhere. I hear you talk about being satisfied with the current system. That doesn't sound like anyone searching to me. And I don't appreciate anecdotal untruths either. Why people choose to denigrate the Canadian health system just so we can keep our failing system is cruel and beyond me. Put it seems Republicans only personify contrarians anymore. They only say no and have no ideas. Too bad.

You mentioned in a letter to the editor what a failure the Roma Empire was, after being the longest lasting empire in the history of the world--more misinformation. Too many of this positions are like Bush's - 180 degrees from the truth. Remember, George Bush kept his perfect record intact by failing in everything. His most recent was failing as President. He now ruined our country and you want to continue that fine work?

[Bob Jentges]

I will not include your post #15 vile tirade as a quote in this reply; among other things it would take to much space. But I will address a few selected remarks (or inferences) you made.

It is not my desire to try to bully people into doing something they might not want to do under the guise that I am helping them, so I can then exercise some control over them.

I do not know where you go to find all the "selfish, self serving conservatives"
you reference. You must have read or heard about studies indicating Republicans (most of whom are probably conservatives) contribute more to charity than do Democrats.

Although I am reasonably certain they will not give a darn, I will tell my "friends" (Democrats by the way) that you "think they are full of it" and that you "don't trust...their BS...".

Your anger and name calling add little to the substance of our discussion, in my opinion.

Apparrantly you have not found the answer to the question I posed in my post #12 yet.

[Dan Conner]

I will not include your post #15 vile tirade as a quote in this reply; among other things it would take to much space. But I will address a few selected remarks (or inferences) you made.

It is not my desire to try to bully people into doing something they might not want to do under the guise that I am helping them, so I can then exercise some control over them.

I do not know where you go to find all the "selfish, self serving conservatives"
you reference. You must have read or heard about studies indicating Republicans (most of whom are probably conservatives) contribute more to charity than do Democrats.

Although I am reasonably certain they will not give a darn, I will tell my "friends" (Democrats by the way) that you "think they are full of it" and that you "don't trust...their BS...".

Your anger and name calling add little to the substance of our discussion, in my opinion.

Apparrantly you have not found the answer to the question I posed in my post #12 yet.

Bob, you go a head. Hey, and while you're at it, why don't you attach the link about generous Republicans. I won't be quick to believe your statements because too many of them have been wrong in the past. If you want me to substantiate what I say, just let me know.

I haven't been angry. The "selfish, self-serving Republicans" are the ones who want to deny health care to people and allow 18,000 of them die each year for lack of it.

As for not replying to your post #12? I think you must be getting angry and frustrated. Post #12 was my post, but if you would like a reply to whatever you asked, let me know what you said and I will answer it.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, you go a head. Hey, and while you're at it, why don't you attach the link about generous Republicans. I won't be quick to believe your statements because too many of them have been wrong in the past. If you want me to substantiate what I say, just let me know.

I haven't been angry. The "selfish, self-serving Republicans" are the ones who want to deny health care to people and allow 18,000 of them die each year for lack of it.

As for not replying to your post #12? I think you must be getting angry and frustrated. Post #12 was my post, but if you would like a reply to whatever you asked, let me know what you said and I will answer it.

Sorry I gave an incorrect post #, but since you quoted my post with the question I took for granted you read my post and saw the question. If you did not, you can find it, and references to it in the final two paragraphs of my post #11.

I addressed your "frustrated" reference in my post this morning in the States Rights thread. I have not checked yet, but you have probably already read that post and replied.

Now back to the point of this thread. You may recall sometime back in a discussion about health issues I tried to point out what I felt was a difference between health insurance coverage and health care. I think you dismissed that difference out of hand. In today's National Review Online there is a 4/22/09 article by Thomas Sowell PhD wherein he expresses an interesting opinion on the subject. If you are open to a variety of opinions on the issue you might find the article interesting reading.

[Dan Conner]

Sorry I gave an incorrect post #, but since you quoted my post with the question I took for granted you read my post and saw the question. If you did not, you can find it, and references to it in the final two paragraphs of my post #11.

I addressed your "frustrated" reference in my post this morning in the States Rights thread. I have not checked yet, but you have probably already read that post and replied.

Now back to the point of this thread. You may recall sometime back in a discussion about health issues I tried to point out what I felt was a difference between health insurance coverage and health care. I think you dismissed that difference out of hand. In today's National Review Online there is a 4/22/09 article by Thomas Sowell PhD wherein he expresses an interesting opinion on the subject. If you are open to a variety of opinions on the issue you might find the article interesting reading.

First, the question you asked was not directed to me. It was asked in a rhetorical manner. Actually, you should be asking Steny Hoyer that question. These were figures he used in his talk. Therefore, he would be the appropriate one to answer the question. I can only assume that insurance companies would reduce their premiums (ha-ha) after saving the $1100 per policy offered by the government taking that responsibility? However, none of us would be appropriate to answer a question based on statement within a speech by a Representative. It all lacks context. You need to find out a lot more before one is able to adequately answer the question.

Insurance insmurance. It matters not a whit if people are dying for lack of health care. There are many people who do not seek treatment because they have no insurance (can not afford it), but have too much income to be eligible for Medicaid. Also, people don't want to apply for Medicaid because it is too embarrassing for them. People have stigmatized the process of applying for Medicaid. Therefore, while we deabate trivial semantical issues, people continue to die for lack of health care.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, there is a ? after my question. Furthermore, if you thought it was rhetorical it seems to me my statement: "If anyone in the Free Press Forum has an answer to my question I would be interested in hearing it.", should take it out of your rhetorical catagory, and unless you do not consider yourself in the Free Press Forum it was directed to you! If you do not have an answer I will accept that.

If you read Dr. Sowell's article I do not think you understood the points he was making. Understandable---you do not seem to understand any points anyone is making, unless they fit into your template.

[Howard Dittrich]

Liz…Not sure who makes these decisions now, and like you I believe money and or health insurance do impact the care you get in the U.S. You are right, the fictional situation I created was meant to point out the dilemma and hopefully find a solution or a couple of good ideals about fixing it (maybe I was overly optimistic).

Bob…Tried the link you suggested several times of day and also on different computers…didn’t work, they must have move or removed it. Thanks anyway.

Dan…A couple of things I found interesting from the link you provided….

“Some proponents argue that perhaps the largest obstacle (to single payer health care in the U.S.) is a lack of political will”

Well now that the dems control both houses of Congress and the White House, maybe we can get past this “lack of political will”, if they don’t shame on them.

“According to a Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health in 2003, 86.9% of Americans reported being "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their health care services, compared to 83.2% of Canadians.[46] In the same study, 93.6% of Americans reported being "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their physician services, compared to 91.5% of Canadians.”

Here is a great example of statistics being inappropriately used. Just because someone is satisfied or very satisfied with their health care service does not mean that they get better health care that someone who does not feel as satisfied. Of course maybe the individuals surveyed got it right!

Also, in the U.S. a lack of health insurance appears to correlate into poor health care and at the same time, having heath insurance appears to correlate into good health care. Let’s offer health insurance to those individuals that can’t for some reason buy it from the private sector and the cost can be scheduled based on income. Don’t we in Minnesota have this right now?

[Dan Conner]

Liz…Not sure who makes these decisions now, and like you I believe money and or health insurance do impact the care you get in the U.S. You are right, the fictional situation I created was meant to point out the dilemma and hopefully find a solution or a couple of good ideals about fixing it (maybe I was overly optimistic).

Bob…Tried the link you suggested several times of day and also on different computers…didn’t work, they must have move or removed it. Thanks anyway.

Dan…A couple of things I found interesting from the link you provided….

“Some proponents argue that perhaps the largest obstacle (to single payer health care in the U.S.) is a lack of political will”

Well now that the dems control both houses of Congress and the White House, maybe we can get past this “lack of political will”, if they don’t shame on them.

I know Minnesota is one of the most progressive states, and it has Minnesota Care, but I don't know if that covers everyone. I do know that Governor Pawlenty wanted to make cuts in the program.

“According to a Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health in 2003, 86.9% of Americans reported being "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their health care services, compared to 83.2% of Canadians.[46] In the same study, 93.6% of Americans reported being "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their physician services, compared to 91.5% of Canadians.”

Here is a great example of statistics being inappropriately used. Just because someone is satisfied or very satisfied with their health care service does not mean that they get better health care that someone who does not feel as satisfied. Of course maybe the individuals surveyed got it right!

Also, in the U.S. a lack of health insurance appears to correlate into poor health care and at the same time, having heath insurance appears to correlate into good health care. Let’s offer health insurance to those individuals that can’t for some reason buy it from the private sector and the cost can be scheduled based on income. Don’t we in Minnesota have this right now?

Of course, people with the insurance are satisfied, but I would like to know if they surveyed anyone who didn't have health insurance. I think that has to be the main goal for us - to get everyone health care. Of course, reducing the cost which makes it astronomically expensive in the US, would help as well.

Hopefully, you're right that we have the political will. There will be millions, if not billions, of dollars spent by insurance and pharmaceutical companies trying to stop this legislation. We'll see if Congress puts the people first.

[Howard Dittrich]

The article “Nurses rally, protest layoffs” printed in the Thursday April 23 edition of the Free Press is an example of the impact the government has on health care. “Immanuel St. Joseph’s and regional affiliate hospitals in …. are facing nearly $10 million in state budget cuts”. Not sure what caused the cut in funds from the state, but the loss of the Licensed Practical Nurses will impact ISJ and the community. Given government action like this the problems at the VA and our ongoing quest to improve healthcare I feel the smaller the role the government has in health care the better. The Fed and the state do not have a very good track record when it comes to health care. So, what does the forum think?

[Bob Jentges]

The article “Nurses rally, protest layoffs” printed in the Thursday April 23 edition of the Free Press is an example of the impact the government has on health care. “Immanuel St. Joseph’s and regional affiliate hospitals in …. are facing nearly $10 million in state budget cuts”. Not sure what caused the cut in funds from the state, but the loss of the Licensed Practical Nurses will impact ISJ and the community. Given government action like this the problems at the VA and our ongoing quest to improve healthcare I feel the smaller the role the government has in health care the better. The Fed and the state do not have a very good track record when it comes to health care. So, what does the forum think?

As one member of the Forum, I agree with you Howard!

[Dan Conner]

The article “Nurses rally, protest layoffs” printed in the Thursday April 23 edition of the Free Press is an example of the impact the government has on health care. “Immanuel St. Joseph’s and regional affiliate hospitals in …. are facing nearly $10 million in state budget cuts”. Not sure what caused the cut in funds from the state, but the loss of the Licensed Practical Nurses will impact ISJ and the community. Given government action like this the problems at the VA and our ongoing quest to improve healthcare I feel the smaller the role the government has in health care the better. The Fed and the state do not have a very good track record when it comes to health care. So, what does the forum think?

This is the outcome when people don't want to pay for what they have. The governor ha been cutting State budgets for years now and to pretend it wouldn't have an affect on many areas, including health care, is a big disconnect. In case people haven't been watching the news, when state budgets don't go up as fast as expenses, something must be cut. Since the cost of health care has way outstripped increases in budgets, if only follows that funding will be cut. If Government funding is cut even more, further cuts in service will also follow. The same applies to escalating insurance premiums. They have increased far faster than inflation. I suppose if premiums didn't increase they would also reduce coverage. There ain't any secret there. Less money equals less service, whether it be government, insurance, or business.

[Liz Ratcliff]

This is the outcome when people don't want to pay for what they have. The governor ha been cutting State budgets for years now and to pretend it wouldn't have an affect on many areas, including health care, is a big disconnect. In case people haven't been watching the news, when state budgets don't go up as fast as expenses, something must be cut. Since the cost of health care has way outstripped increases in budgets, if only follows that funding will be cut. If Government funding is cut even more, further cuts in service will also follow. The same applies to escalating insurance premiums. They have increased far faster than inflation. I suppose if premiums didn't increase they would also reduce coverage. There ain't any secret there. Less money equals less service, whether it be government, insurance, or business.

Precisely! Well said Dan! It seems some are missing the forest for the trees...

[Bob Jentges]

Precisely! Well said Dan! It seems some are missing the forest for the trees...

Unfortunatly some people can not afford to pay for health insurance coverage. Some people are no longer able to afford to smoke cigaretts because of the high federal and state taxes, which may or may not be unfortunate depending on your point of view. There are numerous things that are becoming difficult for some to afford, including property taxes for some people who have lived in their homes for years.

I wish every person could have everything they need, as well as much of the good things in life they want. Indeed it is no secret that less money equals less services. The way I see it, at this point in time, their is not enough money available to provide us with all the services we want, let alone some of the services some need. I think we are close to reaching the point where their are more people being pulled in the wagon than their are available to pull the wagon. That ratio is unsustainable.

[Howard Dittrich]

Dan and Liz, Thank you much for making my point, here we have the government making decisions based on dollars not on the impact to us. That is why I want the least amount of government involvement in healthcare as we can have and still provide the best healthcare in the world to all.

Dan, you know the Governor does not set and implement the state budget all by himself; lots of blame or congratulations (depending on your point of view) to go around.

[Dan Conner]

Dan and Liz, Thank you much for making my point, here we have the government making decisions based on dollars not on the impact to us. That is why I want the least amount of government involvement in healthcare as we can have and still provide the best healthcare in the world to all.

Dan, you know the Governor does not set and implement the state budget all by himself; lots of blame or congratulations (depending on your point of view) to go around.

How do you think those decisions are being made now? It's totally made by dollars. It is polyannish to believe business is in health care because of its will to healp people. It is only for the money. Government is the organization with the most potential to make decisions based on benefit to the people. That is demonstrated by every other industrialized nation. They all have better health care for a lot cheaper. Then again, I guess some like to keep executives in their 9 figure salaries. Then, I know of one gets great health care.

The Governor prooses the agency budget. He also has a line item veto. He also can veto the entire budget if he wishes. A super-majority is needed to over ride that veto. It is very possible for the Governor to thwart the will of the majority through the veto. Congratulations is appropriate only after the final product is passed and signed by the Governor. It is a little premature to engage in that yet.

[Dan Conner]

Unfortunatly some people can not afford to pay for health insurance coverage. Some people are no longer able to afford to smoke cigaretts because of the high federal and state taxes, which may or may not be unfortunate depending on your point of view. There are numerous things that are becoming difficult for some to afford, including property taxes for some people who have lived in their homes for years.

I wish every person could have everything they need, as well as much of the good things in life they want. Indeed it is no secret that less money equals less services. The way I see it, at this point in time, their is not enough money available to provide us with all the services we want, let alone some of the services some need. I think we are close to reaching the point where their are more people being pulled in the wagon than their are available to pull the wagon. That ratio is unsustainable.


I suggest you think of other analogies. Affording health insurance coverage doesn't equate to affording smoking. That's a poor and invalid comparison. I understand about the expense of property taxes, but all the proposals for health insurance won't be using property tax to finance them. Everything I have seen has been using income taxes as the vehicle to fund health insurance. Also, you forget about the biggest reason for switching. Today health care in the US is the most expensive in the world. All that money goes to health insurance companies and providers. Using a the government as a single-payer will eliminate the need for insurance companies and the associated ridiculously high expense. We could have national single-payer health iunsurance for everyone and pay less than we do now. Also, with a change in emphasis, we would get higher quality health care. That is win-win-win, but then I have told that to you already. I guess you want to "bully" me to another point of view?

[Liz Ratcliff]

Unfortunatly some people can not afford to pay for health insurance coverage. Some people are no longer able to afford to smoke cigaretts because of the high federal and state taxes, which may or may not be unfortunate depending on your point of view. There are numerous things that are becoming difficult for some to afford, including property taxes for some people who have lived in their homes for years.

I wish every person could have everything they need, as well as much of the good things in life they want. Indeed it is no secret that less money equals less services. The way I see it, at this point in time, their is not enough money available to provide us with all the services we want, let alone some of the services some need. I think we are close to reaching the point where their are more people being pulled in the wagon than their are available to pull the wagon. That ratio is unsustainable.


That sounds like hoarding mentality. There is plenty for all of us. We have innovation and man power. If there is a will, there is a way, indeed! We put people on the moon and cure major diseases... The secret is unity and compassion... You may think that sounds silly, but ask yourself... why not?

[Liz Ratcliff]

Dan and Liz, Thank you much for making my point, here we have the government making decisions based on dollars not on the impact to us. That is why I want the least amount of government involvement in healthcare as we can have and still provide the best healthcare in the world to all.

Dan, you know the Governor does not set and implement the state budget all by himself; lots of blame or congratulations (depending on your point of view) to go around.

No Howard, I think you have made my point. I would rather have the government involved in this decision than a company whose decision is based purely on profit... Do you not think that insurance companies make decisions based on dollars??? Oh MY! Have you been watching the news lately? Enron? Exxon? Bayer? Halliburton? AND for the health insurance industry...

www.insurancecompanyrules.org 1
Top Ten Health Insurance Company Scandals
10. Giving bonuses to employees for canceling people’s insurance
contracts after they get sick or pregnant
According to the Los Angeles Times, California’s Health Net “avoided paying $35.5 million
in medical expenses by rescinding about 1,600 policies between 2000 and 2006.” This
dirty secret came out when a hairdresser fought back after Health Net dropped her during
her chemotherapy. Now, California is investigating the state’s top health plans – and
finding that Health Net isn’t the only one ripping up people’s policies. How many other
companies around the country are pulling the same trick?

9. Redlining pregnant women to avoid covering them
“Please keep up the good work with the marketing reps of not trying to sign up pregnant
women.” That thank you went out to company managers in a 2001 e-mail from
Amerigroup’s Illinois director of medical management. Five years later, a federal jury
awarded $48 million in damages against the insurer and its parent company for
discriminating against people with health conditions and pregnant women enrolled in the
federal Medicaid program – discrimination that’s still allowed in many states’ private health
insurance markets.

8. Sketchy stock-option deals and huge pay packages for executives
In 2006, UnitedHealth CEO William McGuire found himself in hot water with the Security
and Exchange Commission over a stock options backdating scandal. Facing legal troubles
– and questions from U.S. Senators – he forfeited $620 million in stock option and
retirement compensation and resigned. But he still made away with stock options valued
at $800 million and took home $530 million in compensation between 1991 and 2006.
But it’s not just the giant corporation where execs rake in exorbitant pay. In 2003, Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Montana’s CEO, Peter Babin, told the public not to fuss over his
$1.4 million compensation package, including dog-sitting services, first class travel for him
and his wife, and a $2,500 dining expense account (instead of country club membership).
He called public questioning of his compensation “petty” – and later resigned.

7. Defrauding our government and public health programs
News flash: Health insurers participating in public programs like Medicare and Medicaid
don’t always have the public interest in mind. A number have been charged with raking in
public money for services they never delivered.
www.insurancecompanyrules.org 2
A New York investigation uncovered managed care companies charging duplicate
premiums and billing for dead and nonexisting patients. In, Florida state and federal
agents raided the offices of two HMOs to investigate whether they were really spending as
much on mental health services as they reported. And, in 2005, Americhoice of
Pennslyvania – now part of UnitedHealth Group – settled with the state over charges it
had misled the state about claims, dragged its feet with payment to providers, and denied
patients care they had a right to receive.

6. Using non-profit health care dollars to prop up for-profit subsidiaries
Every year, health insurance companies squirrel away billions of dollars in surplus. But
can all that money really be just a cushion? In 2008, Premera Blue Cross, a Washingtonbased
nonprofit health insurance company, funneled surpluses to a failing for-profit
subsidiary in Arizona – while hiking rates for Washington customers.
From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: “Statements filed with the Washington State Insurance
Commissioner's office indicate Premera transferred $49 million to the struggling LifeWise
Health Plan of Arizona between 2004 and 2007. Although the transfers aren't illegal,
they've raised concerns that the nonprofit company is raising rates for Washington
residents to subsidize an out-of-state for-profit venture.”

5. Blocking approval and payment for covered services
Woops! It would be hard for PacifiCare to argue that 133,000 mishandled claims were just
a mistake. For the violations, California regulators hit the company with a record $3.5
million fine – a penalty that may ultimately reach $1.3 billion. The laundry list of alleged
health insurance misdeeds: wrongfully denying covered claims, failing to manage provider
networks, making incorrect payments, making multiple requests for previously provided
documentation, and so on.
Here’s some of the damage, courtesy of the Sacramento Bee:
 A surgeon blocked from scheduling surgeries for six months
 Over 200 patients of a single pediatrician being told he wasn’t in the insurer’s network
anymore
 One father fighting for 11 months to get claims paid for his autistic child, while his
wife put off EKG stress tests

4. Cutting payments to doctors, leaving patients to pay the difference
If Aetna enrollees wondered why their bills from out-of-network doctors were so high,
here’s the answer: Aetna was underpaying providers and leaving patients to fork over the
rest, according to New Jersey regulators, who in 2007 issued a fine against them of
almost $9.5 million.
Aetna’s not alone. Now, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating
Aetna, UnitedHealth, CIGNA, and other health insurers for what he called “an industrywide
scheme perpetuated by some of the nation’s largest health insurers to deceive and
defraud consumers.”
www.insurancecompanyrules.org 3

3. Siphoning health care dollars away to feed corporate parent company
profits
Think of $36.8 million as pocket change? Rhode Island’s United Healthcare of New
England wanted to send this sum as an “extraordinary dividend” to its Minnesota-based
parent company, United HealthCare Services – itself a subsidiary of the giant
UnitedHealth Group (the center of a recent stock options scandal). Less than a year
earlier, the insurer had shipped off $17 million to its parent company.
The two dividends would have amounted to more than half of the insurance company’s
roughly $90 million surplus, prompting the state’s Health Insurance Commissioner to step
in. After a firestorm of public protest, United Healthcare withdrew its proposal – but how
much money gets shifted to corporate parent profits under the radar?

2. Manipulating preexisting condition rules to deny claims and care
It’s bad enough that insurance companies are allowed to block health care for patients’
“preexisting conditions.” Making matters worse is health insurance companies’
manipulation of this loophole to deny claims they’re supposed to be covering under their
own agreements.
Just look at Assurant, ordered by the Connecticut Insurance Department in 2007 to pay
restitution to patients whose claims were improperly squashed by the company’s
subsidiaries, based on supposed preexisting conditions. In the words of the state Attorney
General: “Assurant calculatingly denies coverage for catastrophic illnesses….Assurant
promised benefits, but abandons them when they face cancer and other devastating
diseases.”
And the denials weren’t happening just in Connecticut. From the AG’s press release: “In
the case of Mitchell v. Fortis Insurance Company [an Assurant subsidiary], a South
Carolina court found that Fortis pre-programmed its computer to recognize billing codes
for expensive health conditions, triggering an automatic fraud investigation. The court
awarded $15 million to the plaintiff, who was improperly denied coverage by Fortis for his
AIDS treatment.”

1. Using front organizations to sell shoddy, bare-bones products
When you’re an independent businessperson, getting good health insurance is especially
tough. An organization like the National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE) should
help, right? It turns out that the NASE functions as a front for MEGA Life and Health and
related companies – all the subject of a multi-state investigation and now infamous around
the country for shady sales practices, leaky-bucket coverage, and trails of unpaid bills
leaving financially strapped customers high and dry. MEGA has faced fines from Delaware
to Washington state.
Think MEGA Life is an outlier in the industry? William Gedwed, Chairman, President, and
CEO of MEGA parent company HealthMarkets, sits on the Board of Directors of America’s
Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry’s lobby arm. He must be watching out for the
public good.

[Dan Conner]

Unfortunatly some people can not afford to pay for health insurance coverage. Some people are no longer able to afford to smoke cigaretts because of the high federal and state taxes, which may or may not be unfortunate depending on your point of view. There are numerous things that are becoming difficult for some to afford, including property taxes for some people who have lived in their homes for years.

I wish every person could have everything they need, as well as much of the good things in life they want. Indeed it is no secret that less money equals less services. The way I see it, at this point in time, their is not enough money available to provide us with all the services we want, let alone some of the services some need. I think we are close to reaching the point where their are more people being pulled in the wagon than their are available to pull the wagon. That ratio is unsustainable.

What an absolutely inane arguement! Now you equate affording a want (smling) with a need (health care). It is beyond ridiculous to equate smoking with health care. If you feel they are the same then I would suggest the next time you feel you need health care, have a smoke instead. To feel the same for one who can't afford health care with one who wants another cigarette is poor logical thinking.

Then, in the second paragraph I'm reading your "emotional" arguement that you wish everyone could have the things they want, but you have already demonstratede an inability to distinguish the difference between "want" and "need". Cigarette smoking is a want not a need. Health care is a "need".

There is money to finance health care. We can easily afford it because if easily made cheaper by forcing profiteering corporations to lower prices. That can be done through single-payer. That might be getting to be more and more a possibility with Sen. Arlen Spector becoming a Democrat. Maybe Olympia Snow and Susan Collins will follow. Republican are getting more and more out of touch. Especially with ridiculously foolish arguements that smoking and health care are the same "need."

The post is deficient in when it comes to judging the importance of health care. It is also incapable of adequately assessing the cost. The costs of every industrialized country is LOWER than ours. The amazing thing is that the level of health care is also BETTER than ours. We can easily do the same. It is pathetic that people want to deny others life-saving health care because some distorted and twisted reasoning that really only boils down to selfishness and greed.

People who want to deny others a human right and have them die are uncaring and self-absorbed. Certainly, they are not patriotic. Since when does patriotism mean killing your own citizens? Then, there are others who feel there are more people riding the wagon than pulling it? Well, all I have to say is BS. Our country still ranks as among those with the lowest taxes paid. I suggest that those who public whine about their high taxes, and want to deny basic human rights to avoid paying anymore, as spoiled. Unfortunately, those self-described wagon pullers are doing more riding than they admit.

[Bob Jentges]

Unfortunatly some people can not afford to pay for health insurance coverage. Some people are no longer able to afford to smoke cigaretts because of the high federal and state taxes, which may or may not be unfortunate depending on your point of view. There are numerous things that are becoming difficult for some to afford, including property taxes for some people who have lived in their homes for years.

I wish every person could have everything they need, as well as much of the good things in life they want. Indeed it is no secret that less money equals less services. The way I see it, at this point in time, their is not enough money available to provide us with all the services we want, let alone some of the services some need. I think we are close to reaching the point where their are more people being pulled in the wagon than their are available to pull the wagon. That ratio is unsustainable.

DAN---Your post #30 quoted my post #27. I did not reply. Apparrently my not replying to your post #30 did not meet with your approval so in your post #33 you quoted my post #27 again, and went on one of your usual tirades. I am quoting my post #27 above so I can see it while I make some comments about it in this post.

First, I see nothing in my first paragraph that is not accurate.

Second, I see no reason for someone to get so excited about the first sentance in my second paragraph i.e. "I wish every person could have everything they need, as well as much of the good things in life they want". With respect to the remainder of my second paragraph comments, they were my opinions based on budget deficits and the national debt.

I will not be responding to what I consider mostly irrational comments in your post #33; I think doing so is beneath my dignity.

[Dan Conner]

DAN---Your post #30 quoted my post #27. I did not reply. Apparrently my not replying to your post #30 did not meet with your approval so in your post #33 you quoted my post #27 again, and went on one of your usual tirades. I am quoting my post #27 above so I can see it while I make some comments about it in this post.

First, I see nothing in my first paragraph that is not accurate.

Second, I see no reason for someone to get so excited about the first sentance in my second paragraph i.e. "I wish every person could have everything they need, as well as much of the good things in life they want". With respect to the remainder of my second paragraph comments, they were my opinions based on budget deficits and the national debt.

I will not be responding to what I consider mostly irrational comments in your post #33; I think doing so is beneath my dignity.

I know it's just another illustration of one's uncaring ways. People can't afford cigarettes, health care, or property taxes. All terrible according to the post. However, health care is easily remedied, but you just don't seem to care. Smoking and property taxes are apparently equally important to you. People don't die for lack of cigarettes or lack of property tax payments.

You're right, I again used post #27. Like you said, you never responded. Instead, your post wastes space in a nonsensical obsession with post numbers. I guess you don't have any worthy comments about about the priority of health care...at least for others.

Bob...what dignity?

[Howard Dittrich]

Liz, Sorry I see where I lost you, never meant to imply that private business should replace the government. Private business has not and can’t, in my option, provide health care to everyone. As we have discovered here, private business is very good at providing health care to anyone who has the money to pay for it.

Those without the means to purchase healthcare from the private sector are stuck with what every the government can provide. And as it has also been pointed out here the government has not been doing a good job at covering these unfortunate souls.

So we are back to the title of the thread “Building better health care in the United States of America” What can we do (build, change, invent) with the government, private business and the individual citizen to improve healthcare for all?

Turning the total healthcare system, or even a major portion of it, over to a government that can’t take care of what it is currently expected to handle scares me. Many of our greatest accomplishments have come out of joint government / private business ventures, that is were I believe the answer is.

[Dan Conner]

Liz, Sorry I see where I lost you, never meant to imply that private business should replace the government. Private business has not and can’t, in my option, provide health care to everyone. As we have discovered here, private business is very good at providing health care to anyone who has the money to pay for it.

Those without the means to purchase healthcare from the private sector are stuck with what every the government can provide. And as it has also been pointed out here the government has not been doing a good job at covering these unfortunate souls.

So we are back to the title of the thread “Building better health care in the United States of America” What can we do (build, change, invent) with the government, private business and the individual citizen to improve healthcare for all?

Turning the total healthcare system, or even a major portion of it, over to a government that can’t take care of what it is currently expected to handle scares me. Many of our greatest accomplishments have come out of joint government / private business ventures, that is were I believe the answer is.

Howard, I think the operative word you use is "can't". The government "can", but we've got to enable that by voting the support to accommplish it. The Government isn't "they" it is "we".

[Liz Ratcliff]

Liz, Sorry I see where I lost you, never meant to imply that private business should replace the government. Private business has not and can’t, in my option, provide health care to everyone. As we have discovered here, private business is very good at providing health care to anyone who has the money to pay for it.

Those without the means to purchase healthcare from the private sector are stuck with what every the government can provide. And as it has also been pointed out here the government has not been doing a good job at covering these unfortunate souls.

So we are back to the title of the thread “Building better health care in the United States of America” What can we do (build, change, invent) with the government, private business and the individual citizen to improve healthcare for all?

Turning the total healthcare system, or even a major portion of it, over to a government that can’t take care of what it is currently expected to handle scares me. Many of our greatest accomplishments have come out of joint government / private business ventures, that is were I believe the answer is.


I don't know that I would agree the private business is very good at providing health care, at least not in terms of insurance. And I do think that we are handing over our power as citizens when we let the government do all of the deciding... Americans have to take back their power and make it work... (Dan's point).

[Howard Dittrich]

Liz, are you willing to answer the question? Given all the power how would you build better health care in the United States of America?

I would start with a joint partnership between government and private business.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Liz, are you willing to answer the question? Given all the power how would you build better health care in the United States of America?

I would start with a joint partnership between government and private business.

France has a great healthcare system, so I would consider modeling something after their system.

What kind of partership?

[Howard Dittrich]

Anyone know of any good web sites that have info on the French health care system, need to do some research.

Liz, was thinking on the lines of the partnerships that go us to the moon or helped win WWII.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Anyone know of any good web sites that have info on the French health care system, need to do some research.

Liz, was thinking on the lines of the partnerships that go us to the moon or helped win WWII.

That might be something to consider...

Here are some web sites...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9994.php
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=4647483&page=1
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/april/the_french_health_ca.php

just Google French Healthcare system.

[Bob Jentges]

If anyone is interested in what kind of health plan we might end-up with based on President Obama's proposals their is a very informative analysis titled "Government-Run Health Care" in the April 30, 2009 non-partisan website factcheck.org. You may be surprised, regardless of your position on the issue.

[Howard Dittrich]

Liz, Thanks for the links, here is what I found from them and others:

From this link: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9994.php

Thing Howard likes about the French health care system:

The French system is not socialized medicine.

“All legal residents of France are covered by public health insurance.” If you are not a legal resident, France will not spend tax payer money to provide you health care through this government program.

The French health care system establishes baseline levels of coverage for all, those that can afford more are allowed to purchase it; about 85% do.

French citizens can see the doctor as often as they like, no need for a referral to see a specialist either.

Things Howard does not like about the French health care system:

“The public health insurance system covers about 75% of total health expenditures. Half of the outstanding amount is covered by patients' out-of-pocket payments and the other half is paid by private health insurance companies. These supplementary health insurance policies can be taken out by individuals or groups.”

The French Health care system has relatively high co pays.

Rates charged by healthcare professionals are either set by the French government or established by union/government negotiations; not by the free market.

From Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=4647483&page=1

The author had shared her feelings that the French Health care system was much better for her. Found one contradiction from the first link, this link stated that 80% of French citizens purchase supplementary insurance, the first link said 85%. No big deal to me.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/april/..._health_ca.php The biggest point I got from this link was that “Medical schools in France are public institutions and are almost tuition-free. As a result, physicians do not have to pay back huge student loans.” If the US did this I would hope this would encourage the best and the brightest to go into medicine.

One concern I have over changing health care in the US is the impact it would have on innovation. Currently the USA leads the world in this area; any new health care system must not hinder our ability to continue to develop new drugs and treatments for diseases. The rest of the world spend anywhere near what we do, and the results help everyone. Here is a link that covers this. http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003794.html

“The National Institutes of Health’s (in the US) current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries. From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.” Keeping the research going is a must for any new health care system, even if it costs more money.

“Americans do not live longer than people in other countries in part because the innovations that get funded in America get used around the world. In Canada and some European countries drugs are sold for lower prices than in the US. So drug companies make most of their profits and therefore get most of their revenue to fund research by selling products in the United States. Effectively the United States is subsidizing medical research for the rest of the world.”

This practice of the United States subsidizing medical research for the rest of the world needs to stop. Everyone should pay for it and all should benefit.

Sorry for the long post.

[Dan Conner]

Liz, Thanks for the links, here is what I found from them and others:

From this link: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9994.php

Thing Howard likes about the French health care system:

The French system is not socialized medicine.

“All legal residents of France are covered by public health insurance.” If you are not a legal resident, France will not spend tax payer money to provide you health care through this government program.

The French health care system establishes baseline levels of coverage for all, those that can afford more are allowed to purchase it; about 85% do.

French citizens can see the doctor as often as they like, no need for a referral to see a specialist either.

Things Howard does not like about the French health care system:

“The public health insurance system covers about 75% of total health expenditures. Half of the outstanding amount is covered by patients' out-of-pocket payments and the other half is paid by private health insurance companies. These supplementary health insurance policies can be taken out by individuals or groups.”

The French Health care system has relatively high co pays.

Rates charged by healthcare professionals are either set by the French government or established by union/government negotiations; not by the free market.

From Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=4647483&page=1

The author had shared her feelings that the French Health care system was much better for her. Found one contradiction from the first link, this link stated that 80% of French citizens purchase supplementary insurance, the first link said 85%. No big deal to me.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/april/..._health_ca.php The biggest point I got from this link was that “Medical schools in France are public institutions and are almost tuition-free. As a result, physicians do not have to pay back huge student loans.” If the US did this I would hope this would encourage the best and the brightest to go into medicine.

One concern I have over changing health care in the US is the impact it would have on innovation. Currently the USA leads the world in this area; any new health care system must not hinder our ability to continue to develop new drugs and treatments for diseases. The rest of the world spend anywhere near what we do, and the results help everyone. Here is a link that covers this. http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003794.html

“The National Institutes of Health’s (in the US) current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries. From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.” Keeping the research going is a must for any new health care system, even if it costs more money.

“Americans do not live longer than people in other countries in part because the innovations that get funded in America get used around the world. In Canada and some European countries drugs are sold for lower prices than in the US. So drug companies make most of their profits and therefore get most of their revenue to fund research by selling products in the United States. Effectively the United States is subsidizing medical research for the rest of the world.”

This practice of the United States subsidizing medical research for the rest of the world needs to stop. Everyone should pay for it and all should benefit.

Sorry for the long post.

Howard--

I thought your post was thoughtful and well researched. That was such a surprise compared to others who do not research their positions. I think a new health insurnace system here could parallel the French system and still keep the private industry (insurance) people relatively happy. They just might not be so profitable.

The coinsurace would easily be handled either by the amount (percentage) covered or deductibles. Insurance companies could compete for that part of the market. You're right about the government setting rates. I think that is because the "free market" system is poor for regulating health care costs. Most everyone values health care very highly, meaning they will pay most anything to have it. This is evidenced by bankruptcies in the US. Over 1/2 of all the bankruptcies are caused by health care costs (hospitalizations). This means the elasticity of demand is virtually unchanged by price. In other words, health care providers are free to charge what they want with little affect on demand. The problems just show up on increasingly bigger parts of our GDP tied up in helath care costs.

One of the biggest barriers to having many quality doctors today is the cost of schooling and the AMA/school artificial limitations on the number of medical students allowed each year. If we really were a "free market" society, the market would determine the number of doctors, not a ceiling placed on the number of doctor entrants established by organizations with a profit self-interest. Most medical school applicants have to apply more than once to get in. That isn't based on talent or qualification, but rather the artificial limit set by the AMA. They only allow so many graduates each year. There are many many protentially great doctors who can't get into medical school.

Obama is a proponent of cost-free college education, provided there is a quid-pro-quo of public service, etc. That sounds like a very good plan to me. That gives many who aspire to be a doctor, the means to achieve it. They would graduate with out debt, enabling them to receive lower salaries for "in-need" areas and yet come out the same financially. Also, it would be easy for Government to change the tort process for the medical field to make it less coercive for doctors and other providers. That might be used to entice doctors to underserved areas.

Centralization of health care shouldn't affect Government reseach on pharmaceuticals. In fact, if the Government health care system could allow more money for reseach because of the cost savings in health care. That is easily legislated. I, like you, agree that the cost for drugs need to be shared equally around the world. If we operated in a "free market" manner it would be. Unfortunately, too much pharmaceutical money is used to buy politicians, control legislation, pay exorbitant executive salaries, and actually price their prducts out of the reach of many people. I think the process needs to be regulated. In too many cases, the instant monopolies established by the invention of "miracle drugs" prevent too many people from being able to obtain them.

[Bob Jentges]

It appears we will soon be provided with some specifics on what President Obama recommends congress include in reforming health care/health insurance. From what I have read recently I suggest you all hang on to your hat's, your jobs (if you still have one), and your wallets. No matter how they try to sell this, keep in mind the simple fact that you can't get more for less!

[Dan Conner]

It appears we will soon be provided with some specifics on what President Obama recommends congress include in reforming health care/health insurance. From what I have read recently I suggest you all hang on to your hat's, your jobs (if you still have one), and your wallets. No matter how they try to sell this, keep in mind the simple fact that you can't get more for less!Well Bob, I know we sure are getting less for more. Isn't it funny how the insurance companies objected to government insurance because they couldn't compete. However, for you, Obama will still offer the opportunity to continue the less for more, since you like it.

[Bob Jentges]

Well Bob, I know we sure are getting less for more. Isn't it funny how the insurance companies objected to government insurance because they couldn't compete. However, for you, Obama will still offer the opportunity to continue the less for more, since you like it.

Far be it from me to question what you know for sure, but I find it more than a little presumptious you "know we sure are getting less for more" when most of the details of the Obama/government plan have not been decided and the plan implimented yet.

There have been estimates that if the program is all government controlled, like the Medicare & Medicade programs which are in financial distress now, the start-up cost to insure the 40-50 million claimed uninsured will be in the area of $1-2 trillion. Those dollars will need to come from somewhere and the flow of money into the system will need to continue (and probably increase)to keep it going, even if rationing coverage is included in the package.

There has also been talk of the government mandating employers provide health insurance coverage through private insurers for their employees. Some voluntarily do now because benifit packages are one of the things job seekers consider when choosing a private sector employer. I doubt company provided health insurance through private insurers provides less coverage for more money. In fact, one usually has the choice to take more coverage if they choose to pay higher premiums i.e. more money. Medicare does not provide that option and I would be very surprised if government sponsored universal health care would either.

But other employers, usually small business that provide most of the employment, choose not include health insurance coverage in their benifit package because they can not afford the cost and remain competitive in the marketplace. If the government mandates those employers provide coverage I expect there may need to be empolyee layoffs if the employer wants to stay in business.

There has also been talk that if an employer provides health insurance coverage for employees, mandated or voluntarily, the cost of those benifits will be added to the employees gross income and subject to income tax.

Even if we had the money to provide universal health insurance/care, I am not yet prepared to fall for the propaganda that increased government intervention in the medical marketplace can both increase coverage and reduce costs. The costs and degree of care must be absorbed somewhere; most likely by the taxpayers, the patients, the medical providers or all of the preceeding and maybe more.

When the details are available and economists have carefully studied all the issues I might be able to be convinced otherwise. Even then, there always seem to be unintended consequences that develope down the line.

[Dan Conner]

Far be it from me to question what you know for sure, but I find it more than a little presumptious you "know we sure are getting less for more" when most of the details of the Obama/government plan have not been decided and the plan implimented yet.

There have been estimates that if the program is all government controlled, like the Medicare & Medicade programs which are in financial distress now, the start-up cost to insure the 40-50 million claimed uninsured will be in the area of $1-2 trillion. Those dollars will need to come from somewhere and the flow of money into the system will need to continue (and probably increase)to keep it going, even if rationing coverage is included in the package.

There has also been talk of the government mandating employers provide health insurance coverage through private insurers for their employees. Some voluntarily do now because benifit packages are one of the things job seekers consider when choosing a private sector employer. I doubt company provided health insurance through private insurers provides less coverage for more money. In fact, one usually has the choice to take more coverage if they choose to pay higher premiums i.e. more money. Medicare does not provide that option and I would be very surprised if government sponsored universal health care would either.

But other employers, usually small business that provide most of the employment, choose not include health insurance coverage in their benifit package because they can not afford the cost and remain competitive in the marketplace. If the government mandates those employers provide coverage I expect there may need to be empolyee layoffs if the employer wants to stay in business.

There has also been talk that if an employer provides health insurance coverage for employees, mandated or voluntarily, the cost of those benifits will be added to the employees gross income and subject to income tax.

Even if we had the money to provide universal health insurance/care, I am not yet prepared to fall for the propaganda that increased government intervention in the medical marketplace can both increase coverage and reduce costs. The costs and degree of care must be absorbed somewhere; most likely by the taxpayers, the patients, the medical providers or all of the preceeding and maybe more.

When the details are available and economists have carefully studied all the issues I might be able to be convinced otherwise. Even then, there always seem to be unintended consequences that develope down the line.

You left your prior post that you can't get more for less. I disagree. We are paying exorbitant rates for health care that could be alot more effective. It is a fact that we are getting less for more. Health care in our country is the most expensive, by far, yet our quality of medical care is ranked as only mediocre. The last statistic I saw was that the US ranked 37 in quality of health care. Hardly a ringing endorsement of our current system.

When you talk about added expense, you forget that there are tremendous savings that can be gleaned from the system while we are including more covered people. We should be able to add more people, increase quality of coverage and lower cost. Other countries have done it, why can't we?

As far as the additional cost you talk about...you are including only part of the picture. Many people will undoubtedly opt for the government plan, which will greatly reduce the money spent on private insurance. So, much of the cost is offset. Also, the Federal governemtn will be able to control some of the medical costs. THe fact is, government insurance will cost the public less and cover more. This is not propaganda. Most every industrialized nation in the world accommplishes this. If we are as competent as we think, we can also do it. Remember..."yes we can." Think more about what we can do instead of what we can't. Limited thinking is what is holding us back.

[Bob Jentges]

While wating for the Obama/Democrat specifics and the specifics of the expected Republican alternative, in this post I intend to set aside my differences with some (maybe many) over more for less, less for more, who will pay & how, can we afford, quality of care, rationing of care, etc., and address the issues of freedom and liberty.

Government run almost anything goes against my basic philosophy. But if forced I can accept government take over of my bank because I have the option of switching to a different bank. Likewise, if forced I can accept government taking over a car company because I have the option of buying a different make of car. But I have a problem with the government take over of something as personal as my health care (which I fear may be the long range intent) because that would leave me with no other options.

[Dan Conner]

While wating for the Obama/Democrat specifics and the specifics of the expected Republican alternative, in this post I intend to set aside my differences with some (maybe many) over more for less, less for more, who will pay & how, can we afford, quality of care, rationing of care, etc., and address the issues of freedom and liberty.

Government run almost anything goes against my basic philosophy. But if forced I can accept government take over of my bank because I have the option of switching to a different bank. Likewise, if forced I can accept government taking over a car company because I have the option of buying a different make of car. But I have a problem with the government take over of something as personal as my health care (which I fear may be the long range intent) because that would leave me with no other options.

I think your arguement is incomplete and misleading. You say you can switch to anothr car? Who, Ford? They'll be getting help too. So, I guess you can then go to an import (I guess they are doing a better job building cars too). Your basic philosophy is rooted in years of propaganda and programming. Government-run is against your philosophy, even when that philosophy defies reason. That's using emotion over reason. I think we need to decide using our heads, not our feelings.

However, the obvious thing you are missing is that you can also switch governments. Either by changing the one we have or finding another somewhere. The ballot box has been our accepted way of changing Government, but there are other methods too. It should not be a lot more difficult changing Government than changing products here in the country. There are many corporations owning most of an industry. You switch a product and many times it will be the same corporation. There are so few corporations now that many of them price fix. Do gas prices come to mind?

I think it is important to remember anything can be switched. If you are worried about limited options, that's the perfect opportunity for private enterprise to fill the void. Do you have so little faith in private enterprise? If government were to take over health care, and that is a big if, nothing would stop private enterprise from coming up with a better deal. I think that health care businesses have had too good a deal, now, and realize they can't compete because they are so fat. Gee...they might have to get lean and actually start to compete. I would offer one suggestion...they could start to pay their executives in the six-figures again and get off the nine figure salaries. But heck, let the corporations compete, if will make them and government better. The problem is, corporations will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars simply trying to further program you against national single-payer health care. They want to continue to make their obscene profits at the expense of people's lives. Their ability to pay the millions they do just to stop the effort is an enormous smoking-gun pointing to their exorbitant profits.

As far as your big questions of freedom and liberty? You can always have that anytime you want. If you have fought, you have experience. If you haven't, then it might be your turn. Today, there are a lot of people fighting to live, and they fail for lack of health insurance. I choose to offer them more freedom, than cater to those you won't deal with change. Their needs are of a higher priority.

I thought the following was an interesting article dealing with the element of what has made this nation great:

http://www.mn2020.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={E4CF4259-D3BE-4381-9362-174F0FC9341E}

[Bob Jentges]

Although drifting off point from the health care topic Dan, in response to your last post I offer the following.

First, my political philosophy is not liberal/progressive therefore not based on emotion or the desire to control others lives. I consider myself a conservative, which does not necessarily mean Republican, and my political philosophy is based on reason, logic, common sense, freedom and liberty.

Second, with respect to changing government I go to the ballot box every election and cast my vote for the candidates I think best represent my political philosophy.

Third, based on recent elections most of the voters from the major countries in the EU seem to have decided it's time for them to switch to conservative governments.

Finally, I consider almost all of the policies of the current administration and Democrat majorities in the U.S. House and Senate dismal failures. In a speech at a recent Hollywood fund raiser President Obama said: "You aint seen nothing yet." Unless he meant there will be a major turn-around in the economy brought about by his programs before the 2010 elections, I am confident an informed United States electorate will recognize what is happening to our country and also cast votes for a change in government.

[Dan Conner]

Although drifting off point from the health care topic Dan, in response to your last post I offer the following.

First, my political philosophy is not liberal/progressive therefore not based on emotion or the desire to control others lives. I consider myself a conservative, which does not necessarily mean Republican, and my political philosophy is based on reason, logic, common sense, freedom and liberty.

Second, with respect to changing government I go to the ballot box every election and cast my vote for the candidates I think best represent my political philosophy.

Third, based on recent elections most of the voters from the major countries in the EU seem to have decided it's time for them to switch to conservative governments.

Finally, I consider almost all of the policies of the current administration and Democrat majorities in the U.S. House and Senate dismal failures. In a speech at a recent Hollywood fund raiser President Obama said: "You aint seen nothing yet." Unless he meant there will be a major turn-around in the economy brought about by his programs before the 2010 elections, I am confident an informed United States electorate will recognize what is happening to our country and also cast votes for a change in government.

Not that I care, but I think I know what your political persuasion is. I think you making another over-simplification when you say you don't want to control other people's lives. I think that "libertarian" view is BS. The question is more about what control you want over other peoples' lives. Are you pro-choice? Do you feel people should be denied what they want? Why do you want to restrict peoples' right to sue? The majority of people have said they want these choices, medical care for all, more affordable medical care, etc., but you are against that? Certainly, if the majority of people want something you don't want to "control" them to the extent that you want to deny them?

As far as Obama is concerned, you are exhibiting more "control" of everyone else by wishing failure. If you didn't want to "control" as much as you do, you would wait an see what happens. If you cared, you would hope for success. However, you fear change, to the extent you want to failure, so we are all forced to go back to your old failed ways. The previous President was probably the most conservative President in the last 80 years and he was a complete and dismal failure. Dispite that I wished him success so our natiuon would succeed. However, he screwed up everything he touched.

He left financial calamity, two wars, a national debt, more than doubled while he was office, a shrinking middle class, an accelerated growth of the already very wealthy, a world that hated American leadership, and an Al Qaeda that is just as strong as when he took office. He grossly failed in most every aspect of governance. Even his key political position of abortion was a failure. He was elected with a complete majority in the House and Senate, yet there was no proposed repeal of abortion rights, except partial-birth abortion. But what the heck, he had no intention of outlawing abortion. If he had, that issue would have been resolved and the anti-abortion zealots would have left politics.

Bush demonstrated his brand of conservatism was a total abject failure. The public was smart enough to see that. Now, they want a change and Obama was the man who represented change. The majority of American people will be watching to make sure his promised change occurs. Those people who fear change will have to abide, just like progressives did when Bush was in office. We certainly, don't need another was 8 years of failures.

As far as the EU is concerned, their conservatism is like our progressive party. Everything is relative. They are still far more liberal than even Obama, and they unanimously hated Bush.

[Bob Jentges]

Getting back to the topic of this thread i.e. health care, I personally have little choice but to express my opinion and "...wait an[d] see what happens".

Obviously I do not know what will happen, but when President Truman proposed something similar to what Obama and the Democrats are proposing now "...the majority of people" liked the idea; until they learned the details and changed their minds. Essentially the same senerio happened with Hillary Clinton's plan in the early '90's.

Whatever happens this time I doubt we will be able to conclude whether it was the right thing to do until a few years down the road.

[Dan Conner]

Getting back to the topic of this thread i.e. health care, I personally have little choice but to express my opinion and "...wait an[d] see what happens".

Obviously I do not know what will happen, but when President Truman proposed something similar to what Obama and the Democrats are proposing now "...the majority of people" liked the idea; until they learned the details and changed their minds. Essentially the same senerio happened with Hillary Clinton's plan in the early '90's.

Whatever happens this time I doubt we will be able to conclude whether it was the right thing to do until a few years down the road.

You, know, I totally agree. So, it does no good to wish failure on a Presidency. Time will judge the results. Heaven knows our country needs big change. The experiences from the last 8 years were an enormous failure. A radical change of course is necessary, if we are to extricate ourselves from this economic/political/war mess. People will get an opportunity to judge in another 4-8 years whether our leadership did the right thing.

I think our current President has done an outstanding job so far. He proposes health care for everyone and the economy is already showing signs of a possible recovery. Considering that our prior President created an economic crisis "worse than the Great Depression", Obama has promise to end it earlier. That beats the 10+ years it took to end the Great Depression.

Our country has again took its place as a world leader, repected and liked by other nations. Quite a change from the past.

[Bob Jentges]

Article in the New York Times about the AMA's position.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html

[Dan Conner]

Article in the New York Times about the AMA's position.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html

Nothing unexpected about this. The AMA has long stood for limiting the number of new doctors graduating and the private system to keep doctor salaries high.

The problems created by the AMA has increased specialist and limited GP doctor pay to the extent we are short of GP's , with a surplus of specialists. The AMA is a self-interest-special interest group wanting the highest possible pay for doctors. While they advocate for patient care, not at the option of physican pay. Why would one think differently? It's like any union. They lobby in the best interests of the members.

I think it is the public interest that needs to be advocated for. And universal health care is definitely in the public interest.

[Bob Jentges]

I heard there was a recent survey indicating that 70% of the people who have private health insurance are satisfied with their coverage. If most of the medical providers, many of the employers who provide insurance for their employees, and most of the people who have insurance now seem to favor private insurance over government run insurance I do not understand the rush to get some type government run insurance program passed through congress. Maybe we should take a little more time to study more of the available options to reform health care coverage.

With TARP, the Stimilus Package, car company bailouts, etc., we were told if we did not do something immediatly the world would end. Now we learn that many of the banks that did not want to take TARP money but were forced to take the money probably did not need it, and almost had to beg to begin to pay it back; if the economy is beginning to recover it is doing so with only about 5%of the stimulus money doled out; Chrysler and General motors went bankrupt after billions of bailout money anyway.

I think the Republicans are working on a couple of differrent non-government plans and yesterday I heard that Senator Kent Conrad (D ND), chairman of the Budget Committee, was also working on a non-government plan. Health care reform is important, but not an emergency. Let's slow down and take enough time to get the reform right.

[Dan Conner]

I heard there was a recent survey indicating that 70% of the people who have private health insurance are satisfied with their coverage. If most of the medical providers, many of the employers who provide insurance for their employees, and most of the people who have insurance now seem to favor private insurance over government run insurance I do not understand the rush to get some type government run insurance program passed through congress. Maybe we should take a little more time to study more of the available options to reform health care coverage.

With TARP, the Stimilus Package, car company bailouts, etc., we were told if we did not do something immediatly the world would end. Now we learn that many of the banks that did not want to take TARP money but were forced to take the money probably did not need it, and almost had to beg to begin to pay it back; if the economy is beginning to recover it is doing so with only about 5%of the stimulus money doled out; Chrysler and General motors went bankrupt after billions of bailout money anyway.

I think the Republicans are working on a couple of differrent non-government plans and yesterday I heard that Senator Kent Conrad (D ND), chairman of the Budget Committee, was also working on a non-government plan. Health care reform is important, but not an emergency. Let's slow down and take enough time to get the reform right.This is another of the problems our country has. There are 50 million people with not health insurance coverage and somehow people use the statistic that 70% of the people who have health insurance are happy with what they have...I guess if they have their coverage, but 50 million don't have coverage.

Boy you are sure worried about the poor banks being forced to take bailout money. Your previous President (Bush) was the one who forced many of the banks to take bailout money. He coerced the Congrss to pass the first TARP bill.

I think we need national health care. We slowed down 16 years ago when Clinton faild to get national health care, but nothing changed then and since. Now you want to slow down? There was ample opportunity to do plenty in the last 16 years. Why was nothing done? People are still dying for lack of health insurance. They don't have more time. If what you mean is slow down so we can delay and avoid covering everyone, then forget it. Change is needed and many good people deserve the coverage, not just the fortunate ones with coverage. So, come up with ideas for change, don't just carp about the proposals.

[Bob Jentges]

In a representative republic the people we elect have the responsibility to come up with the specifics of health care reform, based on the basic principles of what their constituants want, if those wants are reasonable. I have expressed my basic principles to those in the U.S. House & Senate and others. That is all I can do. From what I can tell all Obama has done is given are his basic principles, and he is above my pay grade

I read in yesterdays WSJ that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has come out in oposition of government run health care, which should not surprise many, just like the AMA's position did not surprise you. But the oposition is building the more people learn. The next thing you know the health insurance lobby will express their opposition.

[Dan Conner]

In a representative republic the people we elect have the responsibility to come up with the specifics of health care reform, based on the basic principles of what their constituants want, if those wants are reasonable. I have expressed my basic principles to those in the U.S. House & Senate and others. That is all I can do. From what I can tell all Obama has done is given are his basic principles, and he is above my pay grade

I read in yesterdays WSJ that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has come out in oposition of government run health care, which should not surprise many, just like the AMA's position did not surprise you. But the oposition is building the more people learn. The next thing you know the health insurance lobby will express their opposition.
Bob, again I am surprised at you. US Chamber of Commerce? They have always been against health care, Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, the eight hour work week, unions, and most everything helping American workers. They are a pro-business organization. No one would have ever expected a different opinion from them.

What do you mean by basic principles? That seems confusing and ambiguous. He has ushered through significant legislation for only 5+ months in office.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, again I am surprised at you. US Chamber of Commerce? They have always been against health care, Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, the eight hour work week, unions, and most everything helping American workers. They are a pro-business organization. No one would have ever expected a different opinion from them.

What do you mean by basic principles? That seems confusing and ambiguous. He has ushered through significant legislation for only 5+ months in office.

The Chamber of Commerce comment was made with tongue-in-cheek.

Leaving the "basic principles" issue for a moment, this article: "Will Obama Raise Middle-Class Taxes to Fund Health Care?", should be of interest to "middle-class" tax payers.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0609-57.pdf

[Dan Conner]

The Chamber of Commerce comment was made with tongue-in-cheek.

Leaving the "basic principles" issue for a moment, this article: "Will Obama Raise Middle-Class Taxes to Fund Health Care?", should be of interest to "middle-class" tax payers.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0609-57.pdfWhat needs to be even clearer to the American public is the fact that the Cato Institute is an ultra conservative non-profit dedicated to limited government. From that it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what their position would be on national single-payer health insurance. They would find every reason and nuance to denigrate it. They're against it from the start.

You hardly make an impartial case against national single-payer health insurance. Cato hardly represents an egalitarian point of view. It would have no problem continuing with 50 million people uninsured for health care and continue the 60% of bankrutcies caused by health care bills.

[Bob Jentges]

What needs to be even clearer to the American public is the fact that the Cato Institute is an ultra conservative non-profit dedicated to limited government. From that it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what their position would be on national single-payer health insurance. They would find every reason and nuance to denigrate it. They're against it from the start.

You hardly make an impartial case against national single-payer health insurance. Cato hardly represents an egalitarian point of view. It would have no problem continuing with 50 million people uninsured for health care and continue the 60% of bankrutcies caused by health care bills.

I was expecting that response about Cato, but I read from a variety of political persuasion sources.

The Hill had an article today suggesting the non-partisan CBO's analysis of the cost of the Obama/Democrat health care bill would be to high, so they would be asking for an analysis (using different accounting procedures) from the Obama Administration's OMB.

Later today there was an article in Bloomberg.com where Charlie Rangel (D NY) said the House bill would include $600B in tax increases and $400B in cuts to Medicare and Medicad. When asked, Rangel suggested the total cost would be more than $1T.

Mona Charen had an article in today's NRO ("Are We Scaremongers") debunking much of the proposition that USA health care ranks poorly when compared with countries that have government run health care. I think the entire article is a worthwhile read, but here is just one sentance from the article: "The Manhattan Institute's Dr. David Guntzer reports that an estimated 20% of British lung cancer patients consided curable when they were first placed on the waiting list for chemotherapy or radiation were incurable by the time they obtained treatment."

[Dan Conner]

I know you are interested in reading (but I think only material of a very conservative nature) here are some interesting articles about national single payer healthcare. I thought it amusing you mention the huge $1 trillion dollar price tag for healthcare above, but you don't seem to balk at the $2.5 trillion dollars we are currently spending for healthcare. Currently we spend over 17% of our GDP on heathcare, and it is slated to grow to 20% of GDP ($4.6 trillion) by 2016. We are spending this phenomenal amount of money while NOT insuring almost 50 million people. That's a joke! Since you like to point out interesting right-wing articles, I will point out a few with another point of view:

www.counterpunch.org/miller06102009.html

www.pnhp.org (physicians for national healthcare)

www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare

www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

www.healthcare-now.org

These articles point out salient points to be considered in the healthcare debate. It seems ironic that your concern of $1 trillion dollar healthcare cost is dwarfed by our current $2.5 trillion dollar cost,[B]AND[B] there are almost 50 million people uninsured. There is a staggering amount of money to be saved with national healthcare, while covering all of our people. You know, people can dig and dig to find problems with any system, but any system will be only as good as the people want it to be. The anecdotal stories about all healthcare systems can be used to prove anything. However, the consensus is that US healthcare is only mediocre. It is a fact that the costs of our system blows away healthcare costs in most every country. Face it, we are getting too little for too much. It would not take much ingenuity to devise a better and cheaper system. While life expectancies are on an ebb in the US, they are increasing in European countries. I think that is a bottom-line assessment.

[Bob Jentges]

I doubt their is a consensus, or even a majority, that subscribe to the position their is a "staggering amount of money to be saved with national health care...", unless it involves rationing of coverage. Also if "it would not take much ingenuity to devise a better and cheaper system" I think our politicians need your help. They seem to be having a very difficult time with the issue.

I tried to read your web sites, but the first one "can not be displayed".

The second and fifth deal with single payer. Buy the Democrats own admission that is just not going to happen, regardless of the efforts of the
"16,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals..." membership of pnhp.

With respect to the third, if Obama (or anyone or group) can "reform our system by expanding coverage, improving quality, lowering costs, honoring patient choice and holding insurance companies accountable" I am all for it. But the way I see it, that is a pipe dream.

Finally, I do not take much issue with the fourth. It simply discusses perceived problems, but says how to solve the issues is in dispute.

The British National Health Service is the biggest employer, not only in Britian, but in Europe. I heard an interview with a Canadian physician who said their system is "free but inexcessible". In my opinion it is simply impossible to devise a health care plan for the approximate 350 million people in the USA, and have government bureaucrats run it efficiently.

Sensible, affordable reforms are needed, but not a complete overhall of the present system. Let's not move backwards in the name of progress!

[Dan Conner]

I doubt their is a consensus, or even a majority, that subscribe to the position their is a "staggering amount of money to be saved with national health care...", unless it involves rationing of coverage. Also if "it would not take much ingenuity to devise a better and cheaper system" I think our politicians need your help. They seem to be having a very difficult time with the issue.

I tried to read your web sites, but the first one "can not be displayed".

The second and fifth deal with single payer. Buy the Democrats own admission that is just not going to happen, regardless of the efforts of the
"16,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals..." membership of pnhp.

With respect to the third, if Obama (or anyone or group) can "reform our system by expanding coverage, improving quality, lowering costs, honoring patient choice and holding insurance companies accountable" I am all for it. But the way I see it, that is a pipe dream.

Finally, I do not take much issue with the fourth. It simply discusses perceived problems, but says how to solve the issues is in dispute.

The British National Health Service is the biggest employer, not only in Britian, but in Europe. I heard an interview with a Canadian physician who said their system is "free but inexcessible". In my opinion it is simply impossible to devise a health care plan for the approximate 350 million people in the USA, and have government bureaucrats run it efficiently.

Sensible, affordable reforms are needed, but not a complete overhall of the present system. Let's not move backwards in the name of progress!Then we can agree to disagree. It can be done because it has been done in many many countries. WOW, you are accepting the word of a doctor from "socialized healthcare" country? Is he comparing Britain to Canada?

I believe the majority of people believe our healthcare system is failing the American people and they want change. Many many people acknowledge the insurance system is one of the chief culprits in that failure. Certainly excess insurance company profits are instrumental in the excessive healthcare costs. United Health Care is a good example.

[Bob Jentges]

Then we can agree to disagree. It can be done because it has been done in many many countries. WOW, you are accepting the word of a doctor from "socialized healthcare" country? Is he comparing Britain to Canada?

I believe the majority of people believe our healthcare system is failing the American people and they want change. Many many people acknowledge the insurance system is one of the chief culprits in that failure. Certainly excess insurance company profits are instrumental in the excessive healthcare costs. United Health Care is a good example.

In 2008 your claim of "... excess insurance company profits..." was 0.06% of the total health care costs. And with those profits came state and federal taxes paid by the companies, good jobs created for thousands whose saleries were also taxed, etc., etc., etc.

[Bob Jentges]

For me this health care reform issue is beginning to border on the absurd. From the onset I have taken the position that some reform is probably necessary; I have just not favored single payer or any form of public option.

HR 3200 is over 1000 pages in length. It does not include single payer, but does include a public option. Senate proposals are also over 1000 pages in length. None include single payer; some include a public option and some do not. The Senate Finance Committee proposal is still in mark-up with over 500 ammendments to be considered.

Many years ago one of my wise mentors suggested to me that when you have tried your best to resolve an issue without success, sometimes the best thing to do next is to do nothing. I did not necessarrily subscribe to that approach and fortunately do not recall ever having to try it.

This morning I read an opinion article where the writer suggested the health care "crisis" is not the result of freedom and free enterprise, but instead the result of socialism and interventionism in every aspect of health care/insurance. The article went on to suggest the "2nd best" solution to the "crisis" would be to do nothing.

But since doing nothing would probably not be acceptable after all this hype and the "crisis" does not seem to go away, the article suggested the 1st best approach might be to:

"...repeal Medicare, Medicaid, insurance regulations, and medical licensure.
End all government involvement in health care. Given the positive power
of the free market and the enormous resiliency of human beings, the body
politics will immediatly begin recovering."

That recomendation does not seem likely or realistic either, but is an interesting thought.

I realize that some will say it's the free market, etc., that created the "crisis". Others will say it is the unintended consequences of government good intentions that created the "crisis".

Support for the present reform proposals seems to be fading fast, and in my opinion if something does not get done this year it will not get done next year because of the 2010 mid-term elections.

I am not suggesting that Congress do nothing, or rush to do something just to say they did something. This issue is so important that whatever is done, whenever it is done, it must be done right.

[Dan Conner]

In 2008 your claim of "... excess insurance company profits..." was 0.06% of the total health care costs. And with those profits came state and federal taxes paid by the companies, good jobs created for thousands whose saleries were also taxed, etc., etc., etc.Hate to disagree Bob, but the attached non-partisan wibsite indicates health insurance company NET profits run about 3+%.

http://www.lockergnome.com/swordofdestiny/2009/08/13/are-these-evil-for-profit-health-insurance-companies-really-so-evil/

http://www.helium.com/debates/80590-should-health-insurance-companies/side_by_side

That's net profits...When gross profits are considered it's over 25% GROSS profits in one big company. I believe bonuses are taken out of gross profits, helping reduce the net. Anyway, the profits are a far cry from .6%.

Attached is a URL debating the issue about whether the health care business should be for-profit at all. Many times it turns into a battle between profits and human life.

http://www.helium.com/debates/80590-should-health-insurance-companies/side_by_side

[Dan Conner]

For me this health care reform issue is beginning to border on the absurd. From the onset I have taken the position that some reform is probably necessary; I have just not favored single payer or any form of public option.

HR 3200 is over 1000 pages in length. It does not include single payer, but does include a public option. Senate proposals are also over 1000 pages in length. None include single payer; some include a public option and some do not. The Senate Finance Committee proposal is still in mark-up with over 500 ammendments to be considered.

Many years ago one of my wise mentors suggested to me that when you have tried your best to resolve an issue without success, sometimes the best thing to do next is to do nothing. I did not necessarrily subscribe to that approach and fortunately do not recall ever having to try it.

This morning I read an opinion article where the writer suggested the health care "crisis" is not the result of freedom and free enterprise, but instead the result of socialism and interventionism in every aspect of health care/insurance. The article went on to suggest the "2nd best" solution to the "crisis" would be to do nothing.

But since doing nothing would probably not be acceptable after all this hype and the "crisis" does not seem to go away, the article suggested the 1st best approach might be to:

"...repeal Medicare, Medicaid, insurance regulations, and medical licensure.
End all government involvement in health care. Given the positive power
of the free market and the enormous resiliency of human beings, the body
politics will immediatly begin recovering."

That recomendation does not seem likely or realistic either, but is an interesting thought.

I realize that some will say it's the free market, etc., that created the "crisis". Others will say it is the unintended consequences of government good intentions that created the "crisis".

Support for the present reform proposals seems to be fading fast, and in my opinion if something does not get done this year it will not get done next year because of the 2010 mid-term elections.

It's certainly not the government that has created the mushrooming health care costs. That is exemplified by the fact that Medicare has done much to reduce medical costs for seniors. Medicaid has done the same for ther indigent and lower earning people

I am not suggesting that Congress do nothing, or rush to do something just to say they did something. This issue is so important that whatever is done, whenever it is done, it must be done right.What is the significance of how long the legislative document is. I would think you should be familiar with the length of many court decisions. They are extremely long, and ususally, they deal with only a small facet of legislation. I think the length of a law is irrelevant, especially in something as major as health care.

I totally disagree with your assessment. The resolution of the health care issue is in the form of legislation. That is the resolution in any legislative conflict. If the Congress decided to do nothing every time there was disagreement, nothing would get done. However, I detect your feeling that you want nothing done.

I've also heard the old saying that when something needs change, the answer is not to continue doing the same wrong thing. What's that euphamism for insanity?? I don't even understand what relevance medical licensing and government have to do with health care costs. Also, it is the AMA that controls much of that, not government. College admissions for doctors are restricted by AMA influence, helping to drive up the medical costs because of reduced competition.

I think you need to stop worrying about what's fading. I think there will be significant legislation enacted to reform health care, if by nothing else than by a majority.

[Bob Jentges]

All 1502 pages of the Senate Finance Committee Bill (S. 1796) is now online for all to read. But even if you have the time (probably about two weeks if you are an average reader) I would not recomment taking the time. Harry Reid (D NV), Max Baucus (D MT), Chris Dodd (D CT) and a representative of the Obama Administration have apparrently began meetings behind closed doors to consolidate the Baucus Bill with the Dodd HELP Committee Bill and take the "finished" product to the Senate floor for debate. Your government at work!

PS--Does anyone think Las Vegas will have an over/under on the 1502
pages in the Baucus Bill and the number of pages in the "finished"
product to be debated on the Senate floor?

[Dan Conner]

All 1502 pages of the Senate Finance Committee Bill (S. 1796) is now online for all to read. But even if you have the time (probably about two weeks if you are an average reader) I would not recomment taking the time. Harry Reid (D NV), Max Baucus (D MT), Chris Dodd (D CT) and a representative of the Obama Administration have apparrently began meetings behind closed doors to consolidate the Baucus Bill with the Dodd HELP Committee Bill and take the "finished" product to the Senate floor for debate. Your government at work!

PS--Does anyone think Las Vegas will have an over/under on the 1502
pages in the Baucus Bill and the number of pages in the "finished"
product to be debated on the Senate floor?

Kind of like the table is turned, right? The Republicans made a regular practice of this and I never heard you object then. I think Republicans better learn to take it if they choose to dish it out.

[Bob Jentges]

Kind of like the table is turned, right? The Republicans made a regular practice of this and I never heard you object then. I think Republicans better learn to take it if they choose to dish it out.

I was not a member of the Forum during the Bush Administration, or when the Republicans controlled congress, and had no communication with you back then.

Here is a link to an interesting graph showing a comparison of the rate of healthcare costs, 1990-2007.

http://americanthinker.com/growth_rate_healthcare_costs.JPG

[Dan Conner]

I was not a member of the Forum during the Bush Administration, or when the Republicans controlled congress, and had no communication with you back then.

Here is a link to an interesting graph showing a comparison of the rate of healthcare costs, 1990-2007.

http://americanthinker.com/growth_rate_healthcare_costs.JPGSo what? You seem to explore many other issues before you became a member of the Forum. How about the Kyoto Protocol? It seems I remember you bringing up 1997. I really don't understand your evvasuion of the arguement.

[Bob Jentges]

How is this answer germaine?

YOU MIGHT WANT TO REFER TO YOUR POST#73. It's "germaine" to your phrase "...and I never heard you object then...".

What did you think of the graph?

[Dan Conner]

It's "germaine" to your phrase "...and I never heard you complain then...". Maybe I'll rephrase it then. I have never heard you complain since then.

[Bob Jentges]

Maybe I'll rephrase it then. I have never heard you complain since then.

I joined the Forum in January '09, shortly after Obama was sworn in as president. I see no benifit to complaning about something President did or didn't do before that.

What did you think of the graph?

[Dan Conner]

I joined the Forum in January '09, shortly after Obama was sworn in as president. I see no benifit to complaning about something President did or didn't do before that.

What did you think of the graph?I haven't read the graph since I too joined in 1/09. The data is before then. You seem to deal a lot with the past on other issues, when it is convenient. Besides what little control of costs there was was probably due to the cost controls of Medicare/Medicaid.

[Bob Jentges]

I haven't read the graph since I too joined in 1/09. The data is before then. You seem to deal a lot with the past on other issues, when it is convenient. Besides what little control of costs there was was probably due to the cost controls of Medicare/Medicaid.

The graph shows the % of increase in cost for quite a number of countries for the period of 1990 to 2007. I thought that might be of interest to those who alledge the increase in healthcare cost is a major reason for healthcare reform. If not of interest to you, maybe some who decide to look at it might find it interesting.

There was another graph that demonstrated to me that Medicare/Medicad probably had very little to do with keeping the cost % increase lower than most of the other countries shown, which by the way were single payer universal health care countries. But enough about graphs for now.

[Dan Conner]

The graph shows the % of increase in cost for quite a number of countries for the period of 1990 to 2007. I thought that might be of interest to those who alledge the increase in healthcare cost is a major reason for healthcare reform. If not of interest to you, maybe some who decide to look at it might find it interesting.

There was another graph that demonstrated to me that Medicare/Medicad probably had very little to do with keeping the cost % increase lower than most of the other countries shown, which by the way were single payer universal health care countries. But enough about graphs for now.It's probably from such notable and authoritative source like Rush Limbaugh? Bob, your statistics go a long way to prove the opposite of what you contend. Especially, being before 1/09.

[Bob Jentges]

It's probably from such notable and authoritative source like Rush Limbaugh? Bob, your statistics go a long way to prove the opposite of what you contend. Especially, being before 1/09.

If you had looked at the graph it should have been clear it was not from Rush Limbaugh as you sarcastically suggest.

You apparrantly had not studied the graph before you wrote the final two sentances in your above quote (another ready-fire-aim from you), because if you had you should have seen they are incompatable with the evidence shown in the graph.

Give me something to work with!

[Dan Conner]

If you had looked at the graph it should have been clear it was not from Rush Limbaugh as you sarcastically suggest.

You apparrantly had not studied the graph before you wrote the final two sentances in your above quote (another ready-fire-aim from you), because if you had you should have seen they are incompatable with the evidence shown in the graph.

Give me something to work with!Well, you are wrong again. I did look at the graph and generally found it unremarkable, especially in light of no other information to add relevance. The US was in the middle of the pack. So what? What is your point? You submit a graph showing increases in healthcare costs...so...

[Bob Jentges]

This morning AP writer Calvin Woodward had an article--"Fact Check: Health insurers' profits 35th out of 500".

The article goes on to say Health insurers posted a 2.2% profit margin last year, 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. Would a government bureacuracy have lower overhead and if so, would that be off-set by the anticipated fraud in a government run system e.g. Medicare ($60B according to 60 Minutes last night)?

I think this, along with the percent of increase in costs graph linked in my post #18 could lead some to conclude our elected officials are using a cannon to kill a mouse with little consideration for the cost, and almost certain unintended consequences.

[Dan Conner]

This morning AP writer Calvin Woodward had an article--"Fact Check: Health insurers' profits 35th out of 500".

The article goes on to say Health insurers posted a 2.2% profit margin last year, 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. Would a government bureacuracy have lower overhead and if so, would that be off-set by the anticipated fraud in a government run system e.g. Medicare ($60B according to 60 Minutes last night)?

I think this, along with the percent of increase in costs graph linked in my post #18 could lead some to conclude our elected officials are using a cannon to kill a mouse with little consideration for the cost, and almost certain unintended consequences.The profit margins that are referred to are net profits, I believe. That means after profits have been distributed (dividends) to stockholders and executive stock options and after costs of lobbying Congress. A better picture to look at are gross profits, before distribution to stock holders, executives and lobbying Congress. It is widely known that health insurance companies spend enormous amounts of money lobbying, even more so now that insurnace reform is being considered. I would like to see the comparison of gross profits.

In addition, I think it needs to be considered that in a government run option there will be no profits to redistribute to stockholders and executives. Eliminating the net profits and lobbying costs. Also, things like advertising would be eliminated. That's an enormous savings. It is estimated that between 20 and 30 of the total cost of health insurnace ($2.4 trillion) is spent on overhead. The government would be expected to spend about 4-10%. Therefore, in the worst case scenario, under a plan run by the government, the taxpayers would save about $240,000,000,000/year. A recent study has now been released to show the savings over a private health insurance plan to be about $860,000,000,000 a year. That's enough to finance the whole health insurnace reform proposal, with money left over.

[Matt Christianson]

The profit margins that are referred to are net profits, I believe. That means after profits have been distributed (dividends) to stockholders and executive stock options and after costs of lobbying Congress. A better picture to look at are gross profits, before distribution to stock holders, executives and lobbying Congress. It is widely known that health insurance companies spend enormous amounts of money lobbying, even more so now that insurnace reform is being considered. I would like to see the comparison of gross profits.

In addition, I think it needs to be considered that in a government run option there will be no profits to redistribute to stockholders and executives. Eliminating the net profits and lobbying costs. Also, things like advertising would be eliminated. That's an enormous savings. It is estimated that between 20 and 30 of the total cost of health insurnace ($2.4 trillion) is spent on overhead. The government would be expected to spend about 4-10%. Therefore, in the worst case scenario, under a plan run by the government, the taxpayers would save about $240,000,000,000/year. A recent study has now been released to show the savings over a private health insurance plan to be about $860,000,000,000 a year. That's enough to finance the whole health insurnace reform proposal, with money left over.

That's an absurdly not believable statistic. Who sponsored the study? And you're right, we won't have to worry about spreading profits around, just the losses.

[Dan Conner]

That's an absurdly not believable statistic. Who sponsored the study? And you're right, we won't have to worry about spreading profits around, just the losses.What statistic are you talking about ? Absurdly? This has been frequently quoted (insurance company overhead). If so, I suggest you looks at the following websites:

http://www.benico.com/cba/2006-2%20Administrative%20cost%20differentials.pdf

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/478/admincosts.pdf

The first link is from a private health insurance consultant and the second from the American Medical Association. There are many others, as well.

Also, I took particluar interest in a letter to the editor by Fred Slocum, entitled "Nothing Unconstitutional About Bills". Most particular, the debate with alleged Constituional experts, in this debate, who claim to practically sleep with the document, seemed to have ommitted the 16th Amendment to the Constitution saying, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

I think healthcare naysayers drilled a dry hole here.

[Matt Christianson]

I read the AMA report and thank you for providing it. That's the study i was questioning. I don't think it adequately explained the methodology of the numbers so I can't just take their word for it. Remember the AMA is a private firm professional organization that does a lot of lobbying on the Beltway.

I'll quote myself from the 'Unconstituional Acts of Congress' thread..."People cannot opt out of the healthcare 'reform' with out being penalized, or, basically, taxed. This is the reason many argue the constitutionality of the bill because the Constitution explicitly prohibits this practice. The writers of the bill simply call the targeted penal tax a fine bringing it, as they see it, into the vernacular of constitutionality. Congress cannot force any person to buy a good or a service."

I don't claim to be a Constituitional scholar but this has been my rudimentary understanding of the arguement.

[Dan Conner]

I read the AMA report and thank you for providing it. That's the study i was questioning. I don't think it adequately explained the methodology of the numbers so I can't just take their word for it. Remember the AMA is a private firm professional organization that does a lot of lobbying on the Beltway.

I'll quote myself from the 'Unconstituional Acts of Congress' thread..."People cannot opt out of the healthcare 'reform' with out being penalized, or, basically, taxed. This is the reason many argue the constitutionality of the bill because the Constitution explicitly prohibits this practice.That's BS. Try opting out of income tax. You'll sure get a penalty then. Your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong. There are hundreds, if not thousands of Federal programs penalizing peiople if they drop out. You mentioned 401K's in another thread. Try opting out early. You will pay a penalty. Yet you praised that innovative program. Your reasoning is faulty here and the conclusions are wrong. You might want to believe it, because you think it offers you an out, but it sure doesn't The writers of the bill simply call the targeted penal tax a fine bringing it, as they see it, into the vernacular of constitutionality. Congress cannot force any person to buy a good or a service." Then, it shall pass and you can challenge it and bring it to the Supreme Court. But, don't count on winning. That issue would probably have already been researched.

I don't claim to be a Constituitional scholar but this has been my rudimentary understanding of the arguement.Matt, do you know who the AMA is? It's the American Medical Association (the largest and almost exclusive organization representing doctors). Sure they lobby, who doesn't? I read what you say is that you'll discredit anything you don't agree with. The AMA is close to as impartial as possible. they want things good for doctors and patients. Did you look at the other URL? That more blunt and a very impartial organization.

[Matt Christianson]

Matt, do you know who the AMA is? It's the American Medical Association (the largest and almost exclusive organization representing doctors). Sure they lobby, who doesn't? I read what you say is that you'll discredit anything you don't agree with. The AMA is close to as impartial as possible. they want things good for doctors and patients. Did you look at the other URL? That more blunt and a very impartial organization.

Who's backing the studies? What do they have to gain? That's what I'm asking. I questioned the timing and the motives of the Price Waterhouse study when that came out but if I question a study that supports your position then I'm wrong? That makes sense.

[Dan Conner]

Who's backing the studies? What do they have to gain? That's what I'm asking. I questioned the timing and the motives of the Price Waterhouse study when that came out but if I question a study that supports your position then I'm wrong? That makes sense.Well, you might start by reading the links. I don't think you did. Some of your questions are answered there. I gave you two examples and links to prove what I said. Now you question my links without reading them? I tried to offer proof to substantiate what I said. Where's your proof? Becoming defensive isn't promoting your view, it only indicates you can't refute mine.

[Bob Jentges]

Just so we do not forget, the title of this thread is: "Building better health care in the United States of America."

The way I see it the shennagians Congress is using to try to get health care reform passed i.e. bribing Senators with carve-outs for their specific state(s), giving exemptions to union members, not even addressing tort reform, budget gimicry including fuzzy math on actual costs, and on and on and on, when the majority of Americans do not support such goings-on, or the proposals themselves, is probably not the hope & change so many expected, nor does it seem to follow the principles of representative democracy Thomas Jefferson was describing when he said: "The mother principle [is] that governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of the people, and execute it."

[Matt Christianson]

Don't forget the threat to delay confirmation of Scott Brown should he be elected on Tuesday simply to try and pass the healthcare bill. That's not change we were promised.

[Dan Conner]

Just so we do not forget, the title of this thread is: "Building better health care in the United States of America."

The way I see it the shennagians Congress is using to try to get health care reform passed i.e. bribing Senators with carve-outs for their specific state(s), giving exemptions to union members, not even addressing tort reform, budget gimicry including fuzzy math on actual costs, and on and on and on, when the majority of Americans do not support such goings-on, or the proposals themselves, is probably not the hope & change so many expected, nor does it seem to follow the principles of representative democracy Thomas Jefferson was describing when he said: "The mother principle [is] that governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of the people, and execute it."Bob, I'm so surprised at your indignation. Congressional favors has been used for hundreds of years when passing legislation. It was often used during the Bush Administration, as well. So, you aghast amazement is a little late and certainly appears to be a little disengenuous. You chivalrous charge is a little late.

[Ben Willaert]

It looks like the health care debate just got a whole lot more interesting. After yesterday's win, even Barney Frank is freaking out. I find it interesting that we have been told repeatedly that this is a partisan bill, but as soon as the Republicans get their foot in the door a new actual partisan bill is called for. Barney Frank even said he would not vote for the current bill if the Dems tried forcing it through real quick.

Hopefully now we can get something that all Americans can live with.

[Bob Jentges]

Hopefully now we can get something that all Americans can live with.

Welcome back Ben!

[Ben Willaert]

Thanks Bob, although I’m not sure how much I am back. Kids, work, and schooling dominate most of my time these days. But anyway…

What we need now is for Obama himself to step up with a health care bill. Letting the legislators come up with their own bills has not been good. Of course there are always going to be kick backs and perks, as there always have been, but this “project” has seen some extremes. These legislators have been able to saturate every sentence of these bills with special interests. Let Obama put his neck on the line creating a health care bill. Now thanks to Mr. Brown, Obama would have to make a bill that really is partisan. Let’s find a real and fair solution to health care.

[Dan Conner]

Thanks Bob, although I’m not sure how much I am back. Kids, work, and schooling dominate most of my time these days. But anyway…

What we need now is for Obama himself to step up with a health care bill. Letting the legislators come up with their own bills has not been good. Of course there are always going to be kick backs and perks, as there always have been, but this “project” has seen some extremes. These legislators have been able to saturate every sentence of these bills with special interests. Let Obama put his neck on the line creating a health care bill. Now thanks to Mr. Brown, Obama would have to make a bill that really is partisan. Let’s find a real and fair solution to health care.I wholeheartedly agree with you Ben.

[Bob Jentges]

I listened to Tim Penny's radio program, "Making Sense", this morning. Tim Walz was a guest.

The status of health care reform was one of the topics of discussion. Essentially what I heard Walz say is that he did not agree with much in the 2000+ page House proposal except how doctors and hospitals should be reimbursed for Medicare treatments. But he voted for it! Amazing, remarkable, and whatever other adjectives fit!!!

If anyone else listened and heard what he said different from me, I would be interested in hearing your take.

[Bob Jentges]

I listened to Tim Penny's radio program, "Making Sense", this morning. Tim Walz was a guest.

The status of health care reform was one of the topics of discussion. Essentially what I heard Walz say is that he did not agree with much in the 2000+ page House proposal except how doctors and hospitals should be reimbursed for Medicare treatments. But he voted for it! Amazing, remarkable, and whatever other adjectives fit!!!

If anyone else listened and heard what he said different from me, I would be interested in hearing your take.

Either no members listened to Tim Penny's program, or if they did they apparently heard Walz say essentially what I heard him say.

I was interested to read and hear that President Obama will be holding a one-half day meeting with Republicans at the White House and that the meeting will be on TV. A Reuters article dated 2/7/10 read that the President wanted to discuss Republican "ideas that are out there". I also heard a clip of the President speaking in which he said the same phrase that Reuters quoted. Finally an admission that Republicans have had ideas and in fact plans out there for some time!

I am not sure what can be accomplished during a half day meeting with Republicans, when Democrats have been dissagreeing among themselves for over a year, but at least it's a start. Hopefully this meeting will produce some bipartisanship, rather than serving as a public relations promotion.

[Dan Conner]

Either no members listened to Tim Penny's program, or if they did they apparently heard Walz say essentially what I heard him say.

I was interested to read and hear that President Obama will be holding a one-half day meeting with Republicans at the White House and that the meeting will be on TV. A Reuters article dated 2/7/10 read that the President wanted to discuss Republican "ideas that are out there". I also heard a clip of the President speaking in which he said the same phrase that Reuters quoted. Finally an admission that Republicans have had ideas and in fact plans out there for some time!

I am not sure what can be accomplished during a half day meeting with Republicans, when Democrats have been dissagreeing among themselves for over a year, but at least it's a start. Hopefully this meeting will produce some bipartisanship, rather than serving as a public relations promotion.Frankly, I don't know what could be accommplished with a 1-year meeting with Republicans. They don't want any change. So far, one Republican has single-handedly stopped all Obama appointment hearings. They are just trying to destroy the President, and probably our country.

[Bob Jentges]

As the Health Care Summit scheduled for this Thursday draws closer, President Obama decided to put forth at least an outline of his proposal earlier this week.

FactCheck.org had an interestimg comparision of Republican, Bipartison, and Democrat proposals this morning. Apparrently they did not receive the Obama proposal soon enough to include it in the article, other than to include a short paragraph saying it similar but more expensive than the Democrat Senate proposal. But from I have heard and read the Obama proposal has not met with overwhelming prais, even from the usually favorable mainsrtram media.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/still-on-the-table/

[Dan Conner]

As the Health Care Summit scheduled for this Thursday draws closer, President Obama decided to put forth at least an outline of his proposal earlier this week.

FactCheck.org had an interestimg comparision of Republican, Bipartison, and Democrat proposals this morning. Apparrently they did not receive the Obama proposal soon enough to include it in the article, other than to include a short paragraph saying it similar but more expensive than the Democrat Senate proposal. But from I have heard and read the Obama proposal has not met with overwhelming prais, even from the usually favorable mainsrtram media.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/still-on-the-table/I know you like to jump to the lead on issues, but I would suggest you only have to wait 2 days for the meeting. Hopefully, these concerns will be addressed, that is, if the Repubolicans are serious about doing anything. I don't feel they are. They feel obstruction is working. I don't.

[Bob Jentges]

Seems like it did not take you very long to read the relativly lengthy link I included with my post #102, Dan.

[Dan Conner]

Seems like it did not take you very long to read the relativly lengthy link I included with my post #102, Dan.Bob, there you go, timing counting, numbering, sorting, etc., but you somehow aren't seeing tht forest you're in. You seem to be a detail person, but not "big picture."

[Bob Jentges]

You seem to be a detail person, but not "big picture."

The devil is in the details, and attention to the details results in a clearer view of the "big picture".

[Dan Conner]

The devil is in the details, and attention to the details results in a clearer view of the "big picture".Bob, first you have to be able to see the trees. I believe you are not able to adequately grasp the big picture. That is why you banter about nothing - the superficial. You're in the desert dying of thirst, and you are debating about how many ounces your canteen holds. And when you can't debate anything substantively you refer the readers to a bunch of, "what do you think?" URL's. It's as if you can't adequately present your own view, that you have to rely on others to do that. It's another way of propagandizing your reader, with supposed knowledgable sources. However, your real intent is to persuade. It is the quality of your research and references that have caused me to greatly doubt you. They aren't even coherently persuasive. Heck, later you take positions inconsistent to earlier ones. You are small government, except...

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, first you have to be able to see the trees. I believe you are not able to adequately grasp the big picture. That is why you banter about nothing - the superficial. You're in the desert dying of thirst, and you are debating about how many ounces your canteen holds. And when you can't debate anything substantively you refer the readers to a bunch of, "what do you think?" URL's. It's as if you can't adequately present your own view, that you have to rely on others to do that. It's another way of propagandizing your reader, with supposed knowledgable sources. However, your real intent is to persuade. It is the quality of your research and references that have caused me to greatly doubt you. They aren't even coherently persuasive. Heck, later you take positions inconsistent to earlier ones. You are small government, except...

You are indeed a mystery. In an attempt to get you on track, in your own example the trees would be the details and the forest would be the big picture. Now let me try again to help you think with some logic.

First you said: "You seem to be a detail person, but not big picture". I countered that with: "The devil is in the details, and attention to the details results in a clearer view of the big picture".

Anyone who has ever conducted an investigation into almost anything should understand you will end up with the most accurate "big picture" if you begin the investigation without any pre-conceived ideas, and take it step-by-step, detail-by-detail and follow where the investigation leads. But apparently not you---you come back with the gobbledgook I put in quote preceeding my reply.

Regarding your comment: "Heck, later you take positions inconsistent to earlier ones." I would like you to cite the threads, including the posts, where you think I did that. Just a minor detail. If you can provide some maybe I can try to explain why I might have changed my mind. After all, a person does have the option to change their mind if new information warrants a change of mind that might change the "big picture"!

[Dan Conner]

You are indeed a mystery. In an attempt to get you on track, in your own example the trees would be the details and the forest would be the big picture. Now let me try again to help you think with some logic.

First you said: "You seem to be a detail person, but not big picture". I countered that with: "The devil is in the details, and attention to the details results in a clearer view of the big picture".

Anyone who has ever conducted an investigation into almost anything should understand you will end up with the most accurate "big picture" if you begin the investigation without any pre-conceived ideas, and take it step-by-step, detail-by-detail and follow where the investigation leads. But apparently not you---you come back with the gobbledgook I put in quote preceeding my reply.

Regarding your comment: "Heck, later you take positions inconsistent to earlier ones." I would like you to cite the threads, including the posts, where you think I did that. Just a minor detail. If you can provide some maybe I can try to explain why I might have changed my mind. After all, a person does have the option to change their mind if new information warrants a change of mind that might change the "big picture"!Now you are uproariously laughable. YOU starting without preconceived ideas? You haven't been able to investigate anything without knowing what you intended to find. You consistently ask if I have read your biased resources, which I generally do,. Then your deep and objective research (gag) omits colossally enormous counterpoints. You worship Justice Kennedy? You ignorantly, blindly, and in a sychophant manner, praise him and his recent corporate contributions to campaign decision, but never even read the minorty opinion. You use the Federaliost papers to illustrate what the Constitution is, but totally ignore the construction of the Constitution.

Bob, I don't think I need to cite any references for you about your contradictions, if you first started at that thing you say you do objectively, you will find many of them. Heck, you might even find your letter to the editor where you ignorantly use the Roman Empire as an example of failure. You can't even remember what you wrote...it must really have been important then, right?

Frankly, I tire of proving things to you. It's time you did your own investigation. I don't think I should continue what you should have done to begin with. You said this?, "you begin the investigation without any pre-conceived ideas, and take it step-by-step, detail-by-detail and follow where the investigation leads." Another laughable statement. Your investigations lead nowhere, except your predetermined conclusion. You poorly research, or are ignorant of the Roman Empire, the history of the USSR, the Constitution, and many many other areas. You are a figurative invalid talking about your step-by-step investigation. It's more like hop-scotch. Unfortunately, you miss the critically important facts to come to your prejudiced opinions. You asserting objectivity is like Jeffrey Dahmer offering to take you out to eat. At times it might sound OK, but it's usually a bunch of bunk.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, as to investigations, I spent over 32 years of my working career conducting investigations, directing investigations, and analyzing the investigations of others. I did not start with pre-conceived ideas of what I was going to find, but I did have a basic idea of what might be the critical things to look for to establish a case one way or another. Then "...step-by-step, detail-by-detail and follow where the investigation leads".

But I will admit I take a differrent approach when it comes to debating political ideology with you. There I look for research that will support my ideology in the debate. To do otherwise would be stupid.

I do not "worship Justice Kennedy". I do not worship human beings! I respect human beings even if they disagree with me. As much as you repeat it, I do not hate. I dislike some things and even some human beings, but I try my best to keep hate out of my life. Try it for yourself---I think you would feel better.:)

In previous threads and posts you labled me a "textualist" with respect to the U.S. Constitution, but now you say I "...totally ignore the construction of the Constitution".:confused: To help you decide I will repeat what I have said over and over in this Forum i.e. I consider myself an origionalist when it comes to interpruting the U.S. Constitution.

I consider the first sentence in your paragraph nothing more than a dodge
. The second two sentences were addressed in a different post I made in a different thread this morning. You read it. But curious to me dodged addressing them when you posted your reply in that thread.

With respect to your final paragraph, as disappointing as it might be for you, you have not been very successful at all in "proving things to[me]" in this Forum. If you "tire" of trying the solution is simple---stop trying! The more you try, the more obvious it becomes to me that you are an unconvincing, incompetent debator.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, as to investigations, I spent over 32 years of my working career conducting investigations, directing investigations, and analyzing the investigations of others. I did not start with pre-conceived ideas of what I was going to find, but I did have a basic idea of what might be the critical things to look for to establish a case one way or another. Then "...step-by-step, detail-by-detail and follow where the investigation leads".

But I will admit I take a differrent approach when it comes to debating political ideology with you. There I look for research that will support my ideology in the debate. To do otherwise would be stupid.

I do not "worship Justice Kennedy". I do not worship human beings! I respect human beings even if they disagree with me. As much as you repeat it, I do not hate. I dislike some things and even some human beings, but I try my best to keep hate out of my life. Try it for yourself---I think you would feel better.:)

In previous threads and posts you labled me a "textualist" with respect to the U.S. Constitution, but now you say I "...totally ignore the construction of the Constitution".:confused: To help you decide I will repeat what I have said over and over in this Forum i.e. I consider myself an origionalist when it comes to interpruting the U.S. Constitution.

I consider the first sentence in your paragraph nothing more than a dodge
. The second two sentences were addressed in a different post I made in a different thread this morning. You read it. But curious to me dodged addressing them when you posted your reply in that thread.

With respect to your final paragraph, as disappointing as it might be for you, you have not been very successful at all in "proving things to[me]" in this Forum. If you "tire" of trying the solution is simple---stop trying! The more you try, the more obvious it becomes to me that you are an unconvincing, incompetent debator.Bob, if you allegedly researched objectively back when you worked, what happened in the time since? You don't do it now.

Well, I sorry about you changing the manner of your debate. All I want to debate the issue---the truth, and not political pap. If you want to sell something because of the way you feel, then so state it, but don't draw inaccurate or incorrect analogies that prove the opposite. I think it is great to talk about how you feel and offer facts to verifiy that, but don't use ridiculously biased rags to promote it. Use the truth. Franly, I'm sick of "death panels", and killing granny allegations by the GOP.

I'm glad you don't hate, but that is only a degree of negativity. While you might say dislike, I might say hate, and we both might be right. As far as being a "textualist" that is what you presented to me when you were arguing each word, only wanting to take them literally and not in context. Stating you ignored the construction of the Constitution isn't at conflict with the earlier statement. If you did consider the context of the Constitution and the construction process, then you might be an originalist, but to debate each word, out of context is a textualist. And that is what you did. Then, somehow you morphed to a position of only using the Federalist Papers as a method to interpret the Constitution. I have no idea what that approach is, other than wrong. It isn't textualist or originalist. It's more like supplanting the Constitution with the Federalist Papers. Then you become a liberalist when you allow the SCOTUS to persuade you that since a corporation is a person, they are allowed all the free speech of people? Come on. Coporations were difined LEGALLY as people only as a legal expedient, so they can be treated as people for tax and liability purposes. The law was never intended to allow "free speech" rights to them. Then, how about the right to vote? Are they people or aren't they? The majority of SCOTUS just illustrated they were corporatists. Anyway, you have never argued a consistent position. That is my point about your contradictory positions and why who just grasp something to confirm your feelings, not reason.

I will debate you as long as you spew misinformation. Either be responsible with the facts, or I will respond. Don't analogize using the Roman Empire as a failure, especially since it was the most powerful and longest lasting empire ever. That's poor research. Don't tell me the foibles of centralized Government using the USSR (communism) as an example. Communism is the most decentralised form of government that I know. Since they failed, it proved quite the reverse of what you postulate. In that case, it would show the decentralization of government failed. Again, poor research.

Bob, just be careful with your facts. Try looking something up once in a while, before you use them as illustrations to prove a point. In too many cases you have proved the opposite of what you intended.

[Bob Jentges]

...Try looking something up once in a while,...

I looked-up the latest Rasmussen Reports this morning. Some findings:

---59% of voters said cost was the biggest problem with health care,

---57% of voters say the health care reform plans now working their way through Congress will hurt the U.S. economy.

---66% of the voters believe it is likely to increase the federal deficit.

---81% believe it is at least somewhat likely it will cost more than official estimates.

---78% believe it is at least somewhat likely taxes will have to be increased on the middle class to pay for the cost of health care reform.

Now all that remains is to sit back and wait for the reply alledging that Rasmussen Reports is a Right-wing polling firm; that polls are just snapshots in time (time of over a year of health care reform being all over the news?); the answers you get in a poll depend on how the questions are asked (if interested in the questions asked in the poll see Rasmussen Reports) etc.

[Ben Willaert]

This Health Care Reform is just getting silly now. The President is running around screaming at everyone to just vote for it, and not worry if they like it or not. Democrats are panicking because they don’t want to loose their elections in the fall for voting for the bill. People are giving the Catholic Church grief because it opposes the senate version because it can fund abortions with tax payer dollars. And then there is the Reconciliation debate. It seems no one actually likes the senate bill, but Obama says it must get passed anyway.

Here is my take. HSA plans seem to be a viable alternative right now. Many companies are switching to them. Employees play a more active roll in reducing medical costs because of the high deductibles. Employees can also end up with another savings account that can be used in retirement (unused portion of the HSA).

If government wants to get involved, let’s help reduce the costs of health care even more. Capping malpractice suits seems like a good start. I wouldn’t mind seeing the government run a central database of all medical records. This could reduce prescription medicine abuse, and cut the cost of multiple medical records kept by multiple health care companies. A central database would probably lead to better health care as well, since any medical facility would have instant access to all your medical records in an emergency.

[Bob Jentges]

This Health Care Reform is just getting silly now. The President is running around screaming at everyone to just vote for it, and not worry if they like it or not. Democrats are panicking because they don’t want to loose their elections in the fall for voting for the bill. People are giving the Catholic Church grief because it opposes the senate version because it can fund abortions with tax payer dollars. And then there is the Reconciliation debate. It seems no one actually likes the senate bill, but Obama says it must get passed anyway.

Here is my take. HSA plans seem to be a viable alternative right now. Many companies are switching to them. Employees play a more active roll in reducing medical costs because of the high deductibles. Employees can also end up with another savings account that can be used in retirement (unused portion of the HSA).

If government wants to get involved, let’s help reduce the costs of health care even more. Capping malpractice suits seems like a good start. I wouldn’t mind seeing the government run a central database of all medical records. This could reduce prescription medicine abuse, and cut the cost of multiple medical records kept by multiple health care companies. A central database would probably lead to better health care as well, since any medical facility would have instant access to all your medical records in an emergency.

It's now law, and as Speaker Pelosi once said now we can find out what's in it.

We have already found-out many things and I will not go into them again now, but here are just a couple I read about this morning.

First, according to congressional estimates released Thursday nearly 4 million Americans--the vast majority of them middle class--will have to pay the penalty for not getting health insurance when the overhal law kicks-in completly in a couple years.

Second, economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report Thursday that although the health care overhall will cover more Americans, it will not control runaway medical costs, but rather will cause those costs to rise.

If these two things surprise you I suggest you have not been reading from/listening anything but the mainstream media or listenint to anyone but the Administration as the bill was being debated.

If these two things do not surprise you maybe you like that this disasterous law is the first step to socialized medicine.

[Bob Jentges]

Now that ObamaCare has passed and people are indeed "finding out what's in it", maybe it really is in "critical condition" as the NRO blog article suggests. The 9 promises most likely to be broken the article cites make interesting reading.

http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/

[Bob Jentges]

If anyone still reads the Forum I think you might find the article in the link below interesting. They are not as pure as the driven snow---suprise, suprise!

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/HHSWitheldObamacareDocument/2010/04/29/id/357294

Set healthcare aside for a moment while the states rights lawsuits run there course and look around at what else is facing us--to big to fail bailouts, amnesty for illegals, Cap and Trade, etc. Are we looking at the Obama Syndrome? Remember in November!

[Bob Jentges]

Set healthcare aside for a moment while the states rights lawsuits run there course and look around at what else is facing us--...

I tried to follow my advice, but when I read the April 22, 2010 HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicade Services (CMS)report re: "Estimated Financial Effects of the 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'" I could not resist a comment.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/OACT-Memo-FinImpactofPPACA-Enacted.pdf

To summerize, the chief actuary for Medicare, Richard Foster, found that under Obama Care, health spending and health costs will rise, businesses and families will face higher premiums, millions of people will lose their current coverage, and seniors will have trouble accessing care.

Makes one question why this report was not released until after the bill was passed and signed into law? If it had been might it have changed a handfull of votes and the bill would have failed?

[Bob Jentges]

As expected, the more people learn about ObamaCare the less they like it. Origionally the cost was estimate to be $938B over 10 years, but recently congressional budget referees added $115B minimum over the next 10 years to the estimate to over $1T!

If the November elections go as predicted maybe we will not need to wait until the outcome of the lawsuits to put an end to this boondoggle. A recent survey indicates Americans unfavorable opinions on ObamaCare continue to grow to the extent that 56% now favor repeal of the law, with 37% against repeal.

The Democrats apparrantly paid little attention to the consent of the governed when they passed the bill, but with more elected officials who voted for it losing in primaries or retiring because they seem to see the handwriting on the wall, maybe they will pay attention this time.

[Bob Jentges]

As expected, the more people learn about ObamaCare the less they like it. Origionally the cost was estimate to be $938B over 10 years, but recently congressional budget referees added $115B minimum over the next 10 years to the estimate to over $1T!

If the November elections go as predicted maybe we will not need to wait until the outcome of the lawsuits to put an end to this boondoggle. A recent survey indicates Americans unfavorable opinions on ObamaCare continue to grow to the extent that 56% now favor repeal of the law, with 37% against repeal.

The Democrats apparrantly paid little attention to the consent of the governed when they passed the bill, but with more elected officials who voted for it losing in primaries or retiring because they seem to see the handwriting on the wall, maybe they will pay attention this time.

I read this morning that congress is trying to find $115B in spending cuts or tax increases to keep the "boondoggle" under $1T. I feel much better now:rolleyes:, although I'm betting on tax increases.:mad:

[Bob Jentges]

Who woulda thunk it (rationing)?:rolleyes:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article66465

Latest from Rasmussen: 63% now favor repeal & and Obama's approval rating drops to 44%.

[Bob Jentges]

Interesting article. Maybe the good old day's really were the good old day's.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=899

[Bob Jentges]

Article: "Health Care Rationing Obama Believes In"

What?---I thought they said there would be no rationing!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/12/health_care_rationing_obama_believes_in_106268.htm l

[Bob Jentges]

"An Ugly Preview of ObamaCare"

Covering more people with costs spiraling upward and no improvement in caring for peoples health. I do not think those were the selling points, but it looks like that is what we are in store for.:eek:

http://www/realclearpolitics.com/2010/07/19/obamacares_futute_foretold_106358.html

[Bob Jentges]

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx08_brady/pr_100728_hc_chart.html

I challenge anyone to take a look at this chart and explain what it means, in 8000 words---or less.:eek: