Just a thought, perhaps government doesn't always do the best job BUT they are not out to make money. I would rather pay money to have the Gov. do whatever part they are going to have in this mess than PAY MORE MONEY to the insurance companies so they can maintain record profits and deny my health services.

The only way we will be able to aford universal care in the long run is to get insurance companies out of the system. They double the cost without contributing anything to the process of providing healthcare.

In fact all they do is provide barriers. That is how they increase profits. Duh. All this pooling will accomplish is increasing the insurance revenue pool. It will NOT cure one single hangnail in the process.

Dave is right. Have you ever thought about it? They make money off societal fear. Most people fear death and will pay any amount of money to escape it/prolong it, trying not to face the issue they will eventually die. That's a pretty disgusting business.

If the government plans on requiring everyone to have healthcare, they need to regulate the pricing platform. Simply forcing them to take on everyone is not enough. Not to mention, I don't really care what the government does in terms of risky investment options. Talk about the ultimate scam and choice killer. They are guaranteeing the insurance companies (who are the biggest problem) money, and doing so at the expense of people that already struggle to balance bills. I am not saying healthcare is a bad thing, nor lacking as a noble pursuit, but when it comes to my life and how I live it, I take responsibility for myself. I wouldn't want to drag taxpayers into it, any more than the bare minimum that must be done.

Take responsibility folks. Don't let people take away your options.

Why should the people that are able to afford health care have to purchase their own when other people are getting it for free?

What is going to happen is that the people who have to pay taxes will end up dropping their own health care because "they can no longer afford it to to tax increases" and let the government supply it for them.

Many insurance companies are non profit. I think you'd be surprised at the percentage. Government regulation is the source of many inneficiencies of the insurance industry. Another is ourselves. We've come to rely on health insurance for exactly what insurance ISN'T designed for. We use it for prescritions, routing cheack ups and common illness and injury. Insurance is for the UNEXPECTED not the expected. You dont buy home insurance and auto insurance to cover routine maintainance, why would you for health care? Start paying out of pocket for routine expenses and you'll see clinics and doctors competing for your business again. Competition drives down cost and creates inovation.

Insurance companies are dinosaurs. Universal health care for all means we go to the doctor the same as we call the police or fire department: protection is provided and funded exactly the same way, and all are covered. The hell with the insurance companies and their 40% waste expense.

We need more initiatives like Qliance, across the nation, available for all. www.qliance.com

The insurance companies and hospitals are in this to make themselves money. They get bonus checks and dividends the same as major banks and other huge companies do. The less they pay for your benefits- the more profit they show.. more money for them. They spend over a billion dollars to lobby our government to make laws so they can make more money. Who pays for this lobbying? - Those that have insurance does. Your premiums rise- they get more more money. Your deductions rise.. the less they have to pay. I guess a mandate that everyone must be covered is a guaranteed way to insure they get more money. Don't expect your premiums to go down or for them to take it easy on your deductibles... they will cite now that everyone is on there- the risk is higher so they will have to make you pay more money.

When you include the pharmaceutical company into this mess... that's more money out of your pocket and less care you receive because they will continue to spend more money in Washington they will giving a darn about you.

If you take the money from the lobbying, the ads, the schmoozing, the bonus checks, the dividends, cut salaries to a respectable amount... you end up with more money they pay out each year.... what if that went back into the pot? less money you'll have to pay out individually. The more affordable it will be and more of the working poor can afford it.

Personally I not sure about socializing medicine but I am all for regulating the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. These people play with our lives.. our health... our money. They can easily play God and have. Remember when HMOs started and they denied so many treatments that many insurance holders died- and wasn't able to be sued their time giving an answer? It was done for the profits of the company with the protection of the government- thanks to US paying the lobbying funds. Oh BTW.. this still goes on, only a few states allow you to sue HMO providers for delaying/ denying you.

It's a big mess and it's a shame that even those who pay premiums have to let their health go, refuse surgeries or avoid refilling medicines because the deductibles are too darn high. Lose you house & wreck your credit or let your health go. When you have kids.. that because a hard choice to make esp when you know that the money you have paid into the insurance company so far is in the thousands already. I would love to see an indepth study on how much they truly make in the companies and how much they pay out. Just where does your premiums go.

Universal health care for all means we go to the doctor the same as we call the police or fire department: protection is provided and funded exactly the same way, and all are covered.

Police and Fire are funded by their communities. Police are largely funded through fines imposed by the courts for ordinance violations. Property taxes provide the majority of funding for fire departments. Both police and fire in most cities will start charging you a fee if you use their services too much in a year.

The thing is though that you as members of your community and state have the power in deciding what level of police and fire protection is right for you. You also have the same voice currently for insurance. Handing that power to the federal government will only weaken your voice so if univeral health care doesn't come out the way you think it should be, you're hosed. Keep the power in the states and closer to the people.

My parents (late 70s) also have supplemental insurance. That insurance which they pay several hundered dollars a month for, paid NOTHING of my mom's recent shoulder surgery. Maybe our government should stop pandering to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies instead of trying to force the American people to accept universal healthcare which does NOT work in Great Britain or Canada.

The Democrats talk about taxing the rich. If they want to do that then they should set the minimum income needed to get governmental assistance with health care a LOT higher than $16,000.

I guess people are seeing who they voted for now.

Those that select NOT TO HAVE HEALTH CARE should not expect everyone else to pay for them and their families health care. They made the choice.  No the Gov. should not provide free health care for everyone,  those deadbeats that have been sponging off the tax payer all their lives need to get off their butts and take some personal responsibility for themselves and their families.  As for the ability of the Feds to run and manage Health Care,  well they can't take care of themselves and live within their means (that's why they raise taxes).  Only those that are Totally Disabled should get free Health Care,  those that are Unemployed should get free health care temporarily until they can be employed.  If you are getting a Gov. check or any services for free, you should be forced to work in Gov. projects (Parks need grass mowed, buildings painted, trash picked-up,etc.) until a paying job is found. 

But what if we wind up with the best health coverage in the world? I am constantly amazed at the negativity concerning this issue.

I would argue that the government does provide us with the best highway system in the world, for example.

I just sent the link to this site to President Obama.

He needs to hear what you all have to say.

Greg,

Have you been to Germany? How about England? How about any other European Country?

Our Highway system is no shining star in the light of the rest of the non-third world countries.

How about our education? Our Government sure does great with that don't they?

why did you have to bring the pharmaceutical companies into this? What do they have to do with the goverenment forcing people to buy insurance?

I say NO, NO, NO!!!!! I have a job, I pay for my health insurance. I refuse to pay for someone else's health care! I guess that the good old USA has now been renamed the USSA!!!!

Even the "what do you think" poll for this article says that the VAST majority does NOT WANT GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE! Why are we allowing them to shove this BS down our throats?????

.

WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT REALLY IS TOO LATE!!!!!

It doesn't matter if the entire country voted 100% not to have universal health care or not , they're gonna pass it anyway because it's what Obama wants, and what he wants he gets. I also have my own insurance and to provide someone else's is outrageous. And to top it all of you'll get a huge fine for exercising your American rights not to participate. Wow! Watching democracy Decay!!

I, nor most people I know, can't afford any "supplemental" policy. People that think that's even OK don't live in the real world. I don't make enough to be required, nor penalized, under any plan that is being tossed around. I don't work anywhere that offers insurance, and only once in my life have I ever. Most small companies don't offer it, and most people can't afford it if they do. Either way, no government is going to "make" me buy anything! Did I see 75% of Americans voted NO here? People-Can't you just say NO????????????????

My husband and I are on Medicare, and we like it. But we do not like the way the private companies that provide a supplement to Medicare and an RX plan are handled. They keep raising the monthly fees rather dramatically. And medication prices are awful once you reach the coverage gap with the RX plan, and many seniors do. The coverage gap was put into the RX plans with only one thing in mind...helping the private insurance companies get rich.

We really need a viable public option in health care reform. The private insurance companies, the medical community, and Big Pharma are ripping people off, and prices just keep going up. Wish we could have a government-run plan like the members of Congress do. It makes me furious when they say they're against a public option or exchange for us, but they have one themselves.

I am so sick of tired of the health insurance companies robbing us. They constantly increase prices on everything and are covering less and less. I work in a doctor's office and every year it keeps getting worse. Medications, labwork, imaging, and even hospital stays are getting harder and harder to be covered by insurance companies. Some patient's think that the doctor is denying them their medications or testing, but it's the insurance company thats controling the patient's healthcare. I've seen patient's get denied their life saving medcations, or even their stay in the hospital after they've already been discharged. It's sad to see when a patient doesn't want to come in because they are in debt with their medical bills because the insurance company hardly covers anything. I hope something gets resolved, before we are all broke from insurance premiums and won't even go to er in fear of what debt it will put us in.

You should have put in the poll, No because I have no money.

I put not sure, for the simple fact it would be nice if I could buy my health care, but I can't afford it now on my unemployment, so how am I suppose to afford it when my unemployment runs out or on a minimum wage job if I find one, I'm a single mom. What are the people that their unemployment has already run out to do, some are losing their homes, their cars.

If you feel if I get sick and have no health care that you will have to pay for me in the long run, please just shoot me and put me out of my misery, if it will make ya feel better. I'm sorry I lost my Job my health care after working almost 25 years in one place, I'm sorry Warren Buffett closed us down because of outsourcing, I'm sorry I'm older and it's harder for me to find a job now.

I'm just plain Sorry

Not Trying To Make Money: ARE YOU NUTS???? The government may not make a profit on it, but I want what we have to work! The gov't has NEVER done a good job on ANYTHING but national defense, and they spend way too much on that. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". One of the biggest lies of all time. It's time to remember this slogan- LIVE FREE OR DIE! Every time you let the government take over making any decision for you, you are that much closer to being a slave. You cannot make a slave of a truly free man, the most you can do is kill him. To be a slave, you must cooperate with the enslaver. I for one shall not become a slave. My ancestors died to eradicate it at Gettysburg, and I choose not to let that be in vain. To paraphrase a redneck saying my wife hates me to use, "They can have my rights when they pry the Bill of Rights from my cold, dead fingers". The rest of you can whine all day about how hard it is to get insurance, but if you were to stop insisting that insurance cover every sniffle and scrape, and just use it as it was originally intended, as an EMERGENCY ptotection, rates would drop. Self pay for the wellcare visits, Little Timmy's cold, Tiny Jane's ear ache, and remember to negotiate with the doctor when you do pay these bills. Remember, cash bills are billed at the same rate the insurance company is BILLED at NOT what they pay, and you can do the same or better, because there is less paperwork if you pay at the time of the visit, rather than recieve bills in the mail. These simple things have saved me thousands over the past 10 years.

Heath Care is not a Right at the Federal Level and CAN NOT BE!

The President has utterly no right or business even discussing, let alone proposing, National Health Care — imposing on the States or interfering and directly involving itself with industries, businesses, institutions and other like interests belonging exclusively to the States or the personal affairs or health of their citizens; and, the People have utterly no right to demand encroachment into these objects by the Federal government, nor do the States have the Right to relinquish their exclusive authority over these objects to the Federal government without a constitutional amendment to the Constitution that does not also change the intended FORM — something to which great attention was given by the First Congress, so as to avoid changing the already ratified FORM by new proposed amendments, which, according to Congress, would require sending the Constitution back to the People for re-ratification of yet another form if changed by amendment.

For, if the Union was indeed sovereign, as is a true State — (i.e. if the Union is not a Union but is instead itself a State, then it may impose itself upon all the members and a mere majority of States may do likewise upon the rest) — an obnoxious suggestion that is utterly contrary to a fundamental purpose of Union: to protect the States against each other, and protect the smaller weaker States from the larger, and the more wealthy from the poorer.

Cutting through the grey introduced by faction, unscrupulous mischievous politicians and politically corrupt justices that substitute "their" Will and politics in place of the Will of the Framers — using, according to the Framers, proper "true" and legitimate construction of the Constitution — it is plain that the Federal government has utterly NO authority whatsoever to directly regulate industry, business, institutions, or any commercial or agricultural interest belonging to any one of the "sovereign" and "independent" States — and, certainly not using the pretense that doing so is, in its OPINION, for the general good or interests of the People and the Nation, or that it has some kind of vested interest in the People's personal health, wellbeing or welfare.

Why?

Because, the "Federal" government has NOT broad discretionary powers, but "narrow" ENUMERATED and LIMITED powers, with all the CONSIDERABLE remaining powers meant to be left EXCLUSIVELY with the States.

With the 10th Amendment added to the Constitution so as to settle any doubt on this "fundamental" principle and point, the Federal government has utterly NO authority to directly involve itself into such objects, but only "indirectly" using its "legitimate" and "limited" taxing powers; — lest the Federal government, its officers, and the States, its officers and their citizens are hopelessly corrupted — consumed and blinded by their own greed and lawlessness — false patriots that try to justify, in their minds, that their acts are somehow just, by hiding under pretenses of compassion, caring and patriotism, while, in plain view, trampling the Constitution and countless "true" rights it was meant to guarantee; — perverting the Constitution to their own self interests of power and dominion over all; — unscrupulously preying on a gullible, ignorant and naive People that they struggle to keep that way; — exciting the compassions and emotions of the masses so that they can incrementally promote and put into effect their illegitimate schemes on an unsuspecting People that they make sure are blind to: "for every power illegitimately given up so that they can be illegitimately cared for through the receiving of illegitimate Federal entitlements to which they have utterly no right, are countless Rights, Freedoms and Liberties lost".

The whole works of the Convention that produced our current Constitution was meant to preserve the States, as smaller "independent" and "sovereign" societies — to provide for "their" common defense and "their" general welfare by creating a more perfect UNION of those societies — never meaning to create a more perfect State, Country, Nation, Kingdom or Empire, nor was it meant to provide for the common defense and general welfare of "individuals" — with, the Police and Welfare of individuals remaining the business and jurisdiction of the States, and consistent with:

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a SOVEREIGN body, INDEPENDENT of all others, and ONLY to be bound by its OWN VOLUNTARY ACT." (Madison, fp39)

In fact the TRUE equals of our States (as repeatedly used in comparisons by the framers throughout the convention) are best compared to the INDIVIDUAL States in Europe. This is a FUNDAMENTAL indisputable "fact" that one must understand in order to further understand that the Federal government has utterly NO broad extensive discretionary powers and authorities over the States and individuals. To suggest otherwise is a perversion of the Constitution, and, according to the Framers in convention, tantamount to treason against the instrument.

So, why compare any State in Europe to our Union of 50 of its equals, when doing so is no different than comparing the United States to, for example, Iowa?

In convention, the framers did only PROPER comparisons. Nowhere, and at no time in convention, did any delegate ever compare the whole of the Union to any single foreign State in Europe. All comparisons were ALWAYS State-to-State!

For what purpose is such done now, but to wrongly excite the passions and emotions of our masses so as to compel them, and have them demand that the Federal government illegitimately involve itself into that which it has utterly NO legitimate authority, NO right and NO jurisdiction; — so as to facilitate the perversion of the instrument meant to GUARANTEE that it NOT directly involve itself into such objects of "individuals" belonging to the States; —

Meant to leave the individual smaller societies [States] with the guaranteed freedom, liberties and rights to legislate or not to legislate as they please without interference from neighboring States or the Federal government; — to make (in mere opinions of others) bad laws as well as good laws; for, who is it that has the right to dictate to others how they must live, how they should run their internal affairs, or their government (as long as, according to the Framers, it follows the Republican form); and, what morels, habits and cultures each State must maintain, and what their interests, rules and regulations must be? —

For, all these Things where meant to be protected and preserved by the Federal government from encroachments and interferences, and not for the Federal government to instead be the destroyer of these Things and the source of interferences and aggressions against the States.

Consider what Mr. Martin made plain in convention, which is consistent throughout the whole of the convention, with nothing suggested to the contrary:

"Mr. L. Martin contended at great length and with great eagerness that the General Govt was meant merely to PRESERVE the State Governts: NOT to govern individuals: that its powers ought to be KEPT WITHIN NARROW LIMITS;"

I repeat, the 10th Amendment was added to the Constitution to settle any doubt whatsoever on this FUNDAMENTAL principle and point.

Consider also four powers that were proposed in convention — ALL of which were negatived (rejected) by an actual "recorded" VOTE and so omitted from the Constitution, making it plain that no such powers were ever given up to it, nor intended, and so denying Congress these powers; for, it was understood, that powers omitted — above all by vote — are powers denied and so meant to be prohibited; and so, it is plain that Congress has utterly NO such powers as these following four that it can legitimately exercise — powers NOT implied by any power already given up, including the power to regulate commerce, which was already in the Constitution at the time of these four votes:

1) Proposed, voted and REJECTED: Power to legislate where Congress, in its OPINION, felt the States incompetent;

2) Proposed, voted and REJECTED: Power to negative State laws that Congress, in its OPINION, determined were inappropriate or bad, even though not contrary to the Constitution;

3) Proposed, voted and REJECTED: Power to legislate where Congress, in its OPINION, determined that it was for the good of the nation, even though no express power was given up to it by the States;

4) Proposed, voted and REJECTED: Power to regulate manufacturers;

Additionally, in the 1st Congress while proposing amendments to the Constitution, it was proposed, voted and REJECTED to give the People the right to direct their representatives, thus, FURTHER guarding against this UNION being turned into a Democracy; — thus also guarding against putting at risk and sacrificing a minority to the passions and emotions of a majority (controlling faction) while at the same time sacrificing the TRUE rights, sovereignty, freedoms and liberties of the sovereign States that were meant to be guaranteed and guarded by UNION and not for the Federal government to elevate itself to the stature of a State, usurping ALL remaining powers reserved to the States and illegitimately claiming the whole power of legislation and dominion over all those smaller societies that it was instituted by them to protect and preserve, including their individual differing commercial interests, habits, customs, morals rules and regulation made under their separate authorities and NOT to be the source of aggressions and interferences against them.

Remember: The STATES are the sovereigns — NOT the Federal government; and, the States are the States, NOT the Federal government.

Try this mental exercise: Knowing the plain fact that justices are punishable by impeachment for substituting their will in place of the will of legislators (in this case, the Constitution, which is supreme and an instrument they have no privilege to judge), upon their impeachment, to what standard are they, their actions and rulings to be measured?

They can not claim that they are omnipotent.

They can not rule that they are not impeachable, knowing they are not above the instrument that created their office and to which they took an oath to support; and, nothing is being brought before them for them to rule upon, anyway.

Are their own rulings and opinions, which are on trial, to be the standard? — Or, for that matter, the rulings and opinions of other justices or those from before them?

Is not the standard the Constitution? — And so, must it not be the true construction according to the original will and intent of the original legislators just as is any law that is made in pursuant to that supreme instrument — laws that are also necessary "and" proper?

Likewise, the president is impeachable, "...especially as he [President] was to be impeached by the other branch of the Legislature, and for ANY act which MIGHT be called a MISDEMEANOR." (Madison, in convention, Sept, 8)

So, is not a deliberate subversion of the Constitution something that can be called a misdemeanor, if not tantamount to treason as suggested by the delegates in convention?

And, if these officers want to plead ignorance, then how can any take an oath to uphold and support an instrument that they then acknowledge afterwards that before hand they were completely ignorant? Is not such fraud?

The framers made clear in convention and in the Federalist Papers, that We the People must be ever vigilant; that, "Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the STATE legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but SUSPICIOUS and JEALOUS guardians of the RIGHTS of the citizens AGAINST encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent. (Hamilton fp26)

And, "...the House of Representatives, with the people on their side, will AT ALL TIMES be able to BRING BACK the Constitution to its PRIMITIVE form and PRINCIPLES." (Madison fp63)

Yes, These Arseholes want another hand out to the private Ins Co's, so they can take their wad & invest if these greedy fraudulent Co's. I voted for Obama but will "Sure as hell" do all I can to start a movement tothrow him, Dems out at earliest possible time. Mainly the 2010 elections. Start cleaning house of these Dem "prostitutes of big Big Insurance, Big Pharma, etc! Who will decide on (what the person can afford) them naturally. Just as w/ Auto Ins. Shouldn't be required to have that either! Everyone should accept the responsibility themselves to have their car insured for an accident, etc. These Insurance Co's are nothing but a big fraud perpetrated on the american people. Forcing people to buy "Any kind of Insurance" is fraud. Guess who's heavily in these damn Co'? People who have money to invest. Certainly "not the little guy.

I am so sick of tired of the health insurance companies robbing us. They constantly increase prices on everything and are covering less and less. I work in a doctor's office and every year it keeps getting worse. Medications, labwork, imaging, and even hospital stays are getting harder and harder to be covered by insurance companies. Some patient's think that the doctor is denying them their medications or testing, but it's the insurance company thats controling the patient's healthcare. I've seen patient's get denied their life saving medcations, or even their stay in the hospital after they've already been discharged. It's sad to see when a patient doesn't want to come in because they are in debt with their medical bills because the insurance company hardly covers anything. I hope something gets resolved, before we are all broke from insurance premiums and won't even go to er in fear of what debt it will put us in.

That's one perspective. The other perspective is that insurance health costs are so high because the payments that have to be made to doctors, hospitals etc. It doesn't strike you as odd that doctors can make a decent living out of taking medicare/medicaid patients with the reduced payments associated with that compared to what they charge fully insured patients?

For sure some of the blame rests with health insurance companies, but a great deal of blame rests equally with the health care providers. Simply eliminating the profit margin as a government health program would do is not 100% of the fix to the problem. Reduce the ridiculous fees some doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies charge and you would see a bigger improvement.

And you of all people working in a medical office should see that waste. You mention patients can't afford to come in because it's not paid by the insurance company. Well heck, when that $0.05 tylenol I can get in Wallyworld costs me $5 when I am hospitalized what do you expect?

In Mass we already do or face a $1000 fine for not having it.

If having to spend the first hour at a hospital making insurance payment information provided, ahead of any dispensing of any health care, dramatically shows where the priority of the institutions are.

We have created an abomination by letting insurance companies become the gate keepers of healthcare. Doctors allowed this to get out of having to do marketing and use the insurance companies to help cut off unresponsive patients. Of course the insurance companies got out of hand, and practically run the show.

We need to decide to remove the insurance blight, or decide to screw our fellow man and let him expire from no coverage while bonusing insurance executives. Having insurance does NOT mean you have health care coverage. You only have it if they decide to let you. In the mean time they screw your credit records and life, for fun and profits. Where else can you earn more by refusing to do your job? What a racket!

Actually, the docs, when the HMOs started springing up in the 80s, resisted. They never thought patients would leave them for the HMO, but soon saw that the patients HAD TO GO because unless the doctor was "on the list", the HMO would of course not pay the doc. So the docs were forced to join HMOs, but even today will sometimes drop one due to their low reimbursement rate, hassle of dealing with the bureacracy, and SLOW PAY for services - which really sucks for the patient - we cannot go to the office on the next corner and switch health care like we can switch auto insurance. There are "groups", and "employer plans" and cutoff dates. Get the "for profits" out of healthcare.

You are right, the government could screw up an anvil with a rubber hammer. Real reform would be tort reform. With tort reform, malpractice insurance would drop by 50%. Most doctors pay as much for malpractice insurance as they take home. More if they have every been sued. Then we need interstate competition so bad companies go belly up, and good ones get to work everywhere they want. Those two "reforms" would cut costs dramaticly. That would lower cost to the consumer and make insurance more affordable for everyone.

TOM - excellent post - the reality is scary isn't it? Scarier is that a lot of folks will read your post and think how terrible it is if the government did this, when they already have. So many uninformed out there. Good post!

Biz - Thanks

I think another thing people seem to forget is that you can't get away from health costs, as people live longer they incure more medical costs that is a fact. Prevention is great for somethings, but how to you prevent old age?

The only way to lower costs is to ration health care and that is what the government will end up doing if they take it over!

Actually Tom, The govt. should only tax you. Let you personally pay for everything all by yourself. Then you can continue with your silly rants totally justified.

Healthcare rationing. I see Tom has bought the insurance company bogus line. There is no shortage of healthcare. What has eaten up the delivery time is insurance forms and gatekeeper obsticles created by the insurance companies. There would be 75% more time available to dispense healthcare, if all the people involved no longer had to jump through insurance hoops just to get to the point of delivering the services needed.

Think about it for a change instead of parroting insurance company sound bytes.

There is no well. There is no limited capacity. Want more health care? Make more doctors and fewer insurance executives. Amazing what a bit of comon sense will come up with.

Also, train more Physician Assistants for front line sneezes and coughs, immunizations, the routine stuff. Especially for the underserved areas, both urban and rural.

Make more doctors and fewer insurance executives.

...but keep costs down by not fully reimbursing the doctors - just like Medicare.

Here's a novel idea - when trying to reform healthcare how about not mimicing the system that broke it in the first place?

I whole heartedly agree James in Denver. The whole system needs to be revamped, to provide an incentive to provide healthcare, instead of incentives to screw the sick and injured.

It would be simple to do, but would require the politically incorrect step of removing insurance companies from the healthcare system. The question is: Do the Dems have the political will to do what is needed?

If anyone took a second to realize how much would be saved by companies if all employees had healthcare, and they didn't have to fund it for them. Consider the savings of removing the medical liabilities of all business and private interactions.

Less than 35% of cash collected makes it to the health care providers. The rest is admin costs and insurance profits. Doctors pay a fortune to have their own billing departments just to try to collect from the insurance companies, and comply with their hoops.

The number of people involved just so your doctor can hand you an asprin, is staggering. Most of them have nothing to do with health care delivery.

Yes Dave, I should be the only paying for everything, Totally agree why not with everybody paying we can't afford it so why waste everybody's money, just mine, Totally fine with that.

As for me buying into the Healthcare rationing, have you did any research? How about England were they have a rationing board? How about Canada were Governmnet officials are saying people are dying because of there system? Oh wait I am the idiot, I forgot my bad.

Yes do some research. No one said their systems overseas and in Canada were perfect. Why would that be the measure of the healthcare system you would want?

We have been spending many times the money they do, for even less services. I suppose you prefer the alpha dog tear everyone apart for your share of healthcare? pfff...

Do some research and discover that we are only spending 35% on actual health care delivery. The rest is wasted on non-health related expenses. Clerks, admins, insurance execs, overhead and profits on the non-healthcare side of the ledger.

Idiot? I doubt it, but certainly your bad for eating the sewage, insurance companies would have you believe.

How about Canada were Governmnet officials are saying people are dying because of there system?

Please justify with facts and not innuendo. What is Canada's average life span vs. USA? And how does the USA rank vs. Canada in infant mortality? What about personal bankruptcies due to personal medical costs in Canada vs. USA? Go ahead Tom do tell me how great the USA system is in comparison to Canada, please do tell, only this time do it with facts. I need fighting ammo to fend off the arrogance of my family in Canada.

It's atrocious that in the US, when insurance company execs want higher returns, they cut off paying customers from their services, at the very time they need them. Why not just send someone out from corporate to tear the patients throats out. At least it would be more humane and quicker. Hey, it would solve the bankruptcy problem.

Insurance companies know they get out of the bill free and clear if they can force the customer into bankruptcy. Hmmmzzz.... Wonder who pays for that?

,

You seem to think I believe are current system is perfect which I don't. What I am saying is the Government should stay the hell away from it. Unless of course you like the government programs for Vets and Medicare.

Google Search - Canadian healthcare: People are suffering and dying

I ask you what are you willing to pay for Government health care. Give me a number. Look below Don makes $50,000 and doesn't have a dime to spare for health care or anything for that matter. Below I gave some numbers on what a Family of 4 making 100 grand has left over with a 61% tax (similiar to England)

Who is going to pay? Companies, yea right read up down this thread they are greedy bastards only looking out for themselves. Cap and trade? well that will make the numbers I did below even worse. Value added tax? Canada has that WiWolfe can ask his relatives how much the cost of goods are there. (I have a paper back book in front of me that I paid 7.99 for it say in Canada it is 9.99) So maybe we pay doctors and nurses less? Help me see how it is going to be paid for and maybe I can be swayed into thinking something different. But for people to say we have to have it at all costs, doesn't work for me because I don't have an endless supply of money.

Exactly right.

Time to stand up and be responsible for your own actions. If you don't have medical insurance and something happens, then you face the consequences.

I work and live responsibly. I should not be FORCED to take care of people who do not.

If people think the insurance companies are to blame, they need to do a little more research.

How many government hoops do you have to jump through already? How many members of the Senate and Congress have made fortunes in their positions? How much more in taxes are you willing to pay? They already take more than 50% of my families income (before you start guessing what we make....jointly we make less than $100,000) in Federal, State and property taxes. When does enough become enough?

People need to grow up and be responsible.

Google Search - Canadian healthcare: People are suffering and dying

Tom, you have got to be kidding me! The article is referencing Natasha Richardson, a US citizen that had a skiing accident and died of head trauma a day or so after she had a precursory inspection at the hospital, was told to stay, but on her own volition went home. The other is an 83 year old who had to wait for elective cataract surgery....give me a break. I'll bet there are millions of people here in the good 'ole USA that have more horror stories about our current dilemma. By the way, read Border City Canadian's post below, at least she has first hand knowledge.

i am in total agreement with you tom. America needs to wake up if we are to remain free!

I'll ask again, what are you willing to pay?

Currently a single person in MN making $50,000 pays $8,688 (25%) in federal, $3825 (7.65%) in FICA taxes, and $3525 (7.05%) in State taxes = $16,038

Put a number in here for everybody to see what should this person pay?

Davemc, you're utterly full of it. Either your are completely unaware of what is actually going on, or you are unethical in your responses.

Just look to the north in Canada. They are experiencing shortages in physicians, long wait times, and rationed health care. To suggest that we "just make more" doctors is illustrative of an overly uneducated and simplistic mind.

WiWolfe, you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the facts while blindly supporting the socialist agenda.

Life expectancy has nothing to do with health plans and everything to do with proactive lifestyles. Things like obesity. Simply foisting the costs of universal health care on one segment of society in order to provide it to everyone else does nothing to solve those issues. You are making a completelyl false (and frankly dumb) correlation. Why don't we talk about survival rates, hmmm? Which nation boasts the highest survival rates for serious diseases and injuries? That would be the US. Let's also talk about bankruptcy, shall we? The "studies" that show "bankruptcies due to medical costs" that people here keep talking about are a farce. For example, 40% of those cases in the reports cite the primary reason as being lost pay due to 2 weeks of missed work. How in the world does a health plan change that? It doesn't. It's just more of the "me" attitude, where people simply are not willing to take responsibility.

slowclimber I accept your insult as one that is one to see one. Please give me your supporting fact regarding bankruptcy here in the States and the correlation to health care. While your at it, please also show the correlation to "survival" rates as I am sure you must have much better information than the WHO, which by the way does not show the US in a very good light compared to the other industrialized countries in the world. Especially if you segment it into their socio-economic status, your survival rates really start to fall apart. Yes, I agree with all here, the top 10% of our country gets the best medical that money can buy, the next 20% probably get as good as, if not better than the average in most industrial countries without financial handi-cap, the remainder of our society is either financially strapped by the cost of health care in that it intrupts their normal life in relationship to 20 years ago or they do not even have a health care program.

Please help us for all the people that don't get the sarcasm of this post and think you are serious. No folks, this person is trying to point out that our government is screwing everyone and everything every time we (Americans) turn around!

The wealthy don't use thier money to create jobs, they use it to create more wealth. The insurance companys and HMOs are not in business to provide health care, they are in business to increase profits. Mandated insurance insures insurance companys and HMOs continued and increasing profits and does little to improve health care or costs for the average citizen.

Health care reform is necessary, but mandated coverage is the wrong approach. A good health care program is a bennefit to every person in the sense that a healther population is more productive, and better able to meet indivdual and national chalenges.

If it's your thought that you don't want to pay for another's health care, you might consider that you already do. The uninsured are currently provided emergency health services on your dime, and many abuse that care. It not uncommon that emergency rooms are crowded with people who don't have emergencys, and aren't able to pay for services. For that, we all pay.

The idea here should be not to mandate insurance, or rally against paying for someone's care, but to use the money we already pay to better advantage. If we can find a way to reduce our financial burden and increase our return in terms of real health care benefits to ourselves and others, we'll all be better off.

To do this would be no easy task, and given the pressure on Congress by the health care industry, may prove impossible. Any ideas?

This comment doesn't make sense to me...or maybe I'm missing something. If the majority of American people want single-payer universal health care, doesn't that equate to a mandate that everyone has insurance?

In Canada we have a government run medical system for BASIC medical coverage. Supplemental insurance (prescription drugs, eye care, dental, semi-private hospital, etc.) is available for those who wish to purchase that coverage - and usually this is provided by our employers. We also have photo ID cards that MUST be presented in order to receive any medical treatment. Only legal residents can obtain an ID card. I've heard a lot of criticism of our health care, but I'll never go broke or deplete my savings paying for medical treatment. We have no cap on expenditures for those who need care.

Question: What's the tax rate in Canada? I was there on vacation recently and couldn't believe the prices for basic goods in the grocery store - how are the prices built up to be valued at two to sometimes three times what we pay here in the states? I asked the clerks at the store and they said it was due to taxes. What say ye?

It's called a Value Added Tax. Don't worry, we will have one soon. I believe that it is on Obama's agenda for next year. It is the only realistic way to pay for all the spending that he has proposed. Our VAT will likely resemble Europe's and not Canada's though. Canada's VAT (called the GST - Goods and Service Tax) is much more transparent than Europe's VAT. Canada's VAT is currently set at 5% whereas Europe is closer to 20%. Canada charges their VAT at the Point of Sale, making it resemble a simple sales tax. Europe includes it in the price of the product. Transparent taxation would never work in the US because it would be too difficult to raise to sufficient levels. VATs are useful for Politicians because it gives them a mechanism for raising taxes while blaming the greedy corporations for the high prices.

Actually the article says if you make under $16,000 a year you will not be fined for not getting insurance. In other words, they encourage you to quit your job. Instead of helping people who work hard and want to keep working hard that can't afford it.

I expect the Value Added Tax to come along soon as well. The Obama "doctrine" will surely include this among his many new taxes and tax hikes. Income taxes will go down (for some) but tax the heck out of every single everyday consumable. That's pretty much the agenda.

It's change we can believe in.

True, taxes are higher in Canada, both income tax and the GST as mentioned above. Although prices of goods vs US prices are affected by many things. We have marketing boards for many farm products and they keep prices artificially high. Exchange rates varying make direct comparisons difficult. We tend to try and support the same infracstructure as the US, but only have 10% of the population to pay for it...per capita costs are higher. Product costs are not the result of higher taxes, but taxes are added when products are purchased, just as state taxes are added in the US.

ummm, hate to burst your bubble, but we are just seeing the beginning of getting our a**es taxed off. I don't know about you, but I like to keep the money I earn. :) I think we should look at all area's that people make their living at - maybe the way you make your living - and ask that you not charge for your services, you know, help out your fellow citizens by doing whatever it is you do for free or a very nominal charge. How would that affect your level of work? Even your lifestyle, would you be willing to give up most of what you have for the greater good of your community? This is what we are asking physicians to do and as a healthcare professional, it's a scary situation being proposed.

The real problem is that too few Americans pay enough attention to "politics". They would rather spend time discussing Britney spears' crotch shot or Michael Jackson's nose job. Instad of fearing "Big Government" we should be paying more attention to what is being done in our name by those whom we elect to office. Only then can the "will of the people" be in charge. Those who say; "All politicians are crooked." or that "All lawyers lie." are not thinking. They are merely parroting someone else's lines, or trying to get a cheap laugh from other ignoramuses.

Coming back to your specific question: I am willing to pay more taxes to live in a safe and healthy country where sickness in the family does not have to threaten benkruptcy. Yes, as an attorney myself, I have reduced my fees for those whose cause had merit but whose pockets were not full. Having a single payer system does not have to mean poverty for doctors and other health professionals. Do you really think that Canadian, British or German doctors and nurses are living hand-to-mouth. Why are you thinking in extreme terms? "give up most of what you have"???? Who asked anyone to do that? Aren't you part of your community? If you have more, shouldn't you pay more? Do you think the Pentagon is protecting my secondhand car and my little furnture, or are they really protecting Donald Trump's billions in real estate from our enemies abroad? So the Donald should pay more in taxes. You have a problem with that?

If you want to live in a safe country you have to care about the health of its people. That means you have to pay some in taxes. Babbling about personal freedom means very little otherwise.

Right now, in Ethiopia most people are perfectly free to choose their healthcare provider. The trouble is there aren't any meaningful choices. That is awful. It is equally awful for Americans who also have freedom to choose which insurance company to enrich but can't afford to oblige any one of them because they all want to profit as much as they can. Doesn't it make sense to take health care out of the profit picture just as national defense and our interstate highway system are?

It is freedom of choice.

Everything is for profit. You are just like a company, you work for profit. If you are non profit, then chances are you made some bad decisions.

Doctors work for profit. Do you think that they compete hard to get into school, go to school forever, spend tons of money, specailize in various medicine ( obgyn, feet, colon,etc.), work their buns off to make no money, or to have no chance of having increasing their revenue stream? I do not think so.

How do you know what everyone needs. How do you know what I want to pay for? This country is built on freedom of choice. People should have that freedom. The government should not dictate social or religous policy.

Everyone now has a choice. Some people can not afford what they want (car, home, doctor). They have a choice to live within their means, or get more tools, in order to afford better things. People have the rite to improve themselves and their situation by work (school). They should not have the rites to everything because they exist. If people had everything handed to them, then that would be communism.

If charities do not take in enough revenue to pay expenses then they go broke and disapear.

When people are guaranteed benfits then they become lazy and loose their drive. If one can not get fired and are protected from market influences then one gets complaicant and does not preform at their top level (many government workers). I have many friends that work for the government. Some of them do good jobs and many of them are putting in time until retirement (they even admit it) It seems that most of them are trying to get into homeland security, because that is where the money is, right now.

There needs to be value to everything. If every one has guaranteed health care then there is no value to the individual. It is just like giving a new car to your children. They were walking before you gave the car to them, and they will not mind walking again after they total the car, because they did not invest anything into the car. If there is no value to health care, then there is a good chance that the system will become more overloaded and consequently come to a stop.

Life is hard. If it was easy then every one would be sucessful and equal.

If everyone was equal (same work ethic, same smarts, same moral compass, same physical prowess, same drive to compete) then there would be no problems and everyone would be the same.

You are welcome to you beliefs, but that does not give you the rite to dictate policy, bully people or demean anybody. I think you must be a democrat because of you bullying tactics ( I am neither). You need to sell me and show me the value to me and my family, not beat me up.

Your fear, and that is all it is, seems to be that if healthcare is "free" it will not be valued.

First of all, I am not talking about giving anyone anything for free. All who work will pay toward the national health care system - at a tax rate commensurate with their income level. At a level set by politicians whom the public can reject at the next election if they make unpopular choices. You can't fire an executive at your insurance company because he puts his girlfriend on the company staff. But you can vote the bums out - as we just did the Republicans who went wild while they had the power. Too bad you don't like it.

Second, do you really think that if I don't actually have to pay a lot I will go and get myself x-rayed every week just because I can? Do you really think any x-ray lab would keep on giving me service just because I show up with a national insurance card? Do you think I am supporting a health plan that has no checks against false records or other forms of abuse?

In fact, if the government were paying a doctor for his services to the public they would have far better control over his honest performance than you would as an individual patient. Does this mean they would necessarily abuse that power? How many fighter pilots has the federal government prosecuted recently for getting into fights in bars, for using foul language in public, or for smacking their girlfriends around? Even the government exercises some discretion and good judgment. Both Republican and Democratic administrations do that. Just because the government pays the doctor for taking care of your health needs does not mean that it will go wild. If you believe otherwise then you are too brainwashed to be worth worrying about. As a former antitrust attorney with the U. S. Justice Department I can tell you that law enforcement is taken very seriously by government professionals. The rare exception might be a rogue political appointee. If that happens, hold Obama responsible.

Did you hold Dumbush responsible for the pathetic "intelligence" that got us into Iraq? You did?! Good job!!!! If you didn't then you are a very sad case - a Republican moron.

You are so correct!!!! I really think some of the posters here work for the AMA, AIG, or some of the big Banks that took Billions of dollars from the USA citizens. Oh yeah, don't forget the Military, and the Bush campaign, that close to 80% of Americans were against. I like to keep my money I earn, but I don't eat Lobster and Steak when my family members eat scraps from garbage cans. In a society, we benefit when all are healthy and intelligent. My taxes should go to Health care for everyone, with the rest going to rebuilding the infrastructure of this country, and thereby employing USA citizens. Americans should stop being so greedy, and help each other.

You really think you get to keep your money you earn if you get sick ot injured? Like to pay for your ambulance because you didn't get it cleared by your insurance carrier BEFORE you went to the hospital?

Just because you haven't had the pleasure of being screwed by your friendly insurance company...yet...doesn't mean the glowing shaft isn't waiting for you shortly. You are only a heartbeat away from insurance company bliss of increased profits through refusal of payments.

How much will you save as you try to sue to get your bills paid? BTW, you cant sue for your lawyers bills as part of the complaint. You may win the case, but it will cost you big time, and the insurance company lawyers have nothing better to do. You will ultimately lose.

agree, but I just don't want to have to support private insurance, I would honestly rather have it run by the government, like schools, postal service, etc.

Chitta,

Excellent posts (minus the christian stuff). You make a clearly reasoned case for how and why the proposed system will work better than the mess we have now. Thanks for your thoughts.

Americans have no feelings for other Americans. If they are down on their luck or have low paying jobs and can't afford health insurance seems like many would say let them die. Complaints that you would have to wait because everyone that needs service would be able to get it also a statement that hey we can't treat evryone so let EM DIE.

We are are heartless country with greedy people and our country was not found on that. Say what you want but morals are a thing of the past.

Chitta says "Ultimately, right now, every sick person can and will get treated". Sorry but this is not exactly accurate. A person's life can often be saved in a case of cancer and other potentially terminal illnesses but ONLY with early detection. That means regular checkups. That is why people being able to walk into an ER is not enough. Too little too late. And this new plan changes nothing - it's the same system - the people who can afford health care pay for it. Only difference is if you can't afford to pay for it, you get fined! We need to stop WASTING our money on fat cat big bankers, failed companies, foreign countries, and huge government employee bonuses and give everyone health care. With the waste gone, I guarantee we'd have money LEFT OVER even after health care.

What planet are you from, Chitta? Politicians in DC could give a rat's a$$ about us little people. They work for the lobbyists, the lobbyists fill their pockets. Federal polliticians are set for life with health care and pensions. We the people just keep paying taxes. And with the current socialist/fascist regime in Washington we can count on taxes continuing to rise. Did anyone really read this article? Only legal residents of the US will be "eligible" for the forced-down-their-throats health care reform. The illegals, who have caused health care costs to skyrocket, are immune from having to buy into a health care system. Health care is a joke today. But a mandated system by our so-called leaders in DC will be a bigger joke. It's time for a revolution!

If you can't afford health care, and use the ER as your "doctor" You should be fined. When are you people going to take responsibility for yourselves. I am sick and tired of paying for you to be irresponsible. It is absolutely ridiculous that you think I owe you anything. Did you help pay my way through school? Did you help me study or get good grades? Did you help get me my job?

Then stop expecting me to pay your way!!!

Chitta: I wish there were more like you, making logical statements and observations about the issues.

It was also refreshing to see your reminder that ". . our governments, county, state or federal, are all staffed by real Americans. These are our neighbors, friends and relatives. They are not aliens from a distant galaxy, and they do not mean us any harm. So give up on childish fears of big government trying to take away your precious freedoms. "

So many folks here seem to think that "government" is run by - something other than real people! makes you wonder about their ability to think clearly, when they forget/don't know that our government is - mostly - ordinary people: our neighbors, friends, family.

Hear hear! An intelligent and well thought out argument. I agree with you completely. These people who are so anti-government are the same selfish people who have lead America down the wrong path all along. They complain about taxes, but they complain about potholes, you can't fix one without the other.

Holy crap, it isn't the government workers who are taking away our freedoms, it's the elected officials who make the laws, idiots; it doesn't matter who is working in the government offices. Our country was founded on personal choice, small government and free markets. The people who want the single payer system are the same people who are trying to slowly take away our freedoms, one by one. That said, I think health insurance should be an individual mandate with subsidies for the poor, because the system we have now is not workable and we are way too big to have a single payer system, and it would not be feasible with government rationing and bureacracy. And the more healthy people we can get to participate, the more money in the pool to pay for claims, and this utilizes the American style of choice and free markets because it doesn't force you to any one insurance system it allows you the choice to pick which insurance company you want.

Well thank the Good Lord then sweetie, 'cause I'm not a "Christian"!!! How small minded!

Don't tell me you are a Christian. I would have a hard time buying that.

This is true, taxes can be used for other purposes - they will rob health care just like they have with social security and medicare. If this is such a great idea, why is social security and medicare broke and borrowing money from the government? Check into it, the government used it to fund other projects and borrowed money against it. The government has no clue how to run a business.

Premiums only partially go to healthcare. only about 35% actually makes it to the healthcare providers. The rest is administration and insurance profits. The profits are at an all time high, by the way. Go figure. Some businesses get to be resession proof, by dent of corporate choice, and executive bonuses. Over the blood of refused claims, from people that didn't get to chose what was going on. They were sick/injured...Duh...

Take a guess as to how many people are involved just so your doctor can hand you an asprin. Add the people the doc has to also hire just to TRY to collect his bill from the insurance companies. Why do you think the doctors have decided YOU are responsible for the bill, if/when the insurance company decides to not pay?

Does anyone here really believe the patient did something to cause an insurance company to not pay? Does anyone think the patient was asked if he wanted services that were not covered, before they happened? What do you think is happening here people? Some alpha male feeding fest, where the former/non-alpha males get torn to pieces for fun and profits? Is this how you want to "live".

BizProdigy; I completely agree. Thank you for pointing that out as most ppl never stop to think of the other programs that the government has done such a fantastic job of completely screwing up. I'll be damned if I'll let them screw up my healthcare.

A recent MSNBC poll results: 1 in 4 (25%) of Americans think the government has the money to fix the economy. SCARY!! Why? The fact that people don't understand the government is the people and we pay for the whole of it. This is why you have the issues you do, 25% of people walking around this country think that government money just appears out of thin air, so free is good. Would be nice if people paid attention in school, that is if they went -- government run schools graduated these fine people - sure they can run healthcare. Train wreck is coming...

Because government run healthcare will not compete with private health insurance. They will use the big stick of government to coerce private providers to accept reimbursement below cost. The providers will then pass the cost on to their privately insured patients and their premiums will rise until they cannot afford them. Then they will move to the government plan and the private insurers will go out of business. When the health care providers cannot be reimbursed for their expenses they will close up shop, and health care will be rationed among the remaining providers.

Don't think this won't happen? It already has. Private insurance already subsidizes medicare because medicare doesn't cover costs incurred by providers. Many private practices have stopped accepting medicare patients. And anyone who thinks that the government will negotiate fair prices has never tried "negotiating" with the IRS.

They would have the money to fix the economy if, and ONLY IF they cut all of the waste out of government spending. Of course, h*** will probably freeze over before that happens.

You've been listening to too many GOP talking points. Private insurance subsidizes medicare in the same way that individuals without insurance subsidize blue cross. Like in most industries, the largest entities negotiate the best prices and when it comes to health insurance, the largest entity of all is medicare. The government doesn't force doctors to accept it. If a doctor doesn't like what he's getting in reimbursements then he can try to build a business with only non-medicare patients. If he's really losing money on medicare patients then it makes no sense why he doesn't drop those patients or go out of business. Clearly doctors are still making good money off medicare, just not as much as they'd like.

Because the government run program will probably be funded by taxpayers, it is easy to run competitors out of business if you don't need to turn a pesky thing called profit.

We need single payer health care provided for us all with no out of pocket costs. It is quite simple, we extend medicare to everyone. This ain't rocket science.

How much then are you willing to pay in taxes? 50%, 75%, 85%? Have you seen or heard that Medicare will be broke in less than 10 years, and you think it would be a good idea for everybody to have this? Lets do some math here, lets say a family of 4 makes 100 grand and they pay roughly what england pays 61%. After taxs they have 39,000 left ($3250 a month). They live in a $225,00 house, that is roughly around $1500 a month after taxes and insurance. Lets say another $300 for gas, electricty, water, sewer, garbage ext.) leaves then about $1450, lets assume they have one car payment at $350 and another $150 for gas a month,, now down to $950. Family a four funs about $400 a month for food. Now $550 left, at this point they have to choose to cloth themselvs, or buy toliet paper, or possibly a computer, TV ect. Which leaves then about $50 to put away from their retirement and college. But hey they have cheap health care. Is this country you want to live in? Were you need to make 100 grand a year just to break even, and anybody making less will have to suck off the government teet just to survive? All for the sake of socialist health care and a green agenda?

Remember Obama said it during the campaign, lower taxes brings in more money for the government, but having successful people pay is more fair.

Oh, another thing to remember, most of our retirements plans are based on companies making profits, you can't have it both ways!

It's so unfair that the government doesn't provide food and shelter too.

The government should give away all the necessities that way we don't have to work!

Who cares what the tax rate is when you don't earn income?

I mean you can't possibly expect people to provide for themselves or their families right?

James, you are off point, as of course the gov't - at some level - DOES provide food and shelter to the most vulnerable of its citizens - be they fatherless children, indigent old age widows, mentally ill, you know this.

The indigent will get something like the Medicaid they already get. It's the rest of us that need a new organizational plan to deliver basic healthcare to the masses. But yes, the indigent will "ride along free" on that plan - like they do already now, being subsidized by those who pay.

p.s. Tom - I read Medicare is predicted to be broke in 2 years.

I agree, somehow people think by being born they are righted a college degree, a shelter, health care, dental care, food on the table, and child care. I say if you want than move to North Korea!

Tom,

If the govt is taxing you for healthcare, then recoupe from your employer that no longer needs to fund your office pool. On top of that the companies no longer need to have medical liability insurance either. Come to think, fewer lawyers, accountants and executives and clerks, for many of the services just to hand you an asprin.

So your taxes go up, so should your salary as your company has just had a windfall.

Tom we don't have to raise taxes. We just need to get our priorities straight. That hard working American citizens lives are more important to spend our money on then fat cats in big banking, failing companies who don't even care if they fail, foreign countries that should be supporting themselves, and retired government workers making several times more money than the hard working taxpayers that are paying them to lounge around and not work all day. If we cut all the WASTE in government spending we'd have more than enough money for true health care for all, without raising taxes, AND have money left over.

What's really hurting folks is not that they don't choose to have healthcare, it's that they can't afford it! Being in the military, I haven't had to worry about it, but I own a business with another couple and I looked at what they would have to pay a month, and it is crazy! I think everyone would choose healthcare if it were affordable. Not in the "socialist" sense, not taxes paying for it, but honestly reconfiguring the whole thing to get rid of price gouging.

Payin attention, have you not been paying attention? Medicare is nearly broke!

Will you care what mechanism is in place when your child falls and breaks a limb? Should we let our fellow man suffer and die, so you can apease some false sense of political aesthetics?

Healthcare does not equal political socialism. Perhaps if you start to get to vote for your local insurance company executive....

So we should let people choose whether they want to participate in some form of national health insurance scheme . . . .. Good, then let those who oppose war refuse to pay their share of tax for Dumbush's war in Iraq. How about those who believe in personal privacy? Right, let us not use your tax to spy on people's e-mails, phone calls, etc. How about atheists? Don't you dare use my tax money to pay for "faith-based" programs. Hear that, Obama?

So we should let people choose whether they want to participate in some form of national health insurance scheme . . . .. Good, then let those who oppose war refuse to pay their share of tax for Dumbush's war in Iraq. How about those who believe in personal privacy? Right, let us not use your tax to spy on people's e-mails, phone calls, etc. How about atheists? Don't you dare use my tax money to pay for "faith-based" programs. Hear that, Obama?

Chitta, if you did some research you would realize more people were for the war at the time (hind sight is excellent) then there is now for health care. Are you willing to pay for the war in Afghanistan, because that has become Obama's?

Let's go ahead and let people choose if they want government healthcare. That's what the public plan is about. If you want it, choose it, else get some private plan or no plan. If nobody chooses it, it goes away. If everybody chooses it, then private insurers go away. That's a separate issue though. This article was about requiring people to buy health insurance which is a bad idea. Right now, even in a market with only one insurance company, you still have the option to not buy anything. Requiring people to buy insurance will just allow insurance companies to raise their prices even more since people will be forced to buy policies.

Democracy is always confused with freedom. Freedom does not come form democracy. As in any tyranny, the ones in charge are free and the others have to conform and therefore are not free. Democracy simply determines that the majority is in charge. A democratic republic puts representatives of the majority in charge. If you are in agreement with your rulers, dictator, king, president, etc. you probably feel free and if you do not agree, you do not feel free.

True freedom is enjoyed equally by all citizens whether thay are part of a minority or majority group. Our founding fathers declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Our unalienable rights are the roots of our freedom not democracy. The only restriction on our rights is the wise check and balance of equality. The government restricts itself and makes sure that no individual or group is allowed to significantly infringe on the equal rights of any other individual or group without their consent.

Beaver - "This is a democracy and we are supposed to be free to make our own choices. It is not supposed to be some one dictating how we walk, talk, or live."

Agreed, but then why, as part of a HMO/PPO, do I only have the doctor choices dictated to me? And my doctor dictated to on how to treat me, and how much time they have to grind out "x" number of patients in "x" amount of time? Oh that's right, the HMO execs want to "control costs" so there is enough of our premium dollars to pay their frickin' million dollar bonuses.

You are right in that respect but, you have the freedom to choose. You can leave, stay or work to change your situation.

I believe that the federal government should be small and not dictate policy to the people. The government should provide for defense. The states are the governmets customers. The people are the states customers. The states should compete for customers. If a state has a good operation, then it will have more people move there, if not then people will leave.

Competetition between the states is good. It improves the total product. The customer (you and me) should dictate policy to the states by their actions. The states in turn should dictate to the government what they want, to the federal government.

Now it is the other way around. The government dictates to the states ( by controlling funds for policy) and the states then dictate to us. I feel that is garbage and provides for tyranny.

Yes, but I am in a position to choose, and of a mind to be insured - in all aspects. (Of course, I am mandated to have minimum limits of liability in auto insurance, and if I want to buy a house on credit, the bank will mandate I buy insurance to cover it.)

The working poor - I am already having to put out the fires of their lack of preventitive care - often in the ER. Medicare will be broke in about 2 years they say (17 for Social Security). We all subsidize these people, and will continue to - but at least I won't have to subsidize HMO profits, since these companies PASS ALONG those costs to me in the premium my family pays. (Over $14k a year, medical and dental, family of four, company pays a bit over half that.)

The health care issue can be ignored, until we have to react instead of act - sort of like the bailout nonsense- or we can try to figure out how to better serve the WHOLE population and get an economy of scale on the cost.

I liked the poster's point about making this premium, not tax, so that the government cannot rip off money from the kitty, like they have done to Social Security. Oh brother, that better be fixed or it is really going to be a big fire.

Why do you think the insurance companies laugh all the way to the bank? They insure the docs for being sued too. We are already paying for both sides of the war.

The insurance companies are the arms dealers, of the healthcare provider / patient wars....LOL

What a racket, and most people think the insurance companies are sincere....LOL

Only some of the people who don't have health care don't for "stupidity" reasons. The rest of us would if we could afford it, and we can't. We make too much to be eligible for medicaid, and not enough to pay for a plan. Unfortunately, this new plan does nothing to help those people. It just causes the struggling people even MORE grief by fining them on top of the fact that they have to worry about their health, which they still can't do anything about.

They are, but it is because less than 35% of the healthcare dollar makes it to the care providers pockets. All the rest is eaten by admins, clerks, executives and profits, that contribute nothing to healthcare.

Why not move the uninsured to some isolated spot declare it a third world territory? That will cut costs and eliminate the uninsured problem.

Most people think a bullet is more expensive than an asprin...Till they add in administrative costs of giving an asprin.

Davemc, you are quite amusing. You are correct that 35% of healthcare dollars make to the provider (I don't know the exact number, but it is less than 50%, what with overhead and all). However, if the govt is in charge of paying, do you somehow imagine that this number would be higher? Do you seem to think for some bizarre reason that providers will have any better luck or less rigormorale when attempting to collect from the govt?

Don, that you would pay $800 a month on health insurance is just insane. In some states, that is about a house payment!! For sure it is like an extra rent payment.

Like the Canadian that commented, they have "BASIC CARE" covered, and then they are FREE TO CHOOSE what supplemental coverage they wish to add.

$800 a month is what our COBRA coverage cost when my husband was laid off about 7 years ago, family of 4. His former employer paid it for a year as a severence package. Good grief, this cost situation is out of control and must be fixed.

Don,

"Ohh, I know what the deal is.... Corporate America, and the AMA are greedy ####'s."

You are going to bitch that is it Corporate America's fault that on $50,000 you can't afford $800 a month and your expenses are more than your income? Is somebody living outside their means and blaming somebody else?

I have hard time feeling sorry for people that took college loans out and bitch that they can't afford them (I work for a Greedy Student loan company that will shortly be shut down because the government is taking over yet another industry but that is besides the point) At some point when you took out the loans didn't you know you had to pay them back no matter what your future salary was going to be?

Sorry but I have friends and family members that are married with Kids living on less than $50,000 a year and Ithey don't have there hand out looking for the government help, they are working two jobs, sometimes 3 jobs to provide for their families.

THey are not paying $800 a month for insurance

Words of wisdom, Don

Don, just to add credence to your dilemma, through my employer MY cost for a family of four per month is $1617.00 PER MONTH. That is also without any pre-existing conditions and supposedly my company picking up 25% of my individual portion. Of course it's great coverage too...$35 co-pay, $2000 deductable per person, and 80/20 after that. Great stuff yea!

The way Tom alludes, I must be living beyond me means to not afford that! Please explain how I can reduce my fixed monthly costs to less than they were twenty years ago when I purchased my home??? My payments are a whopping $700 per month, I have no car payments, but my property tax annually is over $ 9000.00 (it was $1470 twenty years ago). Oh yea I should mention, my income is actually less now than it was ten years ago and we are expected to work up to 70 hours per week (in contract, have to be available) and 80% of my income is based on commission. Guess I should just run out and get another job Tom, maybe another degree too, since my E.E. doesn't go very far. Tom you might be lucky to have the benefits, but more and more do not.

I will ask you here what I asked abover what should or do you want to pay for health care?

Yes, I have good health insurance that is why I choose the company I work, I took less money to work here than others because of the benefits. I pay about $200 (I think the company pays about a grand) a month for a family of four (HSA) and a total of up to $5000 in deductables. We pay every dime up to the $5000.

I worked my arse off to get were I am, I worked two jobs, once for a while three to get though college so I won't be burdened by student loans. I went to a community college for two years to get my AA, then I went to a state school to get my BS. (Took me 4 years, because I took a lighter load so I could work)

We live in a free society, if you don't like your job, do something to get a different one. If you are paying $9,000 a year in property tax and you don't like it move. Like I said before I don't think our current system is by any means perfect but having the government running it isn't going to be any cheaper or better.

Tom, you make it sound so easy, just screw your career, heck with the family, and you think that you worked so, so hard to just get a BS? My friend, an E.E. takes quite a bit more. It only took me four years also to get my BS, the E.E. took a couple of more years. And another thing, how many bullets have you stopped with your body in the name of your country? Any? You're the free loader on the society that I had to pay for with my blood and now you have the gaul to tell me that I should change for your wishes? You are what is wrong with this country.

And I will ask again, how much are you willing to pay? I think you are the one wanting me to change for you. I think something needs to be done with Health care, but having the government taking over isn't the answer. And Thanks for Serving! To call me a free loader when I haven't ever collected anything might be a little extreme.

Tom - just another "I got mine, screw you" type - America doesn't need that type in this lousy economic climate. Please don't pretend to be a Christian, you suck at that too.

addiem, yup that is me screw you! I have never once pretended to be a Christian. But of course for people like you it is always easier to rip on people that actually come up with some sort of solution. I have asked on this board at least 3 times what people are willing to pay for Health Care, and NOT ONCE has anybody given a number. Because IMO people that want universal Health care don't want to pay for it, they want somebody else to.

After my family is taken care of, we give what we can to multiple charities (mostly Breast Cancer though). My wife and I volunteer at my kids school, I coach little league (for free) and both me and my wife are in Big Brother Big Sisters of America. So I guess you are right I am the "I got mine, screw you" type. So before you go off making Janeane Garofalo type comments it might be nice to have some facts. I will ask you what are you willing to pay for Health Care?

2% national sales tax on non-exempt items. Should be able to allow us to fold Medicare/Medicaid into the same program. That should eliminate the employee/employer Medicare deductions from pay checks(and employer matching). This should also considerably reduce Workman's Comp costs to employers too (hopefully passing on the savings to employees to help overcome the 2% sales tax burden). Of course I would expect the coverage not to be any greater than BASIC, all else would be discretionary add-on private insurance.

Yep, I'd be willing.

Is that enough? I tried doing some research on Consumer spending, but couldn't find the number. I can't image it would be enough, but I don't know.

Of course it should, and if you are good at math you should get free account degree, and if you are good at computers you should get free Computer science degree, and if you are good at science, well you get the point.

And why not? the country can't afford most of the entitlement programs now, lets just keep adding to the cost, like Biden said there are enough rich people to tax.

Plus all those nasty business that are out to money, we can tax them also. I mean it's not like they actually employ people to do the work. I say lets get rid of the insurance companies and move all those employees right into government jobs, then instead of 1 out 6 people working for the government which doesn't produce at damn thing, we can have 1 out of 3, and the other can pay for that 1. and hell if you don't want to work we they can take care of them also. Then all we need to do is get rid of the rest of those greedy bastards and we can live in peace and poverty. God Bless America!

Harley's right, Tom. I was an excellent student from a lower income family. I managed to put myself through college by picking an inexpensive college and a earning a patchwork of academic merit scholarships from public and private sources.

My observations from those years taught me that the higher education system, in its own way, is just as broken as the American auto industry.

There are too many colleges, filled with too many students who don't have the discipline and intellectual capacity for advanced learning. Faculty are out-of-touch with employer needs and too wrapped up in useless research (mental masturbation) that has no real-world value or applications. As a result, graduates are ill-prepared to begin their careers.

Colleges do not truly operate in a free market economy, and annual cost increases exceed national inflation levels. The massive numbers who enter schools make it next to impossible to get grants.

We would be better off if as a nation if we reduce and manage the number of colleges available, along with the number of slots available for different degree programs, based on our nation's projected employer needs. Students would attend college if they meet high minimum academic standards, with competition for spots driven by demand for each program and desirability of each school. Within this framework, we can educate our future leaders at no cost to them or their families.

You are correct Colleges don't operate at all in a free market economy. You idea isn't bad, but imagine if Colleges stop allowing everybody to enter. They would be considered Racist first and foremost! Imagine how upset people if they said only smart people could go to college? I work for a student loan company and couple quick reasons why college is so expensie is: #1 is government regulations, #2 is allowing everybody to enter (like you said). For example lets say Norte Dame figures out it cost every Student $30,000 a year to go. Well lets say I can't afford $30,000 but I can $20,000 so they give me a $10,000 grant. Well they are now short 10 grand, so you can everybody else needs to cover my short fall, so instead of 30 you now have to pay 31 or 32, ect. Don't forget eveybody that gets a scholarship or grant from the SCHOOL needs to be covered by somebody else. These are just facts!!!!

Take it a step further, any doctor who received Federal grants or subsidized loans should be required to accept Medicare/Medicaid patients. Government dollars paid for their education, they should be required to give something back.

For your sake CC, I sure hope you never wind up "really sick." On your new lower salary, could you afford to pay for cancer treatment? What if you slip and fall and break a leg? Well then I guess you'd go to the emergency room, which is required to treat you, and the rest of us have to soak up that very inflated cost.

Please, get some insurance. And when Obama proposes a plan to provide an economical option for you, support it.

CC, I agree with you 100%. There are many people in this country with a similar situation. I am a college educated individual with a graduate degree. I understand all the issues regarding health insurance and moral hazard. Yes, I have health insurance through a spouse's employer. But no one should be forced to pay for health insurance that they may never use.

Yes, we all might get sick and need it. But what about people like CC who pay large amounts of money into a health insurance plan that doesn't actual cover the condition which caused them to buy insurance in the first place!! Insurance companies are NOT required to cover every condition.

If people are forced into buying health insurance without these companies being held responsible, then what is to prevent most of this money from being wasted. At least a government agency like Medicare and Medicaid are audited by people who are ultimately responsible to the public. Who are the insurance company execs answering to, the public, or their shareholders?

I don't consider myself a "looney" but this idea makes me upset. I consider myself an independent and usually vote with Democrats. But I think my Democratic representatives are going to get a piece of my mind.

I applaud Obama for addressing the health care problems our country faces. I do not agree with the approach. It is a step in the wrong direction. I usually vote with Democrats as well. This was a huge disappointment. I think we need universal health care, not just for the health and safety of our citizens, but for our economy as well.

Health care companies do not have the best interest of it's people in mind, just their profit margins. Health care companies take away more of our medical choices than we realize.

Yes, those who cannot afford insurance will get coverage through tax payers. Who decides if you can afford it or not? Not you. We do not live in a big house, drive new cars (we have no car payment), we don't wear expensive clothes, we don't travel, we hardly eat out, we live frivously. We cannot afford health care. When we need to go to the doctor we just pay for it. If there was a reason to go to the emergency room we would go. We could make monthly payments on that bill better than we could pay for insurance. We could afford $200 a month to pay for an actual bill/service. We cannot afford to pay $800 a month (that is how much it would cost to ensure my family) for "what if."

Being forced to pay for health insurace will ruin us. We will end up adding to the foreclosure rate, we will stop spending entirely. I'm sure we won't be the only family. What will happen to our already struggling economy when millions stop eating out, stop shopping, stop traveling, stop living and cycling the $ around because they are being forced to purchase health insurance?

Besides all that...what is happening to freedom? This is just one more choice being taken away from us. One more life decision the government is making for us.

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." ~Charles A Beard, American Historian

Die from taxes or die from insurance companies refusing to pay the medical bills?

Hmmm.....

I guess the insurance executive gets to have the corporate jet redecorated at least.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

You got that right!! Totally agree with you! Same people that smoke, do drugs, drink , and eat fast food are the ones that will be first in line for Govenment healthcare!!!! They rather get a tattoo, or buy new clothes, but they say they cant afford health insurance.

As a taxpayer I should not be responsible for someone elses health problems when they cause them their selves!

If this happens this country will crumble, more jobs loses defnly, and you know darn well doctors and nurses are going to be so burnt out and our healthcare will be crap.

I'm so sick of people thinking they should get something for nothing!

You dont work you dont eat!!!!! Wake up America!

I would much rather insure a law-abiding, taxpaying citizen who makes a contribution to society but has a health vice (e.g., booze, drugs, etc.) than one who refuses to contribute and gets money from social programs, but is deemed physically healthy.

The later puts the books permanently in the red; the former is more likely to put the books in the black over his/her lifetime, or at least break even.

Some of us can't afford it because we need to pay rent, the electric bill, the water bill, and food for our children. NOT because we are surrounded by luxury items. As for cigarettes, drugs, fast food, and booze I can't afford those so I don't fall into that category either!

My family is above the poverty line and not eligable for state health insurance. At the same time we cannot afford health insurance. It would cost around $800 a month to ensure our family. Then you add co pays and deductables...we'd loose everything we have and be homeless. Now, yes, we buy new clothes, should we walk around naked? Yes, we go to the movies, we eat out every now and then, we even took our son to Disneyland a few months ago. That trip cost us a total of $300, which we saved for. Does this make us irresponsible Americans? We live pay check to pay check. However, just because we don't have an extra grand each month to pay for insurance doesn't mean that we should live in a box, never eat out, never have fun with our kids, etc. I would rather pay a little extra in taxes to have all Americans covered than be forced to pay triple that (or more) to a big insurance company. Those who are worried that universal health care will take away all their rights is not using critical thinking skills. Insurance companies take away rights. Most tell you what doctors you can go to, require referals for specialists, only allow so many tests per year, and regulate just about everything. They make all the decisions regarding your health care, and they don't care about you, just their profit. Wake up America, this is just one more step away from freedom. One more choice has been taken away from us. Let's see what happens when all of the millions of households like mine add to the foreclosure rate because we are being forced to purchase health insurance and can't afford a home. What will happen to the economy when millions of Americans stop eating out at all, stop traveling completely, stop shopping, stop spending extra entirely because they are being forced to spend money they don't have on health insurance to insurance companies who have millions to spare already. Our economy will crumble.

Boy, do you have an entitlement mentality!! "I'm not going to give up eating out or going to the movies" - all luxuries that you can do without, not to mention a trip to Disneyland! - but then you expect someone else to come up with the money to cover you??? Get real!!

Your "universal health care" is going to come in the form of higher taxes (in Germany, for example, they have a VAT - Value Added Tax - of over 19% added on to almost everything they buy) for yourself and other people who are "above the poverty line" but DON'T go out to eat, blow money on the movies (seriously, you take a family out to the movies - at a cost of what $50 per trip, not including snacks?? Try Netflicks) buy their clothes at second-hand or thrift stores (where there are some very nice clothes, but perhaps not good enough for you?), and apply that money to insurance.

If you are as close to the foreclosure line as you make it sound, you seriously need some money-management counseling! Then take your purchase amounts for a year (pretty much everything you bought, including utility payments) add 19% to it, and see how much that "free" universal health care you want would cost you. Yes, that includes your new clothes, your dinner out, your movies, and everything you purchased at your trip to Disneyland.

Nobody owes you insurance - certainly not me! I've also gone without insurance, worked two jobs - and not glamorous jobs either as I wasn't too proud to swab toilets, to get up at 4 AM to work the breakfast shift, to finish out one 8-hr job at 3 PM and start a second 8 hour shift at 4 PM - whatever it took to pay my way (you didn't mention what kind of a job you have, but with online coursework available, you could probably train in something that would increase your income)! Do us all a favor and reread your entry to hear how you almost brag about wasting money and then expect the rest of us to cover your insurance costs.

BTW, there are ways to "have fun with your kids" without going to Disneyland and spending $300. Try camping or just going for day trips in National parks (which will actually give you more interaction time with your kids than Disneyland ever will), going to museums - especially on the days when they offer free admission, bike riding with the kids, and spening time in local parks. Have a backyard picnic, do a 'kids menu night' where you help the kids learn how to make something they like, bake cookies together, even doing household chores together can be turned into something fun if you make a game of it! Here are a couple of websites with more ideas (simple google search)

And, finally, to answer your question "Does this make us irresponsible Americans?", I'd have to say yes if you are living "pay check to pay check" and still doing all the things you described. Apparently the idea of 'doing without' doesn't occur to you - which is why I started off by saying you have an entitlement mentality. Hope you get over that.

Phillip,

Excellent blog. The healthcare system -even without the unisured, is outdated and poorly managed, and to top it off - filled with corporate $$ that is used to blackmail dr's and hospitals to use treatments that are not effective. I cannot list how many times I've gone to the dr's and have been given prescriptions to a certain "brand" drug - written with a pen that the pharmaceutical companies hand out for "free".

Medical care has to be without bias and has to get into the 21st century technology wise or no matter WHAT we do as a country - we will be spinning our wheels....

CHI, if you truly believe that a doctor's choice in medication is swayed by a pen, you have bigger problems than can be discussed here.