Recommendations to Fix Healthcare

[Dan Conner]

Considering the sorry state of healthcare in the US - causing 62% of bankruptcies and 50 million to be uninsured, what are your recommendations to fix the system? There is no need to hear philosophical debates, only plans to insure everyone and lower the cost of healthcare.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I believe it is 20K people per year die because they didn't receive life saving treatment because they had no insurance and 1 million per year go bankrupt due to devastating medical costs... Proposterous! Health care for all!

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Kill the FDA
The FDA's lengthy and extremely expensive approval process ensures that only general-purpose high-profit drugs ever see the light of day. You will rarely see drugs for rare diseases, or drugs that are customized for individual patient needs, because the high cost of entry keeps them from ever being produced.

With no FDA, drug safety trials would be handled by insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors consortia (whose members don't want to get sued for prescribing dangerous drugs) as well as ratings organizations (similar to a Good Housekeeping seal or UL listing).

People with rare diseases could decide to take an experimental drug that maybe, just maybe, will help them (but also has risks). With the FDA, that drug will not be available.

Allow health insurance purchases across state lines.
If you could only buy airline tickets from Minnesota airliners, your ticket cost would be much higher. Same is true with any product ... the more sellers, the lower the price.

Decouple health insurance from employment
Insurance got tied to full-time employment through government intervention in the mid 20th century. This makes the unemployed, self-employed, and under-employed people very vulnerable. It makes many people do full time work when they might otherwise only need part time work, which limits the number of jobs available for those who need them.

Stop forcing ERs to swallow the costs of uninsureds.
This is widely abused by people, driving up costs. If someone without insurance shows up at the ER, treat them, and then bill them. If they can't pay, put them on a payment plan or send it to a collections agency. If they still can't pay, put the patient in touch with a charity organization.

Lower or remove licensing requirements.
Medical staff waste many years of their careers and hundreds of thousands of dollars working toward their degrees and other licensing requirements, forcing them to charge more to make up their losses. The licensing requirements are a barrier to entry, which ensures a lower number of available doctors and therefore higher wages for the doctors. If I have a cough and want to spend $10 to go to someone who's only had a year of medical school instead of $180 to go to someone who's had 6, that should be my right. If that $10 practitioner is actually a quack and gives me the wrong meds, I and others will sue him or stop seeing him and he will be driven out of business.

That's 5 ideas to start with.

[Bob Jentges]

There is an interesting article in this mornings Rochester Post-Bulletin: Mayo Clinic leery of public health plan. Do not allow the title to scare you away from reading the article, because it includes some interesting suggestions for reform.

http://postbulletin.com/newsmanager/template/localnews_Story.asp?z=2&a=407485

[Dan Conner]

While Jonathon came close, I'm still not reading any substantial ideas for lowering the cost of healthcare AND insuring everyone. I need ideas, not links. Certainly, there must be more creative people out there.

[Bob Jentges]

While Jonathon came close, I'm still not reading any substantial ideas for lowering the cost of healthcare AND insuring everyone. I need ideas, not links. Certainly, there must be more creative people out there.

I have provided some (at least one) idea in previous links but you ridiculed them/it. Those who read the link to the Post-Bulletin probably noticed, as I suggested in my post, that it included suggestions (some might call them ideas) for reform. Sometimes links include suggestions/ideas from individuals or groups that have more expertise in the field than most, if not all who are active in this thread, and are worthwhile sharing in the discussion.

Although it will probably do little if any good to put forth ideas in this Forum, here are a couple more. One, since each states health care needs differ somewhat, why not allow the individual states (as opposed to the federals) to set standards for the best ways to reform in there specific situation, and at the same time make the insurance/care portable. Two, provide tax relief for individuals who purchase their own private health insurance.

Now, there must be ideas from those with your point of view that are more specific than: Let the federal government take care of it.

When/if there is ever a health care reform bill signed into law I am quite confident it might include more provisions for private than public health care.

[Dan Conner]

I have provided some (at least one) idea in previous links but you ridiculed them/it. Those who read the link to the Post-Bulletin probably noticed, as I suggested in my post, that it included suggestions (some might call them ideas) for reform. Sometimes links include suggestions/ideas from individuals or groups that have more expertise in the field than most, if not all who are active in this thread, and are worthwhile sharing in the discussion.

Although it will probably do little if any good to put forth ideas in this Forum, here are a couple more. One, since each states health care needs differ somewhat, why not allow the individual states (as opposed to the federals) to set standards for the best ways to reform in there specific situation, and at the same time make the insurance/care portable. Two, provide tax relief for individuals who purchase their own private health insurance.

Now, there must be ideas from those with your point of view that are more specific than: Let the federal government take care of it.

When/if there is ever a health care reform bill signed into law I am quite confident it might include more provisions for private than public health care.

Well, leave it to "my friend" to come up with the one non-idea. The guy who hates government and the "control" government has over everyone, wants the states to set standards for their individual healthcare needs. I didn't think states had healthcare needs. I thought that was a a province of people. And I don't think peoples' healthcare needs vary from state-to-state.

My friend doesn't remember basic welfare pack prior to the 1970's? Then, states had all sorts of different welfare rates according to their needs. Unfortunately, people would travel to the states with the higher welfare benefits. It was Congress that determined that there needed to be a consistent standard of welfare throughout the country. Thusly, came Supplemental Security Income. The same decision applies to Medicare and Social Security. While states might implement different laws for people, the needs of the people are surprisingly consistent thorughout the nation. These laws were passed to help people, not state governments.

My friend's aguement about making insurance portable by letting states decide on coverage doesn't follow. Insurance won't be portable because 50 different states make 50 different decisions about coverage. The Federal Government is the one entity to make insurnace truly portable throughtout the entire US., by having one standard, not 50.

Self-serving statements for tax relief for people with health insurance should be a low priority. At least they can afford it. First, people without the coverage have to be covered. My friend is right about including more private insurance coverage than public. Insurance companies have shown where the real power is. They have sufficient amounts of our premiums to bribe their way through Government. Too much money.

[Bob Jentges]

I am unable to comprehend what a "non-idea" might be. I will admit that history shows that most ideas are bad ideas, but they are still ideas that can be accepted or rejected.

If "[you ] don't think peoples health care needs vary from state to state" compare those of the people of Minnesota with those of the people of Mississippi, for one example.

As far as portable is concerned, most thinking people would understand that as relates to state-to-state portability, that would be temporary. For example a person moving permanently from Minnesota to Mississippi could take his/her Minnesota coverge and keep it in force in Mississippi for the time required to become a citizen of Mississippi, and then be allowed to purchase Mississippi coverage. I think that happens now with car insurance!

The reason I hesitate more each day to respond to your posts is because it seems you are simply looking for something to disagree with or more bluntly put, argue about. I am not; I am looking for reasonable, common sense, workable solutions. I am not willing to sit back and let the federal government do it. That is not the principle on which our country was founded.

[Dan Conner]

I am unable to comprehend what a "non-idea" might be. I will admit that history shows that most ideas are bad ideas, but they are still ideas that can be accepted or rejected.

If "[you ] don't think peoples health care needs vary from state to state" compare those of the people of Minnesota with those of the people of Mississippi, for one example.

As far as portable is concerned, most thinking people would understand that as relates to state-to-state portability, that would be temporary. For example a person moving permanently from Minnesota to Mississippi could take his/her Minnesota coverge and keep it in force in Mississippi for the time required to become a citizen of Mississippi, and then be allowed to purchase Mississippi coverage. I think that happens now with car insurance!

The reason I hesitate more each day to respond to your posts is because it seems you are simply looking for something to disagree with or more bluntly put, argue about. I am not; I am looking for reasonable, common sense, workable solutions. I am not willing to sit back and let the federal government do it. That is not the principle on which our country was founded.

I'm sorry, but I can't think of anything more rudimentary to explain "non-idea." I suggest you ask someone with more interpretive skills. People's health needs only vary for particluar illnesses, but not for overall need. However, it is ludicrous to already specify different health needs, based on a simplistic statement of different states. People all over want to retain their health. That is the same. It is access to doctors and hospitals that facilitate that. It is being covered for the cost that further facilitates that. That is universal. While you might be more prone to "black-lung" disease in Southern Illinois and not in Minnesota, you health needs are the same---to be able to afford seeing doctors and staying in hospitals whereever you are.

Portability being temporary? Who would ensure that? Two states would have to agree. That would be extrapolated out to mean all 50 states would have to agree and pass legislation to agree to that. How would you propose that all 50 states agree? That isn't close to being realistic. The Federal Government would have to be the government that implements a 50-state plan. I thought you would be familiar with Medicare, Social Security, and SSI. They were implemented on a national level precisely because states could not agree. It is foolhardy to believe that 50 states could pass enabling legislation for some kind of universal and coordinated coverage. But good try. The premise of your whole arguement is based on quicksand.

It is amazing that you are basically asking for Federal control of a coordinated 50-state health coverage plan. I'm not looking for something of your to argue with. I'm just looking for something reasonable and workable. Ideas that are significantly at odds with previously stated opinions are very confusing. I think a more cosistent template for beliefs is necessary. It is foolhardy to think legislation among all the 50 states could be coodinated in such a manner. Look, we live in the same state and can't agree.

As far as criticism is concerned, don't feel too bad. There has been plenty of that all the way around. Just come up with ideas that are possible. Anything sounds good if we don't have to consider plausibility.

[Bob Jentges]

Without getting into the background of why I was asking, I asked my Monday noon gab group (consisting of people with at least average interpretive ability) if they knew what a "non idea" was. After looking at me like I was from another planet the best the group could come up with was that it was an idea that was not an idea. We agreed that was an oxymoron.

My idea was not for the individual states to regulate health care within their respective states. States already regulate what can, or maybe better said can not be included in private insurance policies sold in their respective states. If the insurance companies do not comply, they do not receive a license. My idea was to continue to leave that insurance policy regulation up to the respective states rather than get the state or federal governments involved in regulating health care within the respective states. My idea included a modification in procedures with respect to portability of private insurance so the coverage in the respective states would be closer to the risk.

An example of portability presently in effect between states includes the fact that my supplemental health policy is with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois (licensed in Minnesota) and they pay legitimate claims I submit for medical treatment in Minnesota. Moreover, should I need medical attention while visiting in Iowa my coverage follows me.

My idea was simply modifying procedures already in effect so that if I permenantly relocate from Minnesota to Iowa, after a designated period of time e.g. 90 days, I would be required to transfer my Minnesota Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois Minnesota policy to a Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois Iowa policy and pay any difference in premium, or receive a premium refund. That would prevent a person from shopping for insurance from a state where they were not a resident, and as I said earlier, keep the insurance coverage closer to the risk. Also as said in a previous post, that is already the process used in car insurance.

The other idea in my post was to allow tax breaks for individuals that purchase private health insurance policies, similar to tax breaks corporations get for providing health insurance for their employees.

My two ideas, combined with other ideas previously discussed by me and others in and outside this Forum, are related to reforming private health insurance. They had nothing to do with Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, etc., which are public programs.

Some might consider my ideas a bad ideas, but neither was a "non idea"!

[Dan Conner]

Without getting into the background of why I was asking, I asked my Monday noon gab group (consisting of people with at least average interpretive ability) if they knew what a "non idea" was. After looking at me like I was from another planet the best the group could come up with was that it was an idea that was not an idea. We agreed that was an oxymoron.

My idea was not for the individual states to regulate health care within their respective states. States already regulate what can, or maybe better said can not be included in private insurance policies sold in their respective states. If the insurance companies do not comply, they do not receive a license. My idea was to continue to leave that insurance policy regulation up to the respective states rather than get the state or federal governments involved in regulating health care within the respective states. My idea included a modification in procedures with respect to portability of private insurance so the coverage in the respective states would be closer to the risk.

An example of portability presently in effect between states includes the fact that my supplemental health policy is with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois (licensed in Minnesota) and they pay legitimate claims I submit for medical treatment in Minnesota. Moreover, should I need medical attention while visiting in Iowa my coverage follows me.

My idea was simply modifying procedures already in effect so that if I permenantly relocate from Minnesota to Iowa, after a designated period of time e.g. 90 days, I would be required to transfer my Minnesota Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois Minnesota policy to a Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois Iowa policy and pay any difference in premium, or receive a premium refund. That would prevent a person from shopping for insurance from a state where they were not a resident, and as I said earlier, keep the insurance coverage closer to the risk. Also as said in a previous post, that is already the process used in car insurance.

The other idea in my post was to allow tax breaks for individuals that purchase private health insurance policies, similar to tax breaks corporations get for providing health insurance for their employees.

My two ideas, combined with other ideas previously discussed by me and others in and outside this Forum, are related to reforming private health insurance. They had nothing to do with Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, etc., which are public programs.

Some might consider my ideas a bad ideas, but neither was a "non idea"!Hey, the gab group is pretty good. They figured it out. You're right...an oxymoron. I guess we can al benefit from some help at times.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by this..."My idea was to continue to leave that insurance policy regulation up to the respective states rather than get the state or federal governments involved in regulating health care within the respective states. " You want to leave insurnace policy regulation up to indivual states rather than get state or federal government involved? Do you or don't you want states involved? You say you want states involved with regulation, but don't want to get states involved? I'm sorry, but I think there is a montrous contradiction here. Also, again, if you want any insurance consistency between states, the Federal governemtn will need to be involved. There is no provision for a 50-state coop in writing laws. The Fed has to legislate that. In addition, portability would have to be determined and legislated by the Federal government.

Having an insurnace company in another state doesn't have anything to do with portability. BC & BS of Illinois became licensed in Minnesota to market that product here. They would still need to obtain licenses in the other 48 states. The product they sell meets the standards set by the states that's all. Since you are a resident of Minnesota it should cover in all states, provided you meet other conditions in the policy (like prior approval or preferred provider, etc.). The reimbursement policy become more complicated when dealing with hospitalizations overseas. The portability issue might become a factor if you change state of residence.

As far as this is concerned: "My idea was simply modifying procedures already in effect so that if I permenantly relocate from Minnesota to Iowa, after a designated period of time e.g. 90 days, I would be required to transfer my Minnesota Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois Minnesota policy to a Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois Iowa policy and pay any difference in premium, or receive a premium refund. That would prevent a person from shopping for insurance from a state where they were not a resident, and as I said earlier, keep the insurance coverage closer to the risk. Also as said in a previous post, that is already the process used in car insurance." This whole issue is obviated when a national minimal standard is set. Then it is truly portable with like reimbursements. Then, doctors in Iowa and Minnesota won't be getting "ripped off" by a system that pays physicians in Florida and Arizona multiple times what a Minnesota physician does for the same procedure.

Your fourth paragraph is really confusing. I do not understand what you are getting at here. Modifying procedures for interstate moves? I hate to say it, but this again points to the Federal government for a solution. Shopping around? How can states stop it if the company is licensed in the state? Reimbursement of premiums? Who coordiantes that? Who overseas interstate disputes? What about policies with a little different coverage? What about if none of the intrastate companies have as good a coverage as the interstate companies? Your recommendation is not as simple as you propose. It surely doesn't address the 50 different states and the "herd of cats" syndrome.

Obviously, you have private health insurance because you can afford it. I think additional tax breaks need to be given to people who can not afford to buy health insurnace first. They need to be given whatever financial incentives there are to get them all insured. People who can afford health insurance should be the last in line to put their noses in the trough because they have the coverage. Why are you proposing helping people with something that don't need that help right now?

SSI, Medicare, and Social Security were mentioned as a point of reference to show you that there are some programs that can only effectively be managed centrally by the Federal government. These programs largely replaced seriously flawed state/local programs that didn't work. I don't feel any of your status-quo bandaid suggestions above will do anything to rememdy our very screwed up health insurance industry. They are only more bandaids, leading to ever escalating insurance costs and deterioration of care in the US.

[Bob Jentges]

I do not know many who could turn making the blunder of using an oxymoron to try to make a point into appearing they knew what they were saying.

I happened to tune-in CSPAN late last night and to my surprise saw the rerun of the portion of the Senate HHS committee hearing on health care where Senators Coburn & Burr introduced their substitute ammendment to the health reform bill that committee was working on. Their proposal would cover everyone, mostly with private insurance except those that qualify for Medicad, and be budget neutral. It INCLUDED something very similar to what you referred to as my "non-idea" with respect to states and portability and tax breaks. If it had not been a recorded version of the hearing I might have called CSPAN and told them the substitute ammendment included "non-idea" provisions.

But because Republicans are outnumbered in the very partison committe I doubt Coburn/Burr (an MD and a business executative but both obviously to some, non-caring, evil, conservative Republicans) will pass out of committee, even though the only Senator that came out and said she would not vote for it was Barbara Mikulski (D MD). The reason she gave was that it did not provide funding for Planned Parenthood. I continue to be amazed that their seems to be a general agreement we spend too much (17%of GDP) on health care now and yet many politicians think the answer is to spend more----at least $1T over the next 10 years just to impliment a program with a public option. That is only the economic downside of what Obama and the Democrats want---their is also the quality, rationing, etc., etc., etc., aspects to consider.

After attempting to figure-out your last post I will say that if you think following Jonathon's suggestion (not quoting the entire previous post in a reply) made easier reading, all I can say is it did not, at least in this particular situation. Maybe you should ask Jonathon how to perform the procedure he suggested. Your recent bold print reply to Jonathan's last post did not work out well either.

I wish you would fit in better with our "gab group" because maybe the group could educate you on the fact that words have meaning and not to use words if you do not understand how they fit in a discussion, as well as how to comprehend others plain English writing. With respect to the latter, my previous ideas included that: I prefer to leave INSURANCE POLICY REGULATION up to the states rather than get the state or federal governments involved in REGULATING HEALTH CARE within the respective states. I have been trying, without success, to point out to you for weeks that health insurance and health care are not synonymous. I doubt you will get it this time either. Do not use the sematics arguement again unless you are certain you understand the meaning of sematics.

I was not going to waste my time responding to your last post at all because it just drifted further into never-never land, but late this afternoon I received a phone call from a fellow I have never met. He said he read the Forum (maybe one of the few that still does) and commended me on my patience. That prompted me to try one last time, but just this one last time, to get accross my points on the states rights/state-to-state portability/tax breaks for individuals that purchase private health insurance ideas, repeated again, at least in part, in my immediatly preceeding paragraph. Whether I am successful on not does not really matter to me. My patience is exhausted.

[Dan Conner]

I do not know many who could turn making the blunder of using an oxymoron to try to make a point into appearing they knew what they were saying.

I happened to tune-in CSPAN late last night and to my surprise saw the rerun of the portion of the Senate HHS committee hearing on health care where Senators Coburn & Burr introduced their substitute ammendment to the health reform bill that committee was working on. Their proposal would cover everyone, mostly with private insurance except those that qualify for Medicad, and be budget neutral. It INCLUDED something very similar to what you referred to as my "non-idea" with respect to states and portability and tax breaks. If it had not been a recorded version of the hearing I might have called CSPAN and told them the substitute ammendment included "non-idea" provisions.

But because Republicans are outnumbered in the very partison committe I doubt Coburn/Burr (an MD and a business executative but both obviously to some, non-caring, evil, conservative Republicans) will pass out of committee, even though the only Senator that came out and said she would not vote for it was Barbara Mikulski (D MD). The reason she gave was that it did not provide funding for Planned Parenthood. I continue to be amazed that their seems to be a general agreement we spend too much (17%of GDP) on health care now and yet many politicians think the answer is to spend more----at least $1T over the next 10 years just to impliment a program with a public option. That is only the economic downside of what Obama and the Democrats want---their is also the quality, rationing, etc., etc., etc., aspects to consider.

After attempting to figure-out your last post I will say that if you think following Jonathon's suggestion (not quoting the entire previous post in a reply) made easier reading, all I can say is it did not, at least in this particular situation. Maybe you should ask Jonathon how to perform the procedure he suggested. Your recent bold print reply to Jonathan's last post did not work out well either.

I wish you would fit in better with our "gab group" because maybe the group could educate you on the fact that words have meaning and not to use words if you do not understand how they fit in a discussion, as well as how to comprehend others plain English writing. With respect to the latter, my previous ideas included that: I prefer to leave INSURANCE POLICY REGULATION up to the states rather than get the state or federal governments involved in REGULATING HEALTH CARE within the respective states. I have been trying, without success, to point out to you for weeks that health insurance and health care are not synonymous. I doubt you will get it this time either. Do not use the sematics arguement again unless you are certain you understand the meaning of sematics.

I was not going to waste my time responding to your last post at all because it just drifted further into never-never land, but late this afternoon I received a phone call from a fellow I have never met. He said he read the Forum (maybe one of the few that still does) and commended me on my patience. That prompted me to try one last time, but just this one last time, to get accross my points on the states rights/state-to-state portability/tax breaks for individuals that purchase private health insurance ideas, repeated again, at least in part, in my immediatly preceeding paragraph. Whether I am successful on not does not really matter to me. My patience is exhausted.Talk about oxymoronic...you tout the states rights aspect of healthcare, but then talk in glowing terms of a budget neutral proposal being considered at the FEDERAL LEVEL? Do you really know what you want or believe? I have never seen a person take some many contradicting positions. Now you talk about how pleasing a "budget neutral" position is...I think that is another illustration of deep caring (I say that sarcastically). It would be nice it you represented any kind of consistent position. As I stated before, your positions drasticlaly morph over a very short time. It is almost like you could debate yourself. This is either a symptom of poorly thought out positions or of someone who really hasn't thought through their position very well.

Anyway, I'm glad you have come around to accepting Federal solutions to the healthcare problem. I just never realized how quickly you would throw your "states rights" arguement into the trash. I guess that's some progress. Also, I'm glad you came up with another "non-idea". You only seem capable or waiting for someone else to come up with an idea that you either link or refer to in an ad hoc basis. That's OK - you are progressing. One of these days you will come up with a cogent idea of your own.

Hey, stop the whining. It seems that is getting to be a full-time job for you. I know you support big tax cuts because you pay for healthcare premiums. What else would I expect? Another self-serving remark. It might help if you examine the meaning of "shared sacrifice" too, but maybe that's not in your lexicon. You want to forget about incentives for people to buy health insurance? I detect more self-serving (selfish) ideas. Don't worry, you will survive a small increase in taxes. It won't kill you, especially when you see that our country will prosper even more and people will become happier. Hey, it actually might be good for you.

Wow! And now you speak of the evil of Obama and the Democrats? I guess you must feel they're pretty evil. Gee...threatening to help others, and worst of all, actually raise your taxes some? That part of personal sacrifice to help our country is such a bitch isn't it? I think it is like that commercial about Mikey. They say, "Give it to Mikey, he hates everything." Well, Mikey..."Try it , you might like it."

P.S. - I understand "non-idea", it was you who had to consult others about its meaning. It's like I said before...everyone needs help from time to time. It's good you have your "gab group" to help you. However, I imagine it might be a chorus of whining at times. I'm glad you now know the meaning of non-idea. It's just too bad you want to spend so much time debating such a trivial matter in this healthcare debate. I suggest you finish the state/federal debate with yourself before you move to the non-idea debate. At least that has some relevance to this discussion and is more related to the thread.

I read your contradictory post again shaking my head. At the end you talk about your desire for states rights, even though you earlier talked touting the Coburn/Burr proposal in the US Congress. I suggest you finish the healthcare arguement with yourself before you argue with others. Also, it might actually help if one would consider doing something to help others, instead of being so self-absorbed about bettering their own fiinancial position. We are a country/society now. There is that word in the Constitution, which you so literally want to follow, that says, "Common." To me that sure connotes in all our interest, not just the few, who already are doing fine.

[Bob Jentges]

It is good you took my advice and stopped trying to reply to a post without quoting the entire post if you do not know how to do what Jonathon suggested, but it does little good to quote a post if you do not read and correctly address what it says! Maybe a few exclaimation points will get your attention long enough to read what I post this time!

The reason I initially said I "was unable to comprehend what a non-idea"might be" was because my first thought was there is no such thing as a "non-idea"! But unlike some, I do not claim to know everything so I took it up with my "gab group"! They confirmed to me there is no such thing as a "non-idea", in spite of your recent contention that you know what a "non-idea" is! Us "whiners" do not know much about nothing (that is not poor grammer) even though some claim they do i.e. know a lot about nothing!

By "Budget neurtal" I did not mean the Coburn/Burr substitute ammendment was not being discussed in a federal government, committee! It meant that had it ever been signed into law it would not have cost the federal taxpayers anything! Governments can legislate without raising taxes! You might have heard Democrats are now big on PayGo, although I am not aware they have tried it yet this legislative session!

I did not "throw [my] states rights argument into the trash"! I repeated it!

I put forth ideas you asked from me before I was aware that the Coburn/Burr substitute ammendment included something very similar! Moreover I heard today that Senator Jim DeMint (R SC) has a bill very similar with regard to the purchase of private individual health insurance policies, except his would allow a resident of a state to purchase a policy from a state where they do not reside!

I did not "speak of the evil Obama and the Democrats"! I made a sarcastic reference to "...non-caring, evil, conservative Republicans".

I find you impossible, and it would be foolish of me to continue responding to you! In fact, I am becoming embarrassed for you! I hope you find someone else in the Free Press Forum that will put up with your nonsense as long as I mistakenly have!

Go ahead as you always must and strike the last word and then swallow hard and follow the House and Senate bills that were presented yesterday afternoon and this morning over the cliff along, with the other members of the inverted pyramid crowd!

[Dan Conner]

It is good you took my advice and stopped trying to reply to a post without quoting the entire post if you do not know how to do what Jonathon suggested, but it does little good to quote a post if you do not read and correctly address what it says! Maybe a few exclaimation points will get your attention long enough to read what I post this time!

The reason I initially said I "was unable to comprehend what a non-idea"might be" was because my first thought was there is no such thing as a "non-idea"! But unlike some, I do not claim to know everything so I took it up with my "gab group"! They confirmed to me there is no such thing as a "non-idea", in spite of your recent contention that you know what a "non-idea" is! Us "whiners" do not know much about nothing (that is not poor grammer) even though some claim they do i.e. know a lot about nothing!

By "Budget neurtal" I did not mean the Coburn/Burr substitute ammendment was not being discussed in a federal government, committee! It meant that had it ever been signed into law it would not have cost the federal taxpayers anything! Governments can legislate without raising taxes! You might have heard Democrats are now big on PayGo, although I am not aware they have tried it yet this legislative session!

I did not "throw [my] states rights argument into the trash"! I repeated it!

I put forth ideas you asked from me before I was aware that the Coburn/Burr substitute ammendment included something very similar! Moreover I heard today that Senator Jim DeMint (R SC) has a bill very similar with regard to the purchase of private individual health insurance policies, except his would allow a resident of a state to purchase a policy from a state where they do not reside!

I did not "speak of the evil Obama and the Democrats"! I made a sarcastic reference to "...non-caring, evil, conservative Republicans".

I find you impossible, and it would be foolish of me to continue responding to you! In fact, I am becoming embarrassed for you! I hope you find someone else in the Free Press Forum that will put up with your nonsense as long as I mistakenly have!

Go ahead as you always must and strike the last word and then swallow hard and follow the House and Senate bills that were presented yesterday afternoon and this morning over the cliff along, with the other members of the inverted pyramid crowd!

Well, you're back to jibberish! Your first paragraph is without relevance or import. What you even mean is vague.

Your second paragraph is redundant from prior posts and still without anything meaningful, except that you apparently need a "gab group" for reassurance. With the assistance of that group you were able to dissect the very complicated word and come to a reasonable conclusion, but I thought you were trying out for some kind of literary interpretive award by the sound of your travails. Well, only very basic reading and interpretive skills were needed, but good work. You get a gold star!

Your third paragraph is totally off the point, but then I guess what am I to expect from one who needs a "gab group" to interpret a word. I don't even understand what your reading skills really are. Your budget point? Other than showing you are uncaring because you are not willing to spend money to save people's lives, that was the only "budgetary" point. The more salient point I made was that you seem so interested in Federal solutions while you say you are for states rights. You are a very conflicted person. You say one thing, but apparently mean another. As far as repeating your states rights arguement, that is only after you were interested in a Federal solution. It's like you have schizophrenia. You say you stand for states rights, but yet you are interested in a centralized Federal solution. Like I said, you need to finish the arguement with yourself first. What is it...Federal of states rights solutions you want. Then, stick by it. Don't waffle all over the place.

I know you often speak with forked tongue. Now you say you used a sarcastic reference to Obama and Democrats? All I can say is bull... You too often use these sarcastic references to be considered sarcastic. If you find if difficult to respond, then please don't. The absence of your vittriol is welcome. We shall see what happens in the future for health insurance, but it is comforting to know that you are not a decider in that issue. I would trust most anyone else, or any group with the interests of all the people in mind, with a more reasoned healthcare decision. You can debate your conflicted and contradictory positions all you want and save us from the illogical conclusions.

[Dan Conner]

Below is a link to Wendell Potter, a former executive for CIGNA and Humana, who left the helath insurnace industry because of their lies and deceit. He is now a proponent of single-payer health insurance. He says the insurance company lines about the government getting between patient and doctor is all BS. There are numerous blogs about Mr. Potter on that website.

In addition, he said there are mony other insurnace company executives and employees who have left because they felt the insurnace companies lie and no longer want to help people with their insurnace needs.

http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/bios.php/Wendell_Potter

[Dan Conner]

There was a very insightful and informative PBS show on Bill Moyers Journal about the failed health insurance system in the US. It discussed the health insurance industry's lies meant to discredit Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" and the tactics they would use to blunt the affects of the movie. Fortunately, one of their own executives, Wendell Potter (VP of Communications for CIGNA), made light of the program and revealed the insurance company lies.

Wendell Potter said that Michael Moore was accurate in his presentation of the US health insurance situation and how much better things were in other countries.

You can obtain a transcript of that show at: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07...anscript4.html

P.S. Wendell Potter is now a proponent of a Government single-payer system.

[Dan Conner]

I see the President has finally asked for the straight up and down vote by Congress for health care reform. It's about time the Congress votes to do the right thing for the American people. It is now time to see if the Repubolicans will be on the right or wrong side of history for our country.