The previous thread is now in excess of 500 posts and I have locked it.

I invite you to continue your discussion here.

For reference, here is a link to the first thread started by StasisLAX:
Is The GOP Interested In Fixing Healthcare At All? (by StasisLAX Jul 21 2009 in Non Aviation)

Kind regards.
Toulouse

Thank you, Toulouse, I have been waiting for a moderator to do that.

From TopBoom in the last thread:

"First, Ken the government will not give up the surcharges. Next, I don't think anyone who works can qualify for medicaid. Thgird, the pre-existing is suppose to be eliminated by HIPAA. If the government does not enforce the laws they have on the books now, a new law will be just as toothless and meaningless."

Top,

I very strongly believe that the surcharges are prime area where fees & charges can be cut. I've read where it can be from 30% to 50+% in some states. That's the socialized medicine tax we pay and have happily been paying for years.

There was a gal on a news story today who was getting chemo. Her insurance did not cover chemo, but she found a place (an ex-storage room) where she could get chemo. Didn't qualify for Medicaid as she earned too much - $8.76 an hour as a cash register worker at Toys 4 Us. Really proud of that one Fortunately there are doctors who do work at least party time for free these days.

HIPAA? You gotta be kidding. Apply for health insurance and you give them all of your rights to privacy. They can stick a camera up your ass for the rest of your life if they want.

As for laws, health insurance companies pay politicians too much for that to happen. No matter how much real reform is needed I believe that the million dollars a day they are spending will win in the end. Morality walks when big money talks.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 507): One of our insurance cost problems. Minimum wage jobs rarely include insurance,

Perhaps because the idea is that you aren't supposed to make a career out of a minimum wage job? Of course if you choose to make a career out of min wage, who's fault is that?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 507): Remembering that you are one white cell away from leukemia.

I'm just one wrong look from getting hit by a bus, killed in a tornado, shot by a crook. It's called life and no one said it would ever be fair. If someone told you that they lied to your face.
.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 507): I would also note that the entire group of small business owners in this policy group got the same shaft as I did.

Yet none of you thought to band together to increase your purchasing power?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 507): I'm on Medicare & VA Health so those companies can't screw me anymore, but I have family and friends that will be exposed to their game for years to come.

But the goverment can. President Obama keeps saying that the public option will be paid for in part by savings from Medicare. Hope that VA thing works well for you.

Quoting DXing (Reply 3): Perhaps because the idea is that you aren't supposed to make a career out of a minimum wage job? Of course if you choose to make a career out of min wage, who's fault is that?

I don't disagree with you, the problem is that people end up in minimum wage jobs whether it's between other jobs or as a career. I used to work in a restaurant and there was a woman there who was "between jobs" for about 2 years, didn't have insurance (COBRA was $500/mo or something like that), and got breast cancer. Sure, it was her fault for not getting a better job, but I'd rather have her working in a minimum wage job between jobs than sitting around at home on unemployment and welfare.

There are certain industries and companies that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the people who make careers out of minimum wage jobs. We end up paying their health care costs because the people they employ have no way of paying for it themselves. I'd rather put that money towards preventative care and take care of the problems before they become major.

Quoting DXing (Reply 3): Perhaps because the idea is that you aren't supposed to make a career out of a minimum wage job? Of course if you choose to make a career out of min wage, who's fault is that?

Actually we have a corporate welfare program in this country that keeps minimum wages too low to cover things like health insurance. That's why we need food stamps, Medicaid, etc.

Might be interesting to at least KNOW what the minimum wage should be to keep a full time worker out of poverty and his or her family covered for the basics like health insurance.

It might also be interesting to learn just how hard a shift to minimum wage jobs (and around minimum wage) we have had in this country. What's the percentage of total jobs now compared to, say the 50s when conservative Republicans were in the White House and controlled COngress.

Quoting DXing (Reply 3): Yet none of you thought to band together to increase your purchasing power?

Duh, it WAS a group insurance policy for small company owners & employers.

Quoting DXing (Reply 3): President Obama keeps saying that the public option will be paid for in part by savings from Medicare.

Maybe he is talking about the plan that lets private insurance companies handle some Medicare folks to show the world how much more efficient they are than the public options.

From what I read & hear, there is over a hundred billion in wasted money in that program. We can cut that out, cut Medicare's total costs and keep providing the same level of treatments to patients.

That program is just another corporate welfare program that we don't need.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 2): From TopBoom in the last thread: "First, Ken the government will not give up the surcharges. Next, I don't think anyone who works can qualify for medicaid. Thgird, the pre-existing is suppose to be eliminated by HIPAA. If the government does not enforce the laws they have on the books now, a new law will be just as toothless and meaningless." Top, I very strongly believe that the surcharges are prime area where fees & charges can be cut. I've read where it can be from 30% to 50+% in some states. That's the socialized medicine tax we pay and have happily been paying for years. There was a gal on a news story today who was getting chemo. Her insurance did not cover chemo, but she found a place (an ex-storage room) where she could get chemo. Didn't qualify for Medicaid as she earned too much - $8.76 an hour as a cash register worker at Toys 4 Us. Really proud of that one Fortunately there are doctors who do work at least party time for free these days. HIPAA? You gotta be kidding. Apply for health insurance and you give them all of your rights to privacy. They can stick a camera up your ass for the rest of your life if they want. As for laws, health insurance companies pay politicians too much for that to happen. No matter how much real reform is needed I believe that the million dollars a day they are spending will win in the end. Morality walks when big money talks.

Then it is not a problem with the laws already on the books, it is a problem with the politicians who put those laws there, to get votes from us, and then don't enforce them, to get money from lobbiests. Then we need to vote out the politicians

Quoting Max550 (Reply 4): There are certain industries and companies that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the people who make careers out of minimum wage jobs.

While it won't work right now, there is no reason why someone doesn't get better paying jobs, with benefits, when the economy is good. Bush had a good economy between 2002 and 2007.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): Bush had a good economy between 2002 and 2007.

Yea too bad it was all fiction.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): Then we need to vote out the politicians

I don't mean to sound negative, but who? How many "clean" politicians are out there?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): While it won't work right now, there is no reason why someone doesn't get better paying jobs, with benefits, when the economy is good. Bush had a good economy between 2002 and 2007.

This was in '05 or '06, not during the current downturn.
There may be no reason why someone doesn't get a better paying job, but it happens. Who would fill all the service type jobs if everyone got better jobs? I absolutely agree that we should encourage people to work, but if someone is working 60 hours a week making under $10/hr I don't think it's right to make them sell their house and declare bankruptcy because they have medical bills they can't pay.

I talked to the woman I used to work with this morning to make sure I had her story right and I should correct one thing. She did have insurance at the time (actually the same thing I had back then) which was about $100/mo ($48 per pay period), paid a small amount for doctor visits and common procedures but had a maximum yearly cap of $5000 so it really didn't help much with her cancer treatment. The insurance company was SRC, which is owned by Aetna. She takes responsibility for it, she knew what kind of coverage they had before signing up but it was all that was available at the time and she wasn't really planning on using it.

Quoting DXing (Reply 3): Of course if you choose to make a career out of min wage, who's fault is that?

Are you going to blame a worker who's job was shipped to India, so, now, they have to work at Target or McDonalds because there are no jobs? Who's fault is that? The worker? Are you seriously going to blame the worker for the CEO and board of directors wanting a bigger bonus because they saved the company millions by sacraficing their own?

I worked as a customer service rep for Verizon Wireless for about a year and a half. Insurance there was $50 a paycheck, office visits were $25 and prescriptions were $5. But, when I moved to Portland, I was given the option to take their non-worker insurance until the "new" insurance (at my other job, if any was offered) kicked in or one year, whichever came first. The cost? $300 per month, I cover office visits and prescriptions. I declined. I could not afford that. Yes, it was my choice to move back to Portland, but, seriously, if someone is fired because of cost cutting and gets a minimum wage job until they find something comperable, how can they afford that?

A lot of people say that minimum wage is actually a "training wage", which is a good think - as long as you consider learning to make hamburgers is great job training.

The best I have seen was at QF in SYD. Young kids entering into a maintenance training program and working on an apprentice wage, increasing each year. When they finish the program they're hired to work int he Engineering Department and are able to save and have a decent, middle class life.

The bit about having a decent, middle class life is the important part.

What we have is basically corporate welfare. And taxpayers get hit with the bill

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 7): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): Bush had a good economy between 2002 and 2007. Yea too bad it was all fiction.

Well, go ahead and prove your statement.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 7): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): Then we need to vote out the politicians I don't mean to sound negative, but who? How many "clean" politicians are out there?

Now there is an easy question from you, my friend. The answer to your question, in m y opinion is.........NONE OF THEM.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 8): Who would fill all the service type jobs if everyone got better jobs?

The free market woud make those people currently offering minimum wage jobs offer higher pay, and maybe even benefits, if they could not get the workers they need. It is either that or go out of business.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): Now there is an easy question from you, my friend. The answer to your question, in m y opinion is.........NONE OF THEM.

So what is the "practical" solution?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): Well, go ahead and prove your statement.

Regardless of what you may think caused the Bubble, you must admit that it was a Bubble.

Discussion of the causes is for another thread.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): The free market woud make those people currently offering minimum wage jobs offer higher pay, and maybe even benefits, if they could not get the workers they need. It is either that or go out of business.

Riiiiight.... Would you be willing to pay $10 for a McDonalds cheeseburger? Would you be willing to pay $15 for a head of lettuce? Would you be willing to pay $20 for a small cup of regular coffee? That is EXACTLY what you are saying. That is how we ended up with all these welfare cases. Corporations want to take in the most money but not pay out a lot. So, the cost is passed on to the consumer. Take away things like health care and retirement and such perks and we get a $.99 cheeseburger at McDonalds. But, if these workers get cancer or run over by a bus or have their arm cut off, how will they pay for treatment? Some of these workers are 19 or 20 years old and still in school studying for a better paying job that will, in this economy, probably not be there when they graduate. Then what? Are they really going to open a McDonalds franchise that charges $10 for a cheeseburger? Do you honestly think anyone will go there when people can go up the street and get the same thing for $.99? Really?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13): Would you be willing to pay $10 for a McDonalds cheeseburger?

From my days in retailing I can tell you that there is a general level of around 8% to 10& of sales that is allocated to salaries. Some very high volume companies get lower and some very intensive service companies can go higher.

Part of the problem is to get the retailers to re-look at their approach. To move to a higher compensation they would need to add it to the retail price directly.

That means your $1 hamburger has 8¢ for salaries might need to go to $1.04 in order to increase salaries 50%. Now that's a huge increase, isn't it?  

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): The free market woud make those people currently offering minimum wage jobs offer higher pay, and maybe even benefits, if they could not get the workers they need. It is either that or go out of business.

And in a free market wages would increase alongside productivity. 
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the free market, but you have to look at it realistically. If that were the way things worked we wouldn't be talking about health care right now because we wouldn't need to.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): Then we need to vote out the politicians

We don't have time to vote them out - they need to be removed from office en masse.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13): Riiiiight.... Would you be willing to pay $10 for a McDonalds cheeseburger? Would you be willing to pay $15 for a head of lettuce? Would you be willing to pay $20 for a small cup of regular coffee? That is EXACTLY what you are saying. That is how we ended up with all these welfare cases. Corporations want to take in the most money but not pay out a lot. So, the cost is passed on to the consumer. Take away things like health care and retirement and such perks and we get a $.99 cheeseburger at McDonalds. But, if these workers get cancer or run over by a bus or have their arm cut off, how will they pay for treatment? Some of these workers are 19 or 20 years old and still in school studying for a better paying job that will, in this economy, probably not be there when they graduate. Then what? Are they really going to open a McDonalds franchise that charges $10 for a cheeseburger? Do you honestly think anyone will go there when people can go up the street and get the same thing for $.99? Really?

This is a non-issue in Japan. Thanks to the national health system, all low-wage employees are already enrolled and pay the same premiums as everyone else relative to their salary and it doesn't cost corporations a thing. McDonald's Japan is enjoying record sales and profits as of this latest quarter - nearly $2 billion in profit last quarter alone.

With the amount of taxes we pay in this country, healthcare should be free yet not as jammed up as it is in countries like U.K. and Canada when it comes to treatment. That's really the reason why I don't support a universal healthcare plan because I don't like the fact that I would need to wait 4 months to see a doctor for a checkup.

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 17): because I don't like the fact that I would need to wait 4 months to see a doctor for a checkup.

Stop spreading lies.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 16): all low-wage employees are already enrolled and pay the same premiums as everyone else relative to their salary

But, there is no way that would ever be allowed by any "conservative" in this country. The health care system in the United States is not broken. They say it over and over and over so many times they actually believe it. They believe that since some people have health care, everyone can afford it. What exactly is wrong with sliding scale fees? The Japan system sounds like a good one to me, too! Much better than what the United States has now.

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 17): That's really the reason why I don't support a universal healthcare plan because I don't like the fact that I would need to wait 4 months to see a doctor for a checkup.

What are you talking about? I've been able to see a cardiologist and endocrinologist recently here, both on less than three days' notice. What's this four months crap?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 10): A lot of people say that minimum wage is actually a "training wage", which is a good think - as long as you consider learning to make hamburgers is great job training.

You know, the Managers at fast food places make a good salary with benefits.
Blows my salary out of the water!

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 17): That's really the reason why I don't support a universal healthcare plan because I don't like the fact that I would need to wait 4 months to see a doctor for a checkup.

I assume your term "checkup" means something that is not urgent? I any system it will be cost-effective to prioritize urgent care over non-urgent care. I would rather use the acute care as a meter. Where does your "fact" of four months come from actually? Will you convert if you're shown a better system than that imaginery one?

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 17): I don't like the fact that I would need to wait 4 months to see a doctor for a checkup.

Try getting into an established Dermatologist in the US. Some book appointments up to 12 months in advance.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 12): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): Now there is an easy question from you, my friend. The answer to your question, in m y opinion is.........NONE OF THEM. So what is the "practical" solution?

All 435 Congressmen/women and 34 Senators are up for reelection in 2010. That is 469 or the 535 members of Congress (including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi), that is a good place to start. In 2012 all Congressmen/women are up for reelection again, along with 33 Senators, in 2014 it happens again with the last 33 Senators up for reelection.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): The free market woud make those people currently offering minimum wage jobs offer higher pay, and maybe even benefits, if they could not get the workers they need. It is either that or go out of business. Riiiiight.... Would you be willing to pay $10 for a McDonalds cheeseburger? Would you be willing to pay $15 for a head of lettuce? Would you be willing to pay $20 for a small cup of regular coffee? That is EXACTLY what you are saying. That is how we ended up with all these welfare cases.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13): Corporations want to take in the most money but not pay out a lot. So, the cost is passed on to the consumer.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14): Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13): Would you be willing to pay $10 for a McDonalds cheeseburger? From my days in retailing I can tell you that there is a general level of around 8% to 10& of sales that is allocated to salaries. Some very high volume companies get lower and some very intensive service companies can go higher. Part of the problem is to get the retailers to re-look at their approach. To move to a higher compensation they would need to add it to the retail price directly. That means your $1 hamburger has 8¢ for salaries might need to go to $1.04 in order to increase salaries 50%. Now that's a huge increase, isn't it?

Correct, Ken.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 16): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): Then we need to vote out the politicians We don't have time to vote them out - they need to be removed from office en masse.

We have time. In the house, we only need 30 or so Dems to vote against the health care reform bills. The threat of not being reelected alone will secure those votes. The latest polls show the country is against all the bills in the Senate and House at 62% against, 34% for, and no return or no decision by the remaining 4%

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 17): With the amount of taxes we pay in this country, healthcare should be free yet not as jammed up as it is in countries like U.K. and Canada when it comes to treatment. That's really the reason why I don't support a universal healthcare plan because I don't like the fact that I would need to wait 4 months to see a doctor for a checkup.

Quoting TUNisia (Reply 18): Stop spreading lies.

Where is he lying? Go on TUNisia, prove it that FP16 is lying. I await reading your response with great interest, and I think I can refute any "facts" you can dream up.

Let the debate begin.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20): What are you talking about? I've been able to see a cardiologist and endocrinologist recently here, both on less than three days' notice. What's this four months crap?

Perhaps that works in Japan. But with a still unapproved plan here in the US, and 306M people to serve under this plan, anyone with a sniffel will automaticly go ahead of anyone needing a routine check-up.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 22): I assume your term "checkup" means something that is not urgent? I any system it will be cost-effective to prioritize urgent care over non-urgent care. I would rather use the acute care as a meter. Where does your "fact" of four months come from actually?

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 22): Will you convert if you're shown a better system than that imaginery one?

Do you mean like the "magical" systems that are in place in the different European countries, Cuba, Russia, or Canada?

Each of those systems is totally flawless, aren't they?

The only problem with FP16s 4 month estimate is he may have underestimated that by a great deal. It could be 6 months, 9 months, 1 year, or longer under a system that the US would have to have.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24): All 435 Congressmen/women and 34 Senators are up for reelection in 2010. That is 469 or the 535 members of Congress (including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi), that is a good place to start. In 2012 all Congressmen/women are up for reelection again, along with 33 Senators, in 2014 it happens again with the last 33 Senators up for reelection

Still not practical. Do you really think that whomever is challenging these senators for re-elections are any better?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24): 306M people to serve under this plan,

I still don't understand why "size" is a problem. Its not like records are kept using pencil and paper. The US has many many more resources than most countries anyways, in terms of doctors, hospitals etc. These resources would still be around - does the plan call of leveling of hospitals?

If the resources assigned are the same (proportionally of course) as they are in countries in which the proposed system works well (i dont know, Scandinavia?) why would the results be any different?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24): Do you mean like the "magical" systems that are in place in the different European countries, Cuba, Russia, or Canada? Each of those systems is totally flawless, aren't they?

Are you really comparing the resources of the United States with the resources of Cuba and Russia?

Why don't we add Mozambique to the list?

[Edited 2009-08-19 08:48:19]

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24): The only problem with FP16s 4 month estimate is he may have underestimated that by a great deal. It could be 6 months, 9 months, 1 year, or longer under a system that the US would have to have.

We simply have regulations in place regarding the maximum waiting time for non-urgent care. A "checkup" is such. Perhaps something doable in the U.S. as well?

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 25): I still don't understand why "size" is a problem. Its not like records are kept using pencil and paper.

Size is not a problem, it's again one of those out of the blue blockhead arguments. The Internet is the obvious example. Something as big as the Net must by that logic have failed miserably ten times over? Big international chains like the various hamburger chains, are they collapsing under their own weight? No they are not, the management and standardized practices make them viable businesses in untold locations worldwide.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 26): No they are not, the management and standardized practices make them viable businesses in untold locations worldwide.

Exactly my point.

In addition, some say "Look at Botswana(*), they have a similar system - and it crap!"

(*) Randomly selected African country.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24): The only problem with FP16s 4 month estimate is he may have underestimated that by a great deal. It could be 6 months, 9 months, 1 year, or longer under a system that the US would have to have.

This is wild conjecture on your part, and there's no basis for scare tactics like these. Most people surveyed in countries with universal care are happy with what they have, and the occasional stories of excessive waits have been greatly exaggerated.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20): What are you talking about? I've been able to see a cardiologist and endocrinologist recently here, both on less than three days' notice. What's this four months crap?

Yea but Japanese healthcare is much better than it is in U.K. and Canada. My brother, as i've mentioned before, lives in Canada and even though he brags about not having to pay anything when he goes to the hospital, if he ever needed a serious operation, I know he would have to wait for it.

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 29): Yea but Japanese healthcare is much better than it is in U.K. and Canada.

So why can't US health care be better than Canada and the UK?

The system being proposed is not a single-payer one like most of the systems the right compares it to.

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 29): My brother, as i've mentioned before, lives in Canada and even though he brags about not having to pay anything when he goes to the hospital, if he ever needed a serious operation, I know he would have to wait for it.

How do you know that?

We don't need a single payer system, but we do need a public option.

So what would a public option be for?

Maybe all those people that the private insurance companies turn their back on.

That's a good start.

Then add their families.

Then toss in working folks not covered by their employers.

Or people on working for a low wage that can't support insurance premiums.

And let's require insurance companies to establish an consistent billing & policy system so all doctors. clinics, hospitals, etc only have one single system. It costs a fortune for providers to staff offices working with multiple systems and policies. Say a 5% processing fee/tax on each charge until that job is done and the new system is working.

And let's not be afraid of allowing private insurance companies to provide gap coverage, or special private care policies - like a private room when you go to hospital.


Neat comment last night on a news story - during the Bush/Cheney years health insurance premiums increased almost 90% and profits increased over 400%. Easy to see why they are fighting a public option.  

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31): news story

enough said ...

Mine didn't increase and I cover 15 people ... plus my family. Lots of news stories out there ... and as far as profits go . I would assume insurance profits went up for one real big reason ... unemployment was at like 3% for 7 years . All of those companies buying additional policies for there employees ... now those were the days .

Another news story I heard last night ... The Dems want to scrap our entire health-care system and let the post office run it .. all of that to cover 5% of the population who currently don't have insurance. Lots of news stories about these days.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 32): Mine didn't increase and I cover 15 people

You ought to let people know what insurance company you use - it's hard to find one that didn't raise their premiums between 2001 and 2009.  

Wouldn't mind the Post Office. They take care of me far better than the bend-over-and-spread-em private insurance company I had before I went on Medicare.

But you must have been listening to Rush on that one as basically what was said was that UPS and FedEx were able to effectively compete against their "public option". Comment was made with regard to the poor little insurance companies who wouldn't be able to compete with a public option in health care.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33): it's hard to find one that didn't raise their premiums between 2001 and 2009. Smile

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 32): Mine didn't increase and I cover 15 people ... plus my family.

One thing is actual $ cost - the other is value.

Has anyone noticed that the jars of peanut butter is the same price, but are smaller and have less product? Cereal boxes are the same price, same height but about 30% skinnier - so that what you see them on the shelf they look the same?

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 32): Lots of news stories about these days.

Yes - there was one about someone from some state far away talking about "Death Panel" or something silly like that. Ha! News these days...

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33): UPS and FedEx were able to effectively compete against their "public option".

Yes by providing better more efficient service ... The problem with the proposed health-care is that we pay for it no matter if we use it or not. So I pay for the post office even though I use Fed EX. Not fair and not right .

It does not matter anyways .... here is the deal. America has more dependents now who need help than we did years ago . That is because of the huge entitlements put into place (by both parties) that has created a massive dependent class . Like all government entitlement programs ... it always needs more feeding over time because the dependents increase . Its not that hard . They blame corporate greed ... I blame the growing dependent class looking for handouts. Soon there will be nothing left to handout to them.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 35): The problem with the proposed health-care is that we pay for it no matter if we use it or not.

My city taxes pay for schools. I don't use them - why am i paying for them? They pay for City Colleges, yet i got my Masters at a private school.

My taxes paid for the construction work on I-55. I never use I-55!

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 35): Yes by providing better more efficient service .

Interesting point of discussion. Is it really more efficient? Would you send junk mail using FedEx?

FedEx and USPS have different markets and assuming that one is more efficient than the other in a broad sense is a bit naive. In some thing yes, in some parts no.

Is the USPS efficient for 90% of the needs of the average "postcard-junkmail-birthdaycard" sending population? Yes.

Is it efficient in providing real time status of delivered packages? No (every time Amazon uses USPS, its never right) - but my life will not end if i don't know in which city my DVD is transiting thru at 3:42AM.

But if it did - i would have paid for overnight FedEx. My choice. Public Option vs. Private.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 25): Still not practical. Do you really think that whomever is challenging these senators for re-elections are any better?

Isn't Kay Bailey Hutchison running? Isn't she what some might call a career politician? I don't know, yet, who my congress people are, since I just moved to California. So, using my "old" home state as an example: when Earl Blumemauer is up for re-election, what is to stop Gordon Smith or Bob Packwood from running? The idea of "kicking all the bums out" is a noble one, but I don't think it would work. Too many career politicians have too much name recognition.

Now: Is GOP interested in fixing health care? No. Did anyone see the lies at the latest town hall meeting? http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/h...frank-nazi-html,0,689144.htmlstory I am just curious as to where all these concerned and flag-waving Americans were during the St. Reagan de-regulate-everything-and-build-up-the-war-machine years? Where were all these patriotic Americans during the Bush jail-and-torture years? Where were all these patriotic Americans during the ship-all-the-jobs-overseas years? Why are all these patriotic Americans just now standing up when they are being told by right wing commentators how evil and awful and bad a low-cost health care option is? Where exactly does it say anything about death panels? Where exactly does it say illegals will be covered? Where exactly does it say there will be no more private insurance? Where exactly does it say abortions will be covered and manditory? These are what the right wing bobble heads that listen to FOX, Rush, Hannity et al believe.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 37): Now: Is GOP interested in fixing health care? No.

Wrong. We want reform, just not this bill. If they would produce a bill that would provide:

- Tort reform

- Punitive damages on insurance companies that force covered event reimbursement into the judicial system

- Allow insurance companies to cross state borders and offer their service anywhere.

- A ban on all consumer marketing for drugs by pharmeceutical companies

- Establishment of a standard Minimal Medical Insurance ((MMI)) package which does not cover all the aches and sniffles, but broken bones, cancer, accidents, infections and other major events.

- Rate rules that make Insurance companies cover everyone on MMI for the same rates, even with pre-conditions. They can charge individual rates for supplimentary coverage, but the (MMI) is flat-rate, say $150-200 per person per month.

- To pay for the added liability of universal MMI coverage, there would be an individual mandate that everyone have at least MMI.

- The connection linking employers with employee health insurance should be severed. It is everyone's individual responsibility to find an insurer for their family. Companies can negotiate with insurance companies for optional supplimentary insurance for their employees (like dental), but not related to MMI.

- Families at or below poverty-level income would recieve a subsidy to help them pay for MMI.

- Anyone not covered by MMI would be imposed a fine (more than what the MMI would cost) on top of their tax bill. If they are recipients of welfare or other government payments, the fine would be taken out of their checks.

- And finally, a constitutional amendment that would provide the Constitutional authority for Congress to regulate health care.

This is something I could support. It expands coverage to the whole population, reduces costs, and keeps it all private. But democrats won't buy into it, because it does not satisfy their main objective - making every American dependent on the federal government.

Seb-using the term "Nazi" in front of a homosexual Jewish person is generally not a winning proposition.

First, to all the people complaining about the protesters it just shows have biased most of the media is. Where was this coverage of protesters when Liberals called Bush a Nazi, called bush evil, called bush the creator or 9/11, where going crazy because they were losing their freedom. I do not remember Republicans saying the protest were unamerican and just crazy mobs of people being asked to protest. I do not remember the media saying anything like that too. Just wanted to get that out their. Protest like what is going on is going to happen no matter who is in control and it is a great thing because this is America and we have that right.

Second I find it hard to support a bill on medical care reform from a man who says things like this about Doctors. I am not a doctor but I do have family memebers who are and I myself feel offended from these remarks. If Bush would have said something like this it would be world headlines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG56B2et4M8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm9jdDHdFV0

Really President Obama? This country needs more doctors and statements like this are not going to help. I think doctors deserve all the money they make, they definitely deserve it more than CEO's or trial lawyers etc..

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 39): I am not a doctor but I do have family memebers who are and I myself feel offended from these remarks.

I am a doctor, and I'm not offended. It is a fact that primary care physicians are reimbursed very poorly compared with most subspecialists. The surgeon WILL make more for amputating a leg with gangrene due to poorly controlled diabetes than a family practitioner or internist will make for treating the diabetes and keeping it under control. All forms of insurance, commercial and government-run, value procedures disproportionately over non-procedural therapies. This is one of the major reasons for the increasing shortage of primary care physicians. Any form of health care/insurance reform will have to make the reimbursement for primary care physicians more equitable, or the shortage will not resolve.

The second video you linked makes a valid point, although I admit it is made poorly. Some specialists DO look for any way to do the procedure that will earn the biggest reimbursement. Most don't, but there are greedy people in every profession. Processes that are already in place for peer monitoring and utilization review should be able to pick up those who are potentially overusing certain procedures for further investigation. They already work in many cases.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38): - Establishment of a standard Minimal Medical Insurance ((MMI)) package which does not cover all the aches and sniffles, but broken bones, cancer, accidents, infections and other major events.

Such policies already exist. They're called Major Medical only. There's a big problem with them, though. They exclude all preventive care and any outpatient services or medications. These policies that only cover "major events" lead to diseases presenting at more advanced stages, when they are much more expensive to treat and often incurable. There really is no way a reasonable package could be created that doesn't cover more minor events without leading to the same problems inherent in the current Major Medical only policies. By the way, try buying one of these already existing minimal coverage policies as an individual. You can expect to pay $400+/month, or $4800+/year for this stellar level of underinsurance.

I agree some level of tort reform should be pursued, but many studies have shown that tort reform's effect on the rapidly increasing cost of medical care is actually relatively small. Tort reform, while needed, would be a secondary measure at best in decreasing medical costs.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38): he connection linking employers with employee health insurance should be severed. It is everyone's individual responsibility to find an insurer for their family

I don't think the employer connection necessarily needs to be severed, but it absolutely couldn't be severed without the complete elimination of pre-existing conditions. The insurance companies will fight this change with all their might, because it will decrease their profits.

You have some good points, although I don't agree with all of them. But please--I'm really tired of the untrue claim that the Democrats want to make everyone dependent on the federal government. That's not the purpose of the Democratic proposal, and it's not what all Democrats or President Obama want, either.

Where does all this "endless waiting times" crap come from?

I have public health care and when I need something I just call up my doctor and get an apointment, usually within 1 or 2 days. If it's holiday season it might take 2 days more. Specialists take a little longer but I have never had to wait for an apointment for more than 10 days.

When my mother needed removal of a benign tumor last year it was out within 2 weeks even though it was not life-threatening at all, just very uncomfortable and time-consuming to remove because of the locoation. We also did not encounter anybody who wanted to euthanize her.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 41): I am a doctor, and I'm not offended. It is a fact that primary care physicians are reimbursed very poorly compared with most subspecialists. The surgeon WILL make more for amputating a leg with gangrene due to poorly controlled diabetes than a family practitioner or internist will make for treating the diabetes and keeping it under control.

I find it offensive that he brings it up as if it is a consistant problem that is adding significantly to the cost of health care, specifically that doctors are unecessarily chopping off limbs and cutting out organs to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year. That's what he's implying.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 41): Such policies already exist. They're called Major Medical only.

To clarify, what I am asking for is a government-defined policy, or maybe 2 or 3, that would provide identicle coverage regardless of which insurance company you choose. A lot of the problem today, I think, is that every company comes up with their own packages, and unless you are really good at reading the fine print, you change from one company to another and don't realize that your coverage has changed in significant ways. By defining "standard" packages, you know what you are getting.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 41): There's a big problem with them, though. They exclude all preventive care and any outpatient services or medications.

Understood. You can always add that to the standard package, but that will substantially increase the administrative costs of the package with frequent small amounts instead of rare large ones. If the intention is to provide coverage that doesn't drive hospitals and emergency rooms to bankruptcy (look at what has happened to hospitals in south Texas), that's one thing. The argument that preventive care will reduce overall costs is attractive, but so far this has not been proven statistically.

And what's wrong with making people responsible to pay for small events themselves? Nobody's going to declare bankruptcy because of a $500 bill.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 41): I don't think the employer connection necessarily needs to be severed

The issue is that employment-for-life no longer exists, and you should have to change your coverage because you changed jobs. I currently have a terrific coverage, and I hate the idea that I might have to lose it and take a chance someplace else when I change jobs, which I anticipate happening in the next year or so.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 41): but it absolutely couldn't be severed without the complete elimination of pre-existing conditions.

Switzerland did it.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 41): You have some good points, although I don't agree with all of them.

If we can discuss the points and fine tune them, we at least have a starting point.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 41): But please--I'm really tired of the untrue claim that the Democrats want to make everyone dependent on the federal government. That's not the purpose of the Democratic proposal, and it's not what all Democrats or President Obama want, either.

Sorry, but I disagree. I'm sure some well-meaning people are as you say, but I think the leadership is much more cynical. Medicare was effectively a purchase of the Senior vote, permenantly switching seniors to the Democrat party. Bush's Medicare Part D was an attempt to buy them back, so both sides have done it. Welfare and AFDC was a purchase of the poor urban vote. It's natural to expect that people will vote for parties which try to give you more benefits. It's called buying votes with other people's money. I think the intention here is to get as many people into a state system, where 80% pay only a nominal fee - good deal for them and they will vote to continue it - paid for by increased taxes/higher fees from the wealthier 20%. It's income redistribution.

People try to paint healthcare as a right, alongside free speech, privacy, etc. It is not. The reason why it cannot be a right is that whereas privacy, free speech and so one simply mean you have the right to be left alone, healthcare as a right implies that I have the right to the labor of others, with all the expensive education, equipment and reseach it brings with it. That is a dangerous precident to cross. People should be responsible to pay for their own costs for their own care.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 12): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): Well, go ahead and prove your statement. Regardless of what you may think caused the Bubble, you must admit that it was a Bubble.

Everybody knows that the bubble was caused by extremely cheap and easy to get loans in the US after the 11th september, to make the economy artifically grow.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 25): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24): All 435 Congressmen/women and 34 Senators are up for reelection in 2010. That is 469 or the 535 members of Congress (including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi), that is a good place to start. In 2012 all Congressmen/women are up for reelection again, along with 33 Senators, in 2014 it happens again with the last 33 Senators up for reelection Still not practical. Do you really think that whomever is challenging these senators for re-elections are any better?

Yes, it is practical, and will let any replacements elected know the people are still the ones in charge with their votes.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 25): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24): 306M people to serve under this plan, I still don't understand why "size" is a problem. Its not like records are kept using pencil and paper. The US has many many more resources than most countries anyways, in terms of doctors, hospitals etc. These resources would still be around - does the plan call of leveling of hospitals?

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 26): Quoting Mt99 (Reply 25): I still don't understand why "size" is a problem. Its not like records are kept using pencil and paper. Size is not a problem, it's again one of those out of the blue blockhead arguments.

Even though none of the bills mention it, hopitals close in the US everyday, some are replaced with newer facilities, some are not. Here is Fort Worth, we have scene 3 hospitals close within the past 4 years, and none have been replaced. That puts a bigger strain on the remaining 7 hospitals. Even a non-profit hospital needs to make enough money to balance the books

Quoting Dvk (Reply 28): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24): The only problem with FP16s 4 month estimate is he may have underestimated that by a great deal. It could be 6 months, 9 months, 1 year, or longer under a system that the US would have to have. This is wild conjecture on your part, and there's no basis for scare tactics like these.

Oh really? Do you have anything to substancate that?

Quoting Dvk (Reply 28): Most people surveyed in countries with universal care are happy with what they have, and the occasional stories of excessive waits have been greatly exaggerated.

Could that be because most people in those countries have no choice, and don't have the resourses to come to the US for health care that they don't have to wait months, or years, for?

Which stories have been exaggeruated?

Quoting Max550 (Reply 30): Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 29): Yea but Japanese healthcare is much better than it is in U.K. and Canada. So why can't US health care be better than Canada and the UK?

Perhaps it is because our politicians are stupid? Perhaps it is because our politicians are controlled by speicial interest groups that help keep them in power? That lobbying efford is not just one sided, it cuts both ways.

We will see who is going to make millions under these new proposals, and it isn't going to be the people.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 35): Yes by providing better more efficient service ... The problem with the proposed health-care is that we pay for it no matter if we use it or not. So I pay for the post office even though I use Fed EX. Not fair and not right .

How so? You pay premiums to the company, whether it's a private company or the public option, and they provide insurance. You're paying for the subsidies for the poor, but I don't know how any plan would avoid that while providing coverage for everyone.

I seriously doubt you use FedEx exclusively, do you receive mail at home?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38): Wrong. We want reform, just not this bill. If they would produce a bill that would provide:

Then why didn't you do it in the past? Clinton tried health care reform and failed, it's been a big issue since then and the Republicans did nothing. You knew it was coming. Now that people have chosen Democrats to run the country for a few years they're going to pass the kind of bill they want, not the one you want, because the Republicans don't have the power to dictate what gets passed anymore.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43): I find it offensive that he brings it up as if it is a consistant problem that is adding significantly to the cost of health care, specifically that doctors are unecessarily chopping off limbs and cutting out organs to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year. That's what he's implying.

He's not talking about cutting off limbs and organs, he's talking about unnecessary tests, procedures and drugs.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 46): Then why didn't you do it in the past? Clinton tried health care reform and failed, it's been a big issue since then and the Republicans did nothing.

From what I have heard, a number of health care reforms were proposed when Congress was in Republicans' hands but were blocked by Democrats (presumably because they did not want the Republicans to be able to claim that they fixed healthcare). Remember that Reps only barely had a majority in the Senate, and nowhere close to 60 votes.

I have not had the time to research which proposals were involved - I'm just repeating what I have heard from a couple of senators on talk shows.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 46): Clinton tried health care reform and failed

Yeah, with basically the same warped proposals we have now.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 46): He's not talking about cutting off limbs and organs, he's talking about unnecessary tests, procedures and drugs.

Nope. He was very specific.

Amputations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG56B2et4M8

Organ removal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhNeGYYPgIE

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45): Even though none of the bills mention it, hopitals close in the US everyday, some are replaced with newer facilities, some are not. Here is Fort Worth, we have scene 3 hospitals close within the past 4 years, and none have been replaced. That puts a bigger strain on the remaining 7 hospitals. Even a non-profit hospital needs to make enough money to balance the books

That is the case now. Without the Bill - what was your point again?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45): Yes, it is practical, and will let any replacements elected know the people are still the ones in charge with their vote

So pray tell, why in the history of the country - that has never been achieved?

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 44): Quoting Mt99 (Reply 12): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): Well, go ahead and prove your statement. Regardless of what you may think caused the Bubble, you must admit that it was a Bubble. Everybody knows that the bubble was caused by extremely cheap and easy to get loans in the US after the 11th september, to make the economy artifically grow.

Actually, that started in 1998 under Clinton when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were told to change their rules about income requirements to buy a home. But, that in no way effected the European economy has its ouwn unique problems, too. It all came together in the summer of 2008 through the international banking crises, which began with UBS, a huge Swiss bank.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 46): Now that people have chosen Democrats to run the country for a few years they're going to pass the kind of bill they want, not the one you want, because the Republicans don't have the power to dictate what gets passed anymore.

You are right, the people chose the Dems in 2006 (which did NOTHING for two years) and 2008. The people have made it clear this month, they did not replace the Repubs with the Dems so that health care reform could screw up them and the economy.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 46): He's not talking about cutting off limbs and organs, he's talking about unnecessary tests, procedures and drugs.

Have you noticed that none of the proposals contain any tort reform? Malpractice suits have added a cost to todays health care. Many of those suits are justified, but many are not. The Dems will see the amdulance chasing lawyers will still collect millions from malpractice suits. Doctors best protection is the excessive testing they ask for.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47): Quoting Max550 (Reply 46): Then why didn't you do it in the past? Clinton tried health care reform and failed, it's been a big issue since then and the Republicans did nothing. From what I have heard, a number of health care reforms were proposed when Congress was in Republicans' hands but were blocked by Democrats (presumably because they did not want the Republicans to be able to claim that they fixed healthcare). Remember that Reps only barely had a majority in the Senate, and nowhere close to 60 votes.

Correct, the GOP introduced health care reform legislatuering in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. The Dems did n ot introduce health care reforem when they took over in 2006, 2007 and 2008. It was the GOP holding together in 2004 that got persription drug coverage in 2004, even though the Dems tried to filibuster it so the Repubs would not get the credit. That is why we ended up with the watered down drug bill.