Who is fanning the flames of hate and intolerance is not rocket science. In 2007 we,as a country, spent over twice as much per person on health care as the next most spendy country. They got health care in the top 10 in the world. For our twice as many dollars spent we got 37th. in the world. We had almost 50 million that had no healthcare at all, they had universal coverage. Over half the bankruptcies in this country are caused by catastrophic medical expenses in this other country there were no bankruptcies due to medical rxpenses. What is the glaring differences in these two countries? They dont have any health insurance companies that provide no health care or any healing for monies spent.but still suck a generous amount from the public tit. Their drugs cost a fraction of the same drug in this country. I recently filled a prescription in this country....five pills for $125.00. I live 3 miles from the Canasdian border. The same pills and not generics, cost $42 in Canada. Why the difference? Canadians have a negotiated price for the drugs. We are forbidden by law to negotiate a better price. We are compelled to pay what ever the drug companies decide is list price for this month. There is no place on this planet where you can pay more for our drugs than you can pay in this country. So who i s benefitting from all this money we pay? Itr sure as hell isnt us who is paying the bill. Two of the leaders are the drug companies and the health insurance companies. How have they been able to get away with it for this long. Seems there is one constant every year.....how freaken stupid we are for falling for the same bunch of lies and bull@!$%# they peddle each time reform rears its ugly head. All that money we spent in 2007 on healthcare totalled $2.3 trillion dollars. That is where all these dollars are coming from to continue to delude us and to continue to buy the votes in Congress to continue to screw us. A war chest of 2.3 trillion bucks buys a whole lot of votes and hires a whole bunch of goons to lead protests. We are at a crossroads. We can either take back our healthcare from the private interests or we can continue to be stupid and bend over a barrel and take it in the shorts. My guess is we are gonna need a whole bunch more of barrels.

No one denies the influence peddling that goes on in Washington by all the lobbyists, however, there is another aspect of the current health care debate that often goes unnoticed. The Congress has a propensity to write very long bills designed to obscure rather than disclose. For example, the conventional wisdom is that illegal aliens are prohibited from participating in the health care reform program. And that is true as far as it goes. However, if you look for the actual mechanism to prevent their participation, you'll see that it is sadly lacking. The bill prohibits "undocumented aliens" from receiving health care, but does not prescribe a method for preventing illegal aliens from receiving health care. There is no foolproof identity requirement and no provision for enforcement. This is just another opportunity for fraud.

The bill also requires that "the State shall accept without further determination the enrollment under [the Medicaid program] of an individual determined by the Commissioner to be a non-traditional Medicaid eligible individual." However, the bill does not require the government to apply the existing citizenship and identity verification requirements that exist in the current Medicare statute.

Furthermore the bill states, "...in determining eligibility for services under this subsection, the State may consider only the income of the applicant or recipient." This means that for certain non-essential services, the State can disregard an individual's immigration status and look only at the individual's income.

Now I ask you, do these sound like effective provisions for assuring that illegals are not admitted to the program? So are those who suggest that illegals can be covered under the existing language a bunch of liars or are they justly concerned about these important weaknesses?

It seems to me that Congress is up to its usual tricks of obfuscation and obscuring the facts.

Ditto!

The ditto was meant for you!

Gee, you sound like a fear monger yourself. I agree that reform is needed but we are being sold a bill of goods regarding the necessity of a public option. Everything worth doing in health care reform can be done without a public option.

Why not pass a much simpler bill that outlaws the most onerous practices of insurance companies and subjects them to the control of ulitlity commissions so that all cost increases and executive salaries receive a comprehensive review to determine if they are justified? Similar pressure can be brought to bear on drug companies and care providers. We, of course, need to keep in mind that the former need to have sufficient profits to enable them to continue to pursue the discovery of new drugs to fight drug-resisitant viruses and bacteria. And the doctors and nurses need to be rewarded for their arduous courses of study and for the difficult and important work they do.

The only thing the bill offers to curb fraud is a jail term in addition to a stiff fine for the miscreants who take advantage of the system.

Are you calling someone who has actual experience of the health environment as an administrator and caregiver a fear monger? What experience do you bring to the discussion?

The suggestions you have made call for the government to be involved in regulating insurance companies, drug companies, and hospitals, and somehow be involved in setting compensation for doctors and nurses. In light of the fact that one of the biggest fears expressed by those who oppose health care reform is that of "big government" how far do you think Congress would get with that?

Also, please stop referring to "the bill" as if there already is one. There are 3 proposed but as yet incomplete bills coming out of the House of Representatives and 1 from the Senate. What evolves from the process of reworking them is as yet unknown.

You are absolutely correct. One of the biggest savings in healthcare could come from the government providing malpractice and liability insurance to doctors and healthcare agencies. The premiums the government collects could help pay for healthcare. There would have to be limits put on malpractice and liability lawsuits. The lawyers in this Country will never allow that to happen. The majority of members in congress have law degrees.

I hate to put a break on this, but all doctors are not good, rightous upstanding people. If there is to be Tort reform we also have to reform the AMA. Make Doctor's histories easy to get. Let us see complaints against doctors. Let the Doctor's tell their side of the story. There HAS to be more transparency to finding a doctor you can trust. My uncle is a doctor and I think one of the good ones, but you can't depend on someone being above-board & honest about mistakes just because of an MD after their name. I've had a couple of bad experiences with doctors and found I could sue them or send a ocmplaint to the AMA that would be kept private and probably never addressed. I chose to do nothing as I too dislike the headlong march to court and what that has done to the good doctors out there.

Yes!  I believe that health care providers waste thiers and the patients time by asking and documenting long lists of "rule-out" questions, ordering tests, refering to specialists, encouraging second opinions etc...just to reduce thier liability exposure.   No provider ever gets sued for providing too much health care, ordering too many tests, prescribing too many Rx, making too many referrals.    Primary care is driving this.  I believe that lawsuit avoidance may be doubling the cost of health care in the US.

Those in favor complain about the Congressmen who are being influenced by insurance company and drug company lobbies but never mention those who are influenced by the lawyers among them and in the larger legal communty. Tort reform should be an important part of any health care reform bill.

Most providers settle out of court because their malpractice insurance companies pressure them to do so. Those who do go to court might be exonerated in the end but pay a high price in the time lost from their practices and stress on themselves and their families. Still, ethics and an unblemished reputation are vital to a physician.

If you want real misinformation, tune into Fox News.

The most likely scenario is that private insurance will not be able to compete with a subsidized public option, thus ultimately sounding the deathknell for private plans.

On the other hand, if healthcare costs are not reduced soon, no company will be providing healthcare benefits to their employees. They won't be able to afford the premiums.

Are you complaining that you would *gasp* have to pay 25/75 out of pocket a month for health insurance? I am a stay at home mom and have to shell out more than $700 a month for coverage that only pays 80% of the cost. This is THE BEST plan I could get in Washington state without an employer. It's families like mine that NEED this to pass.

you live in California, have a good job and probably the best health care in the western world. Count your blessings, man.

Actually President Clinton want to use the surplus to stabilize Social Security and Medicare. Under Bush we gave the surplus to rich people and threw a 2 Trillion dollar war.

Which I note Obama is continuing and increasing when it come to Afghanistan>

I am so sick of hearing about Bushes war. noone was saying that when two planes flew into the towers. And if I remember correctly, demicans and republicrats in Congress voted for Bushes war. Just because spineless demicans suddenly backed out and flip flopped doesn't make it the presidents war. I despise Bush but what i despise even more is people making decisions and then being a turncoat when the consequences are more than they envisioned. And if all of you guys and gals would open your eyes, you would be able to see that your country is being stolen right out of your hands. Bush started it, and our President now is trying to finish it. What is the rush, how come everything has to be done in such a hurry? Answer that question and you will find the reason for the treason that is taking place right in front of you.

Of course employers can determine what care their employees receive and which companies they get it from. They are paying a big chunk of its cost.

Generally the Benefits Manager looks at several options--what they offer and what they cost--chooses a company that offers coverage as close as possible to what the employees currently have and costs the least. They go with that company for the year. There are usually 3 options from that company offered to employees, who choose on the basis of their needs, which one they want. There is nothing that says employees have to accept the insurance or quit. Married employees can go with a spouse's plan, if it's better, or Medicare if they are old enough, or with an HMO like Kaiser, if they prefer.

Any mistakes made in the health care reform bill will never be straightened out just as they never have been in Social Security and Medicare. This would be just another underfunded multi-billion dollar social program that will burden our descendents forever. Let's get it right the first time. A public option is not needed to cure or curb health insurance company abuses.

I share your indignation, but please don't lump the entire health care industry together. Remember that it includes doctors, nurses, medical social workers, physical therapists, and not for profit community hospitals, most of whom are patient advocates and do the best they can to take care of them.

Remember Blue Cross Blue Shield is a not-for-profit with significant government oversight. They raise costs when their costs go up.

Costs are skyrocketing because U.S. health care providers provide WAY too much medical care. Why? Because no provider ever gets sued for providing too much health care, ordering too many tests, prescribing too many Rx, making too many referrals. Primary care is driving this. I believe that lawsuit avoidance may be doubling the cost of health care in the US.

Nobody is discussing tort reform which could dramatically and immediately reduce our national health care costs.

Wow. Dramatic much? Nobody is pushing such a thing, so you should probably find a ligitimate reason to talk in such a manner rather than show complete paranoia.

I, for one, am young and don't wish to live forever, so don't place all of us in the same boat. It's not a fair assumption. I do have faith that things will be smoothed out in time and many people that don't (but should) benefit will. And I agree with others that something has to be done and soon, because I work full-time but I can NOT afford health insurance on top of everything else -- not even through my employer.  I'm ready for something different so that I can pay my bills and take care of my child without any hesitation of going to the doctor or hospital when needed. I don't feel any complaining is in order at this time. There are certain aspects that may need to be cleaned up about the bill, but it's not even finished at this point.

Suzie, when I read comments like yours it frightens me. I fear for the future of this country when so many of us repeat buzz words and slogans that don't even make sense. I know that one of the health care plans contains an attachment that allows doctors to be paid for giving council to older patients and their families regarding end-of-life treatments. The option was not included for the doctor to decide on treatments to order or refuse, but for the patient. To say that doctors, who have fought insurance companies for years in order to get approval for treatments for older patients, would now deny their patient proper care is the largest stretch of truth that I've heard. Does it sound reasonable to you??

You are kidding right ?? Please be open to listening to what is being said. Did you know that when social security and medicare was started it to, was said to be socialist.....

Suzie, you're right! We can't afford socialized medicne anymore than we can affors the socialized stop lights at every corner in my town! How can the Gov't tell me what color light I have to stop on? That's taking away my liberities!

Gee whiz suzie. i fear ignorance like yours will rule the planet. Socialism is NOT watered down communism. Socialism is the natural progression following unrestrained capitalism.

Advance directives have been used in hospitals for decades. They are not some new plot that our current legislators have cooked up for a nefarious purpose. As part of my hospital's community relations department, I was responsible for developing educational materials related to them when they were first introduced--sometime in the late 80s, I believe. Patients are always asked if they have one when they are admitted to the hospital or have surgery and the document is placed on the patient's chart so that all members of the care team can refer to it.

My parents had them, I have one, my brothers and their wives both have them. Most responsible people our age take them for granted as a way to protect our families [like life insurance, wills, a plan for covering funeral expenses, etc.]

Believe me, most doctors and nurses have advance directives or living wills. Why? Because thay know that unless you have a legal document clearly stating your preferences, your doctors, the hospital, and even rescue squads will do their utmost to keep you alive. Sometimes that means hooking you up to machines that breathe for you and keep your heart beating when you are brain dead--leaving your family to make the agonizing decision at some point to have the respirator turned off. I can tell you from observing families enduring this that it is painful and destructive, because not all family members agree on what to do.

As legal documents, advance directives are customarily written with the help of a lawyer [the correct person to give a legal perspective and authorize the document] but not necessarily discussed with the patient's family doctor [the right person to give a medical perspective and the one most likely to be involved in the patient's care team in the event of a serious illness]. Most primary care and internal medicine doctors are tightly scheduled, and their patients know it. Not all patients are comfortable taking up their doctor's time simply to discuss a document when they aren't ill--especially when neither the doctor nor the patient will be reimbursed for the visit. So sometimes the patient's regular doc is not involved in the planning.

That was the whole point of the current legislation: to encourage the doctor's involvement by reimbursing the office visit used to discuss these decisions with Medicare patients. Also to encourage revisiting the advance directive every five years, as personal health and advances in medical technology are subject to change. I have had my advance directive since I was in my 40s, but have not been hospitalized since I developed it. Yep. It's time for me to update it.

The ridiculous uproar surrounding this issue is astonishing to health care professionals. Sadly, it has resulted in having a really useful piece of legislation removed from the bill.

Excuse me, but I think you're putting a lot of irresponsible people in the same boat as me and that's not fair. I CAN'T afford it. I don't make enough to have a couple hundred taken out of my paycheck every two weeks and still pay all of my other bills. And you will NEVER see me getting my "nails done", buying new clothes, going to the movies, etc. I save so that I can provide for my child and I still don't have the money to get health insurance. It's not right that I'm punished for other people's irresponsible ways. I do have health care for my child through FAMIS which is a program my state provides, but I don't have health insurance for my husband and I. We just don't have the money for it. I'm glad my son is at least able to get the care he needs, but that's as far as we go on that. I don't like depending on others to take care of me, so I won't ask for help. I'm stubborn, but it would be nice to be able to afford health care.

Poor logic. Getting your nails done costs what, $15? The last time I had COBRA, it was $750 a month for two people with a $4,000 deductible. I couldn't buy individual insurance at any price because I had cancer seven years ago.

I agree that manicures are a luxury, but their cost is hardly comparable to what health insurance costs.

April,

If you want a living will write one and if you want to pay your doctor for helping you feel free to do so. No one is saying you can't.

yes. great idea. write your congressmen, senators, etc.

There is a big difference between funding insurance for the entire country and funding insurance for a relative handful of Congressman. Plus, I doubt if anyone in the House or Senate would consider proposing, let along be able to pass, a law requiring that.

I know a few I self-righteous, smirking congressman I would like to see try to buy meaningful health insurance with what one of the earliest proposals said should be given as a "credit" to families to help buy mandated insurance. That was preposterously low, and completely unmanageable, showing a characteristic disconnect between some of our lawmakers and the real world.

Because lola, they are the elite and you are nothing. They do not care about any of you, only reason they even entertain you is because they want to stay in power. They only care for self preservation and power. That goes for demicans and republicrats.

The word reform does not apply , the only thing thats changing is who is spending my money .

Whose money dumb sh#t.

"The doctor" makes money ordering tests? No. They are prohibited from charging for referrals or profiting from tests. Doctors DO waste thiers and the patients time by asking and documenting long lists of "rule-out" questions, ordering tests, refering to specialists, encouraging second opinions etc... to reduce thier liability exposure. No provider ever gets sued for providing too much health care, ordering too many tests, prescribing too many Rx, making too many referrals. Primary care is driving this. I believe that lawsuit avoidance may be doubling the cost of health care in the US.