For Single-Payer Healthcare

This post was written by Sarah Jaffe, a blogger, freelance journalist and Nation intern.

Healthcare reform is on everyone's mind these days. President Obama has repeatedly stressed his desire to bring all interested parties to the table to discuss the options, and even the insurance companies and the American Medical Association seem ready to play along.

Yet the one group that has been mostly shut out of the discussions is the single-payer healthcare crowd. When medical practitioners who advocate for single-payer arrived at Senator Max Baucus's health care roundtables, some of them were even arrested.

A single-payer health care system, or "Medicare for all," in which the government would take the place of insurance companies in paying for care, and which would be funded by taxes rather than premium payments, is how Canada and most of Europe provides care. As Senator Bernie Sanders said in an interview with The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel,

" [T]he only way you're gonna provide comprehensive, universal, and cost-effective healthcare to every man, woman, and child in this country is through a single-payer system. That's just a simple reality. And the reason for that is that to pay for universal comprehensive healthcare you have to deal with the enormous amount of waste that is currently within the private health insurance industry. The estimate is about $400 billion a year in administrative costs, in billing, in profits, in CEO compensation, in advertising--all of those things which have nothing to do with the provision of healthcare..."

Single-payer health care would not only cut the endemic waste in our current for-profit health care system, but it would provide true coverage for all citizens regardless of income level. In addition, it could provide economic benefits to stimulate the broader economy. According to a study by the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association, switching to a single-payer system would:

1. Create 2,613,495 million new permanent good-paying jobs (slightly exceeding the number of jobs lost in 2008) -- and jobs that are not easily shipped overseas

2. Boost the economy with $317 billion in increased business and public revenues

3. Add $100 billion in employee compensation

4. Infuse public budgets with $44 billion in new tax revenues

Health care costs are one of the major debts weighing down the auto companies, driving them steadily toward bankruptcy, and a reason that cars built in Japan--or Canada--are cheaper than those built in the US. As Morton Mintz wrote in The Nation in 2004, single-payer health care would be good for business as well. But most importantly, it would be a system that could focus on health care, not health insurance.

Senator Sanders and a few other visionary progressives in Congress are continuing to fight for single-payer health care. They need your help. Please sign Sanders' petition urging Congress to pass a bill that would provide "quality, comprehensive health care for all Americans" and tell your elected reps you expect them to do the same.

Comments (137)

1. PETER...it is NOT going to be "single-payer"...not for a long time.

   Posted by Mask at 06/19/2009 @ 1:42pm

2. Ms Jaffe, you are clearly a caring person. Who in the world wouldn't want "quality, comprehensive health care for all Americans"?

   But how can you believe that the Federal Government and the 111th Congress (you know, the folks who gave $trillions to Wall Street without oversight, and continue conducting wars of choice, uninterrupted on two fronts) yeah, them, how can you believe they can deliver the noble goal of "quality, comprehensive health care for all Americans"?????

   My hope is that caring people like you could see that government IS the problem in the health care system, not the solution. But for some reason I'll never comprehend, you appear to believe in politicians over freedom.

   C'est la vie.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 06/19/2009 @ 1:51pm

3. I'd rather have the govt give health care a go than to continue paying boatloads of my premiums to insurance company executives:

   Ron Williams – Aetna – Total Compensation: $24,300,112.

   H. Edward Hanway – CIGNA – Total Compensation: $12,236,740.

   Angela Braly – WellPoint – Total Compensation: $9,844,212.

   Dale Wolf – Coventry Health Care – Total Compensation: $9,047,469.

   Michael Neidorff – Centene – Total Compensation: $8,774,483.

   James Carlson – AMERIGROUP – Total Compensation: $5,292,546.

   Michael McCallister – Humana – Total Compensation: $4,764,309.

   Jay Gellert – Health Net – Total Compensation: $4,425,355.

   Richard Barasch – Universal American – Total Compensation: $3,503,702.

   Stephen Hemsley – UnitedHealth Group – Total Compensation: $3,241,042.

   So glad I have CIGNA. Makes me proud to know that this putz has more money rolling around in the armrest of his Bentley than I make in a year.

   No govt bureacrat makes this much $$. And the insurance bastards get paid better the more claims they deny. You get the behavior you incentivize.

   Thanks, I'll take my chances on the non profit government.

   Posted by VEH at 06/19/2009 @ 2:14pm

4. Peter Rothberg quotes Sarah Jaffe quoting a study showing how single-payer will "...Create 2,613,495 million new permanent good-paying jobs..."

   Now, I make typos also, but I am not lib and do not go around and postulate how hyper-intelligent I am and how stupid and ignorant those who are not lib are, which is what a lot of libs do.

   So I do not consider myself a hypocrite when I point out stupid typos by libs who are on sanctimonious bandwagons trying to turn our country into Socialist Utopia.

   I mention this because 2,613,495 million would acutally be 2,613,495,000,000.

   So, even though there are only a bit over 300,000,000 (300 million) people in the United States, single payer will create 2,613,495,000,000 new jobs.....and not just jobs, but permanent good paying jobs!!!!

   WOW!!!

   Posted by sjchermak at 06/19/2009 @ 2:21pm

5. With another push for socialist health care comes another posting by me of articles which argue effectively that it is not the way to go.

   The Nation will keep pushing for socialist health care, so I will have to keep submitting these links as well:

   Man goes to Buffalo for life-saving treatment By Sonja Puzic , The Windsor Star June 17, 2009 http://www.windsorstar.com/goes+Buffalo+life+saving+treatment/ 1702800/story.html

   45 Million Americans' -- Who Are Those Guys? By Larry Elder http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder061809.php3

   Why Isn't Government Health Care the Answer? By David Gratzer http://freemarketcure.com/whynotgovhc.php Sweden's Government Health Care by Walter E. Williams http://townhall.com/columnists/ WalterEWilliams/2009/03/04/swedens_government_health_care

   Posted by sjchermak at 06/19/2009 @ 2:25pm

6. JAFFE: ".....the enormous amount of waste that is currently within the private health insurance industry. The estimate is about $400 billion a year in administrative costs, in billing, in profits, in CEO compensation, in advertising--all of those things which have nothing to do with the provision of healthcare..."

   Let's say there are $400 billion a year of "waste", what is the estimated number of jobs--doing administration, billing, profits that support stockholders, etc.--that are supported by said "waste".

   For Jaffe to further claim:

   "2. Boost the economy with $317 billion in increased business and public revenues"

   is ludicrous.....eliminating $400 billion and adding back $317 billion....do the math!

   She goes on:

   "3. Add $100 billion in employee compensation"

   But where is the deduction in employee compensation from the elimination of the $400 billion of "waste"?

   And last, most stupid of all, she said:

   "4. Infuse public budgets with $44 billion in new tax revenues"

   Like, spending the $400 billion--which in her intern mind, obviously generated ZERO tax revenues--on single-payer system can generate $44 billion in NEW tax revenues. right!

   Posted by Happy at 06/19/2009 @ 2:34pm

7. I agree with Mask - single payer-healthcare will not arrive in the US.

   However, a public option is absolutely necessary if we are to stop the corporate greed currently infesting the insurance companies and healthcare system. People spend years paying premiums, only to have their policies rescinded when they actually get sick. God forbid the insurance companies should actually have to PAY on a premium.

   For profit healthcare is the ultimate ripoff of the American people, and it's amazing to me that so many conservatives come down on the side of the insurance industry, who rip them off as much as they do the rest of us.

   We have approximately 40 million Americans who don't have access to affordable insurance. In crisis, (or for a cough) they stuff up the emergency rooms across the country, forcing the rest of us to pay for those "emergency" services with higher and higher premiums (and shut down emergency rooms), which hurts various industries across the land, because companies have to provide insurance to their employees, because they don't pay their employees enough to afford it on their own! Do you see how cyclical (in a bad way) the system is set up to run?

   Finally, the funniest and most ironic aspect of all of this is that every single member of the Congress receives public healthcare. They have AMAZING healthcare plans and don't pay a dime for it (taxpayers do). Why aren't the American citizens (Mr. and Mrs. Joe Schmo) good enough to have what Congress has?

   Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/19/2009 @ 2:42pm

8. "My hope is that caring people like you could see that government IS the problem in the health care system, not the solution"

   if we start with the presumption that the government cannot do anything right, then we'll never have a single payer system.

   we already have a public health plan in this country. and it's working for millions of people.

   based on your ontology, should we tell these people, "sorry, you're on your own"?

   what exactly are you opposed to?

   and tell us, dear freiheit, why should i trust private insurers any more than the government insurers? especially when they have ADMITTED to denying care to millions of people because they would LOSE money.

   is that the sort of country you want? or do you actually love your country, freiheit?

   Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 2:56pm

9. you appear to believe in politicians over freedom.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 06/19/2009 @ 1:51pm

   freedom's great if you remove the "dom".

   freedom leads to many opportunities for greed.

   somalia is the freest nation on earth.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2009 @ 2:58pm

10. Stephen_Carver1,

    You say "....We have approximately 40 million Americans who don't have access to affordable insurance...."

    So, you didn't check my link in my 2:25 pm post above, did you?

    For the 2nd time on this thread:

    45 Million Americans' -- Who Are Those Guys? By Larry Elder http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder061809.php3

    YOU LIBS ARE DEDICATED TO YOUR CAUSE (or causes, I guess) and you just will not back off!! No matter what the facts are.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/19/2009 @ 2:59pm

11. Posted by sjchermak at 06/19/2009 @ 2:21pm

    stop wasting electrons.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2009 @ 3:00pm

12. We have approximately 40 million Americans who don't have access to affordable insurance. In crisis, (or for a cough) they stuff up the emergency rooms across the country, forcing the rest of us to pay for those "emergency" services with higher and higher premiums (and shut down emergency rooms), which hurts various industries across the land, because companies have to provide insurance to their employees, because they don't pay their employees enough to afford it on their own! Do you see how cyclical (in a bad way) the system is set up to run?

    Finally, the funniest and most ironic aspect of all of this is that every single member of the Congress receives public healthcare. They have AMAZING healthcare plans and don't pay a dime for it (taxpayers do). Why aren't the American citizens (Mr. and Mrs. Joe Schmo) good enough to have what Congress has?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/19/2009 @ 2:42pm

    There are a number of misstatements here.

    1. I have seen no data that shows that the number of uninsured is due to lack of access to affordable healthcare.

    Most of the good data shows that about 20 million are in transition and thus the makeup of that number is always changing.

    We have 11-20 million illegal aliens in the country and they make up at least 25% of the number.

    You have a smaller number around 5 million who are either young adults who aren't concerned about the issue or older adults like myself who do not use doctors or health insurance.

    2. I don't know where you get that employers have some obligation to make sure that their employers either are provided healthcare or "make enough to afford health insurance". This is a personal responsibility and not the business of employers unless they choose to do so.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 3:09pm

13. As Senator Bernie Sanders said in an interview with The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel:

    "The estimate is about $400 billion a year in administrative costs, in billing, in profits, in CEO compensation, in advertising--all of those things which have nothing to do with the provision of healthcare..."

    Just think...

    "The estimate is about $_(b)___ billion a year in administrative costs, in billing, in profits, in CEO compensation, in advertising--all of those things which have nothing to do with the provision of __(a)____..."

    All you have to do is pick an area (a), and pick a number (b) and you have the socialist agenda! For examples of (a), you can have housing, transportation, food, clothing, construction, publishing, banking, and on and on. This Sanders is a clever fellow!

    Posted by sntauri at 06/19/2009 @ 3:13pm

14. antisocialist and sjchermak want to debate the number of americans who don't have health care.

    ok. 10 million. no. 5 million.

    is that an argument against a public option (which, mind you, already exists)?

    what exactly IS your argument against the public plan, antisocialist, other than it would "cost too much"?

    clearly, if you are opposed to high costs, then the iraq war must have driven you batshit crazy.

    and in fact, ronald reagan must have REALLY pissed your off, given the deficits he left us.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 3:16pm

15. shall we just call this thread "conservatives new-found concern for saving federal money"?

    whenever it involves costly, imperial misadventures, conservatives are cheerleaders.

    but when any discussion of relatively affordable (and moral) health care comes up, they suddenly become so very deeply concerned about the costs.

    (nevermind the moral imperative of providing life saving health care to people who can't afford it, those people don't matter)

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 3:19pm

16. sntauri, how do YOU, an an american, save more, and spend less, with a private-only health care system?

    tell us exactly why and how.

    i really want to know what the numbers are here.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 3:20pm

17. frosty zoom,

    What do you think about the guy in your town who has to go to Buffalo to get a treatement also available in Detroit, and that it isn't available at all in Windsor?

    Or don't you subscribe to the print edition of the Star, or go to their web page, and don't know about this?

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/19/2009 @ 3:20pm

18. because, you see, the WHO rates us #38 in terms of health care. we are behind cuba, a communist country.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 3:21pm

19. "What do you think about the guy in your town who has to go to Buffalo to get a treatement also available in Detroit, and that it isn't available at all in Windsor?"

    yeah, the one guy, and one time in his life.

    but for most of his life, he was going to the canadian hospital, like most canadians.

    show me the numbers of canadians who REGULARLY visit american hospitals.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 3:24pm

20. we already have a public health plan in this country. and it's working for millions of people.

    what exactly are you opposed to?

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 2:56pm

    Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupting the country. These programs are a financial disaster.

    The programs currently are underfunded by over 2 Trillion a year and expected to deficit over 4 trillion a year beginning next year.

    <Medicare Will Consume Almost All Income Taxes by 2075

    Trustee for Social Security, Medicare testifies before Senate Budget Committee Feb. 18, 2005 – While America is focused on the debate over how to keep Social Security solvent, a public Trustee of Social Security and Medicare is telling the Senate Budget Committee that Medicare will consume nearly all of the government's revenue from income taxes after 2075.

    The transfers required to pay current law benefits given current law taxes and premiums will grow from their current level to almost 19 percent of Federal income taxes in 2015, to over 32 percent in 2025, and will require over 90 percent of projected federal income tax revenues by 2075!>

    http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/5-02-18AllTaxes.htm

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 3:42pm

21. I'll repeat this every time the Nation pushes Sgl Payer. This would be disasterous for the US and it's citizens.

    We must continue to pressure Congress not to take this bankrupting and socialist approach to an issue that is a matter for states, indivduals, and families to address.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 3:50pm

22. Darla,

    I am against a government sheltered health care cartel, that's all. Looking at how Social Security and Medicare have been handled by the Federal government, I'm not encouraged that universal care will actually be universal, or even care.

    In a free market (which we don't currently have, by the way) we as consumers have leverage over providers. With competition comes innovation and ultimately efficiency and cost control (lower prices).

    In a government mandate scenario there is supressed incentive and little innovation. There are no cost savings, or customer service incentives, because the consequences of competition no longer exist.

    I don't believe health care is a right. I guess you do. Hey, whatever. I'll look forward with you to that day when "quality, comprehensive health care for all Americans" is a reality! Put Barney Frank in charge!!! :-)

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/19/2009 @ 3:52pm

23. everytime a conservative wonders why medicare and medicaid are bankrupting the country.......they never, ever wonder why tax increases might be necessary to pay for it.

    everything else is getting more expensive (rent, gasoline, food, etc), but they simply can't have tax increases to pay for increases in health care.

    but, hey, two imperial wars in two far-off countries? hundreds of military bases around the globe? a bloated military-industrial-prison complex?

    sign me up!

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 4:43pm

24. "Looking at how Social Security and Medicare have been handled by the Federal governmen"

    you touch my parents' social security, and they're done with. ask them how it works, eh?

    do you actually want to take away their social security?

    do you really love america, freiheit, or just yourself?

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 4:44pm

25. a core conservative principle: each individual is on his or her own. if for whatever reason an individual needs help, he or she cannot rely on anyone but himself or herself. the government does not exist to help people.

    if that is what freiheit and antisocialist believe, then i guess when something really bad happens to them in their lives, they won't need any help, and shouldn't ever ask for help IN ANY SITUATION.

    sounds odd for a christian (larry), doesn't it? leaving people to fend for themselves?

    sounds very, very unchristian.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 4:48pm

26. so let's get this straight, the government wants to lower health care costs for people who otherwise cannot afford health care.

    and conservatives are opposed to this because they FEAR that what this really means is......

    socialized medicine.

    even though we already have socialized medicine.

    and even if we didn't already have socialized medicine, they are opposed to it anyway, because doing so would mean that.......

    government is trying to help people who can't help themselves.

    and since conservatives hate government, this is so very, very bad for america.

    because anytime the government actually helps people, this is bad for america.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 4:53pm

27. Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 4:44pm

    Darla, you and I share the same goals. I want everyone to have optimal health care coverage, just like you.

    Just because I believe there is a better, or different way to reach those goals, you immediately, as usual, claim I'm therefore against what we clearly both believe is right.

    Darla, my stating my opinion that socialization of health care would be a disaster is not equal to a claim I'm against health care for all. My claim that social security and medicare are nothing but government ponzi schemes does not mean I think they should be abolished - or, my God, stripped from those dependent on them. Where do you come up with that libel?

    I just think they could be run better. That there is a better way.

    What is the matter with you? I don't think your methods will achieve desired results, but I don't question your compassion or integrity at all. Why do you insist on questioning mine?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/19/2009 @ 5:07pm

28. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 3:50pm </i>

    First off, it isn't socialist. Insurance, by definition, is not socialist because it does not involve control over the means of production.

    Second, your analysis seems solid, but there's one little rub...what countries in Europe are being bankrupted? After all, their coverage is far larger than our mere Medicare; they cover ALL citizens. Since there's no widespread denials of coverage that I'm aware of, why aren't they bankrupt right now, even more than we're supposedly projected to be in 2067?

    This isn't a mockery, btw, it's a serious question; the theoretical arguments seem solid but the empirical reality doesn't quite seem to fit them.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/19/2009 @ 5:07pm

29. freiheit, please, tell us what "method" we should adopt to make sure everyone is covered?

    "Darla, my stating my opinion that socialization of health care would be a disaster is not equal to a claim I'm against health care for all"

    so you are opposed to universal coverage because it would be a "disaster" despite the fact that you have no empirical basis to make that claim, as thrawn states.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 5:13pm

30. Snowball666,

    Single payer will have a government plan available. This plan will be cheaper than plans from other insurers. Eventually people will be choosing the government plan to the point that private insurers will be forced out of the market.

    Then the government plan will be the only plan, and we will be on the way to all government, all the time, on health care.

    You are correct, neither you nor other libs have said this.

    Libs do not always admit what the ultimate goals or objectives are, or do not understand what the consequences of their actions will be.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/19/2009 @ 5:17pm

31. Snowball666,

    Single payer will have a government plan available. This plan will be cheaper than plans from other insurers. Eventually people will be choosing the government plan to the point that private insurers will be forced out of the market.

    Then the government plan will be the only plan, and we will be on the way to all government, all the time, on health care.

    You are correct, neither you nor other libs have said this.

    Libs do not always admit what the ultimate goals or objectives are, or do not understand what the consequences of their actions will be.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/19/2009 @ 5:17pm

32. "I just think they could be run better. That there is a better way."

    but that "better way" can never, ever mean more government. certainly the "free market" can make sure that everyone is covered. because the "free market" is so very deeply concerned with the health and well-being of all americans (as judged by the 40 million without coverage; as judged by the extremely high obesity levels, diabetes, heart disease; as judged by the amount of people bankrupted by terminal diseases; as judge by the egregious costs of health insurance for even very healthy people; as judged by the denial of treatment to people with pre-existing conditions such as.......allergies!).

    indeed, the american health care system is the finest on the planet!

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 5:17pm

33. "Eventually people will be choosing the government plan to the point that private insurers will be forced out of the market"

    isn't that the essence of the "free market"? or are you not a believer in competition?

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 5:19pm

34. let's see: leave the government out of the equation, and let's continue down the path of unaffordable health insurance for all americans (even while our congressional figures get awesome public plans).

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 5:21pm

35. Does anyone commenting work in healthcare? I do, and have for 20 years. Stop by a local ER some evening and see what kind of emergent cases are sitting there--ear infections, stubbed toes, knee pain that a person has had for 3 weeks and all of the sudden it's an emergency? This is also part of the problem that nobody had mentioned. A person who sports fake fingernails, piercings and the latest and greatest cell phone and on medicaid could certainly afford a co-pay for their medical visits like people with commercial insurance. I call the medicaid card the "Healthcare for Free card". This means people who have it can come in waving it and get treatment for EVERY little ache and pain they may have. I believe we must have some type of public program. However, the people who are privileged enough to receive this must use the resources wisely.

    Posted by Laffincrow at 06/19/2009 @ 5:33pm

36. Posted by VEH at 06/19/2009 @ 2:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    very nice work. keep 'em coming

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 5:35pm

37. Posted by Thrawn at 06/19/2009 @ 5:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    good one.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 5:48pm

38. Posted by Laffincrow at 06/19/2009 @ 5:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    this is pretty phony. in the real world the triage nurse would have those people wait for ten, twenty hours.

    the solution is to make it possible for these unfortunate people, you have heard of compassion, to regularly see a doctor.

    why will no one admit that single payer works spectacularly well in many, many countries.that is why none of these countries have abandoned this model.

    funny, those countries seem to be able to afford covering not only citizens, but also residents and, gasp, even strangers traveling in their country.

    get a grip, people.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 5:53pm

39. a core conservative principle: each individual is on his or her own. if for whatever reason an individual needs help, he or she cannot rely on anyone but himself or herself. the government does not exist to help people.

    if that is what freiheit and antisocialist believe, then i guess when something really bad happens to them in their lives, they won't need any help, and shouldn't ever ask for help IN ANY SITUATION.

    sounds odd for a christian (larry), doesn't it? leaving people to fend for themselves?

    sounds very, very unchristian.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 4:48pm

    Absolutely correct, the GOVT DOES NOT EXIST TO HELP PEOPLE.

    The purpose of our Federal govt was to limit it's impact on people's lives. The constitution was designed as a limiting document on govt., not an expansive one.

    It is unchristian to depend on govt rather than friends and family.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 5:58pm

40. "It is unchristian to depend on govt rather than friends and family."

    antisocialist: the embodiment of a christian fraud.

    "The purpose of our Federal govt was to limit it's impact on people's lives"

    oh, really? that's the "purpose" of the government?

    show me, in writing, where it says precisely that?

    antisocialist: the embodiment of a christian fraud.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 6:07pm

41. i guess when antisocialist needs ANY help from the government (roads paved, fires put out, garbage taken away, streets cleaned, crimes solved), then he won't need it.

    oh, and seeing as he's a "christian," i guess we should make sure his church isn't tax-exempt.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 6:08pm

42. oh, and if antisocialist's own mother should ever fall gravely ill (god bless her soul), and cannot afford treatment, then she's on her own, too.

    hey antisocialist, if you aren't holed up in some underground compound, and function entirely off the electricity grid, the post office grid, water mains, etc....

    then you are the perfect embodiment of a hypocrite.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 6:10pm

43. First off, it isn't socialist. Insurance, by definition, is not socialist because it does not involve control over the means of production.

    Second, your analysis seems solid, but there's one little rub...what countries in Europe are being bankrupted? After all, their coverage is far larger than our mere Medicare; they cover ALL citizens. Since there's no widespread denials of coverage that I'm aware of, why aren't they bankrupt right now, even more than we're supposedly projected to be in 2067?

    This isn't a mockery, btw, it's a serious question; the theoretical arguments seem solid but the empirical reality doesn't quite seem to fit them.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/19/2009 @ 5:07pm

    Indeed it is socialist and the why answers your question on Europe.

    Socialized medicine in Europe involves a great number of govt controls.

    1. limits on pay for doctors and nurses.

    2. limits on what amts to be paid for services to hospitals.

    3. The US is the most advanced nation in the world in advanced risk care for cases that would otherwise be terminal. One of the largest costs to our healthcare system is what we spend on care to either extend the lives of terminal patients.

    And to your last, because of their tax system. However, some countries like England are experiencing strains on their budgets because of climbing healthcare costs.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 6:17pm

44. We need publicly owned single payer health insurance right now. I'm not even asking that private primary health coverage should be illegal like it is in many nations. Maybe I should.

    Posted by Milhaus at 06/19/2009 @ 6:29pm

45. thrawn is correct. antisocialist is incorrect.

    since the US government doesn't own the means of production buttressing the healthcare industry, we cannot have a socialized healthcare system.

    and just because the government regulates the industry (to a certain degree) also doesn't make it socialist.

    antisocialist, is it the job of government to regulate industry?

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 6:38pm

46. what antisocialist considers "socialism":

    "1. limits on pay for doctors and nurses.

    2. limits on what amts to be paid for services to hospitals."

    antisocialist's handle should read "anti-reality"

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 6:40pm

47. Hey darladoon,

    You stated and asked:

    ""The purpose of our Federal govt was to limit it's impact on people's lives"

    oh, really? that's the "purpose" of the government?

    show me, in writing, where it says precisely that? "

    Here you go, Darladoon (I pasted it at the end of this post).....in case you haven't seen it, this is from the U.S. Constitution. I point that out because the Constitution you are probably familiar with is Algore's Living Breathing Version.

    Also....don't forget too....it is also about what the Constitution does not say.....if you read the U.S. Constitution, you really do not see a whole lot there. It really is not a big or lengthy document....and if something is not there......then it is NOT the responsibility of the federal government.....you can see from reading the Constitution that since it does not stipulate a whole lot to be the responsibility of the federal government, that essentially is limiting the impact of government on people's lives.

    Now, in the constitution you are familiar with, Algore's Living Breathing Version, the federal government has total and complete power, I guess. That seems to be the constitution that Obama plans to go by.

    Here is an example: All libs KNOW that a woman has a constitutional right to choose.

    That of course is in Algore's Living Breathing Verison, but go find that in the U.S. Constitution!

    ===============

    Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/19/2009 @ 7:04pm

48. <"The purpose of our Federal govt was to limit it's impact on people's lives"

    oh, really? that's the "purpose" of the government?

    show me, in writing, where it says precisely that?

    antisocialist: the embodiment of a christian fraud.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 6:07pm>

    "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

    Patrick Henry

    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

    James Madison

    "We have strayed a great distance from our Founding Fathers' vision of America. They regarded the central government's responsibility as that of providing national security, protecting our democratic freedoms, and limiting the government's intrusion in our lives -- in sum, the protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They never envisioned vast agencies in Washington telling our farmers what to plant, our teachers what to teach, our industries what to build. The Constitution they wrote established sovereign states, not mere administrative districts for the federal government. They believed in keeping government as close as possible to the people."

    Ronald Reagan

    "The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people."

    Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 7:25pm

49. and just because the government regulates the industry (to a certain degree) also doesn't make it socialist.

    antisocialist, is it the job of government to regulate industry?

    Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 6:38pm

    The only regulation that article 1, section 8 provides is a) to ensure the free movement of people, goods, and services between the various states; b)regulating the import of goods, people, and services to the states; c)regulating the coin and mint, securities, patents; thus the banks, securities and bonds, and patents.

    Any other regulation of industries is left to the states by the 10th amendment.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 7:29pm

50. Darla, You are so full of hate it doesn't seem possible to reason with you. I feel sorry for you.

    Maybe someday you'll get your wish of a government that takes care of yours and my health care needs, without rationing, without excessive overhead, quotas, corruption and inequality.

    We simply disagree about this kind of service being a government capability, or even the role of government. If I believed it were possible, I'd be for it. Heck, FREE health care entitlements for all sounds great to me too.

    It will be interesting to watch and see what happens. Frankly, our little rants here don't make a bit of difference. (especially yours ;-) Power will get its way, even if we are deceived into perceiving the opposite.

    Have a great weekend. I'll be taking a 200 mile ride on my bicycle. You gonna sit around eating pot?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/19/2009 @ 7:32pm

51. Posted by snowball666 at 06/19/2009 @ 7:30pm

    not at all. I spent approx 20 years in the defense industry and all military contracts are limited to 2 years or less precisely because of the Constitutional limits.

    that's also why we have annual budgets for the military.

    It has nothing to do with limiting the size of the military. The military must be large enough to make the nation secure, no matter what it takes.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 7:33pm

52. snowball666,

    Dueling links.....here are a couple for you to review.....it's kind of depressing after one reads these to know that people (libs) want the same here:

    Long wait times in ERs only the tip of health-care problems: doctors By Shannon Montgomery – Jun 8, 2009 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gp4O13TW2yYVEm9EDlMPMRk1LBmg

    The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care David Gratzer

    Socialized medicine has meant rationed care and lack of innovation. Small wonder Canadians are looking to the market.

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/19/2009 @ 7:39pm

53. Many here brag about the French UHC system so let's look

    <To make all this affordable, France reimburses its doctors at a far lower rate than U.S. physicians would accept. However, French doctors don't have to pay back their crushing student loans because medical school is paid for by the state, and malpractice insurance premiums are a tiny fraction of the $55,000 a year and up that many U.S. doctors pay. That $55,000 equals the average yearly net income for French doctors, a third of what their American counterparts earn. Then again, the French government pays two-thirds of the social security tax for most French physicians--a tax that's typically 40% of income.

    Specialists who have spent at least four years practicing in a hospital are free to charge what they want, and some charge upwards of $675 for a single consultation. But American-style compensation is rare. "There is an unspoken and undefined limit to what you can charge," says Dr. Paul Benfredj, a gastroenterologist in Paris.

    Many French doctors, in fact, earn more by increasing their patient load, or by prescribing more diagnostic tests and procedures--a technique, also popular in the U.S., that inflates health-care costs. So far France has been able to hold down the burden on patients through a combination of price controls and increased government spending, but the latter effort has led to higher taxes for both employers and workers. In 1990, 7% of health-care expenditures were financed out of general revenue taxes, and the rest came from mandatory payroll taxes. By 2003, the general revenue figure had grown to 40%, and it's still not enough. The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits since 1985 and has ballooned to $13.5 billion.>

    http://tinyurl.com/6osbgq

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 7:40pm

54. and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

    Bush2 had no right to order torture of prisoners and certainly no right to declare anyone an enemy combatant. only congress has the right to determine how prisoners be treated.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 7:43pm

55. And why is it that we believe we can set up democracies in the ME, but we're somehow incapable of managing healthcare...it's the same government right?

    Posted by snowball666 at 06/19/2009 @ 7:37pm

    Because we've proven that the Post Office, AMTRAK, MEDICARE, to name a few of the largest programs are unable to operate in the black.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 7:44pm

56. I have to admit that I get a sort of perverse laugh out of listening to Darla advocate for socialized medicine. Here is a woman makes a living by bartering her (ahem) "medicine" for food, shelter, etc. She essentially has removed herself from the American tax-payer roles. Then she carries on about creating a tax-payer-funded health care system so that she has a place to go for health care. It's people like her that explains why so many people are dead set against this.

    Posted by plainbruce at 06/19/2009 @ 8:01pm

57. Posted by plainbruce at 06/19/2009 @ 8:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Darla on the other hand doesn't pretend to be something she isn't, like you Herr Scheindoktor.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 8:04pm

58. Second, your analysis seems solid, but there's one little rub...what countries in Europe are being bankrupted? After all, their coverage is far larger than our mere Medicare; they cover ALL citizens. Since there's no widespread denials of coverage that I'm aware of, why aren't they bankrupt right now, even more than we're supposedly projected to be in 2067?

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/19/2009 @ 5:07pm

    Actually, Canada, Britain, and France are all running billion dollar deficits.

    Posted by plainbruce at 06/19/2009 @ 8:16pm

59. Actually, Canada, Britain, and France are all running billion dollar deficits. Posted by plainbruce at 06/19/2009 @ 8:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    and the US is running trillion dollar deficits. so?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 8:21pm

60. Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 8:21pm

    I was answering Thrawn's question. Try to keep up.

    Posted by plainbruce at 06/19/2009 @ 8:30pm

61. running deficits is not the same as bankruptcy. try to keep up, you phony doc.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 8:38pm

62. Second, your analysis seems solid, but there's one little rub...what countries in Europe are being bankrupted? After all, their coverage is far larger than our mere Medicare; they cover ALL citizens. Since there's no widespread denials of coverage that I'm aware of, why aren't they bankrupt right now, even more than we're supposedly projected to be in 2067?

    running deficits is nothing at all like bankruptcy. else the US would be bankrupt.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 8:41pm

63. If you would like to help pressure Congress to pass single payer health care please join our voting bloc at: http://www.votingbloc.org/Health_Bloc.php

    Posted by pontesisto at 06/19/2009 @ 9:09pm

64. I have private health insurance. My provider ultimately approves or disapproves my doctors request for treatment. My provider warned me of a list of reasons they could potentially reject me. We pay significantly more maternity coverage. In addition to premiums, we pay a hefty deductible, and co-pays, and that doesn't include dental or vision care. And when the doctor wants to file claims, they send them to one national insurance provider to authorize appointments and then my primary one to pay the appointments. If I fail to pay my portion of the bill within a couple of billing cycles, I will get calls from collection agencies. So great I get to choose this, and people are worried about single payer government health insurance plan? I'll gladly trade in premiums, co-pays, and high deductibles for a bump in taxes. It's still probably be less than what I shell out.

    Posted by 4wrdthnkndad at 06/19/2009 @ 9:13pm

65. The military must be large enough to make the nation secure, no matter what it takes.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 7:33pm

    especially bankruptcy.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2009 @ 9:15pm

66. Actually, Canada, Britain, and France are all running billion dollar deficits.

    Posted by plainbruce at 06/19/2009 @ 8:16pm

    yeah, for the first time in a while.

    thanks for cutting the gst, viceroy harper.

    i save my $4.32 yearly and the country goes into a deficit.

    stupid "conservatives".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2009 @ 9:18pm

67. running deficits is nothing at all like bankruptcy. else the US would be bankrupt.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 8:41pm

    printer ben to the rescue!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2009 @ 9:20pm

68. I was disappointed to see Katrina vanden Heuvel on Friday's Ed Show on MSNBC arguing against single payer. On the day it was revealed that the Obama administration called in congressional leaders to explain why the CBO had determined that the congressional public option plan would only insure about a third of the 50 million U.S. citizens without health care coverage. vanden Heuvel contradicted Ed's advocacy for stronger congressional action. She scolded him saying while she is for single payer "that's not going to happen". This was a missed opportunity to point out that the phrase "public option" is undefined and could be manipulated to mean almost anything. H.R. 676 is serious legislation with 83 co-sponsors. It would insure all as do all other developed nations and it provides the funds necessary to do so. The Republicans and conservative Democrats don't have to explain why they are against it because people like vanden Heuvel find it necessary to do it for them.

    The Iowa Democratic Party Platform calls for single payer. Iowa nominated Obama against all odds, and we have equality in marriage in Iowa. There is no more important human rights issue than joining Canada and the rest of the developed world in providing free health care to all. The odds may be against it, but this isn't about who wants to say "I told you so" about a negative outcome. It's about an opportunity to educate the public about a complex issue. It's possible that the path to the best possible public option is to advocate for single payer. We've faced the "No we can't" argument before. It is possible to defeat cynicism with sufficient determination. A successful bargain cannot be reached by starting the negotiations at the end point

    Posted by tomslockett at 06/19/2009 @ 9:40pm

69. running deficits is not the same as bankruptcy.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 8:38pm

    Did I say it was?

    Posted by plainbruce at 06/19/2009 @ 9:59pm

70. Actually, Canada, Britain, and France are all running billion dollar deficits. Posted by plainbruce at 06/19/2009 @ 8:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    then this was a non sequitur.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 10:39pm

71. they're running deficits, we're running deficits. they have better health care, and we don't. their deficits are certainly not because of their single payer health care.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 10:54pm

72. <i>Posted by snowball666 at 06/19/2009 @ 7:30pm </i>

    It gets even more interesting than that, actually. Look at the distinct wording difference between these two listed purposes:

    <<To RAISE AND SUPPORT armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years>>

    <<To PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN a navy>>

    Isn't that interesting? "Raise and support" armies but "provide and maintain" a navy. Almost suggests that the Founders never meant to set up a permanent army, doesn't it? You provide and maintain something that's meant to be enduring; you raise and support something that's meant to come into being as specific circumstances require.

    So, to ANTI: Whatever the Founders meant, they certainly did NOT mean to generate an entity that would operate completely without public scrutiny; why is fastidious limitation acceptable for every operation of government except the military? Given that a state's army, the branch that is both responsible for killing other human beings and that is empirically (in every country that has ever existed) susceptible to corruption, should be the branch LEAST reigned in? Put differently, why would concerns about government overreach in the bureaucratic sphere not apply in spades when it came to the branch which asked brave men and women to kill others and to put their own lives on the line? And why would those who believe in a loving God not want to take every measure to ensure that the military kills only when it is absolutely necessary that it do so?

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/20/2009 @ 12:46am

73. D.O.A. thread!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/20/2009 @ 01:04am

74. Posted by Thrawn at 06/20/2009 @ 12:46am

    Keep this up & you'll stand alongside Mask in confuting anti's ceaseless antagonisms in a very (sure he hates this word) humanitarian manner.

    Godless-Unconstitutional-Marxist. His variations on these themes are becoming thinner & more transparently boring.

    Keep up the good work.

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/20/2009 @ 01:48am

75. The Republican's talking point re: govt. provided healthcare was some claptrap about a "Washington bureaucrat coming between you and your doctor..."

    The response should be...

    The present system could result in an official from bankruptcy court coming between you and your home, literally.

    And, as far as that red herring claim that a Canadian had to go to Buffalo for treatent...

    How many citizens of the US go out of the country for medical care?

    How many US citizen's suffer because their insurance refused to cover a proceedure?

    Posted by koroviev at 06/20/2009 @ 02:45am

76. Dr. David Gratzer is a tool for the medical industrial complex. He belongs to the Manhattan Institute, a think tank funded by the insurance and tobacco companies. He spews out lies and distorts statistics to protect the crooks who pay him! 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical costs and 50% of those people had health insurance. The insurance companies are useless middlemen that leech off the system and spend billions of dollars in denying healthcare.

    Posted by antigop at 06/20/2009 @ 07:41am

77. Posted by Thrawn at 06/20/2009 @ 12:46am | ignore this person | warn this person

    it is quite clear that the idea of a standing army was anathema to the founding fathers, happy father's day guys.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 08:19am

78. then this was a non sequitur.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 10:39pm

    A nonsequitur? I was unaware. However, since I'm the kind of guy that is always willing to learn something new, I anxiously await your explanation of how exceeding one's budget is completely unrelated to bankruptcy.

    Posted by plainbruce at 06/20/2009 @ 08:23am

79. <i>Posted by plainbruce at 06/20/2009 @ 08:23am </i>

    I think the real point was that your response was non-responsive. My argument was that universalized Medicare doesn't seem to have put European countries in the kind of bankruptcy that critics' arguments would entail. Budget deficits, though not irrelevant, are nowhere near bankruptcy. Budget deficits that are less than a thousandth of ours only seem to bolster the empirical claim rather than defeating it.

    So again...if Medicare is bankrupting our economy, how is it that universalized Medicare hasn't driven European economies into the toilet?

    Anti tries to say that they do so by limiting care. This isn't quite sufficient, though; unless their care is so limited that it's no larger in scope than Medicare is in our country, limitations simply can't account for the lack of economic devastation. Anti has also never answered why insurance companies don't have a strong motive to also deny care whenever they can find an excuse to do so.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/20/2009 @ 08:41am

80. it is the insurance companies that are limiting care in this country.

    they are driven by the profit motive. the perceptive post about their executive salaries, shows how this distorts the idea and the reality of medical care.

    we don't expect the army or the police to make a profit, which by the way what happens when these functions are outsourced. that is one of the reasons the two hopeless wars are so expensive.

    when Thrawn, whose posts seem to get better everyday,stated that the european countries which offer gov't health insurance for everyone, not just gov't employees and their families, are NOT bankrupt, as some ass asserted, it is irrelevant that they run deficits, since our deficits are ten to a hundred times as large. so in this discussion, that is a non sequitur.

    it is a tactic the cons use all the time in discussion when confronted with facts.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 09:10am

81. a third of the money received by primary care physicians pays for the interactions between a doctor's practice and patient's health plans.

    we suspected as much.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 09:47am

82. when I hear talk of limiting and curtailing "entitlements", I say let's start with congress' entitlements. then we move on to CEO entitlements, ending up perhaps to corporation's entitlements.

    after that we can take something away from grandma and grandpa.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 10:23am

83. " Here is a woman makes a living by bartering her (ahem) "medicine" for food, shelter, etc. She essentially has removed herself from the American tax-payer roles. Then she carries on about creating a tax-payer-funded health care system so that she has a place to go for health care"

    none of the above is true. and i already have a place to go for healthcare, with or without a "taxpayer funded" system. thank you. goodbye.

    as for the others: thrawn and emile have effectively dismantled all of the oppositions' arguments.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/20/2009 @ 10:33am

84. What I don't understand is why supporters of single-payer provide little to zero information on how it actually will be financed. An example. People get all emotional about health care executive pay, pharmaceutical company profits, marketing, overhead, etc. So how much is this out of the approximately $2.4 trillion that is spent in the US on healthcare today. Do you think it is $300B, $600B, or a $1 trillion? The cost of covering the 47 million who are uninsured today is what? At least $300 billion perhaps. If single payer is to ever get any traction, then its proponents need to get beyond the 6 o'clock news sob stories and anecdotes and put a real plan together. Speaking of real plans, anyone have any idea what Congress is up to? Are you so sure that what is being written is what you think you want? Who is actually writing it? Is it a bunch of Congressional staffers, or is Teddy himself taking quill and ink bottle to parchment?

    Posted by sntauri at 06/20/2009 @ 10:41am

85. "If single payer is to ever get any traction, then its proponents need to get beyond the 6 o'clock news "

    gee i wonder why they can't get beyond the news? (as if they've even done that).

    Posted by darladoon at 06/20/2009 @ 10:52am

86. The current proposal for the single payer plan is HR676. Have you seen anyone explain HR676 in any detail? If you go to HR676.org you can donate money after an emotional appeal and a description of how great the world will be. HR676 says almost nothing except that 1) the gov't will set all the prices and pay all the bills, 2) the gov't will spend what is determined to be necessary, 3) the gov't will impose new taxes as required to generate the determined expenditures, 4) savings will be generated because the gov't is efficient. Sounds like all that is needed is a million patient march to get the folks inside the beltway all stoked up!

    Posted by sntauri at 06/20/2009 @ 11:03am

87. sntauri, what specifically is the problem with HR676? that it won't generate profits?

    if you have a problem with non-profitable health insurance, then you must have a really serious problem with the perpetually non-profitable US Military.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/20/2009 @ 11:08am

88. 4) savings will be generated because the gov't is efficient

    savings will be generated because of the economy of scale, and a single entity handling the insurance of all americans.

    let's go for an example. the army has many units, armor, aviation, infantry, etc. now imagine each of these being a separate branch of the service, with widely different structures rules, and even haircuts. each one would have to separately go before congress to ask for funding. in a war each of them is responsible to get there on their own. get's pretty expensive and unmanageable don't it?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:10am

89. sntauri

    you are right to ask these questions. the current moves in congress must be scrutinized.

    us armchair pundits speak in more general terms, both pro and con. we do however have considerable experience as consumers of health care.

    is the gov't most efficient? no.

    are the private insurance companies efficient? efficient for whom? the shareholders? us consumers?

    they are not efficient for the consumers. vast sums are diverted from actual medical services to satisfy greedy CEOS AND greedy shareholders.

    when this great deal of money is redirected to actual health care, this includes money the insurers spend on lobbying the gov't, more care for more people will be possible.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:20am

90. Posted by Thrawn at 06/20/2009 @ 08:41am

    I only have a little time before my wife gets home and vacation begins. :)

    First it's disingenuous to speak of bankruptcy in relation to the government. They don't exactly play by the same rules as businesses and individuals. When expenditures exceed revenue, they simply ignore the results and keep spending. If any of us tried to carry that type of debt burden, we would be thrown in prison. So really, the only way to speak about this is in terms of deficits. Despite liberals' attempts to sweep them under the rug, deficits, large ones, do exist in socialized systems. Further, they pretend that there is an unlimited supply of cash (in the form of higher taxes) to covr it.

    When deficits do occur in health care, government can handle them in three ways: decrease payment to providers and hospitals, limit services, or increase taxes (or premiums). These are all the same options that exist for insurance companies and HMOs. However, liberals never complain when government has to do these things, only insurance. That's when the cries of "profit motives" come raining down. Insurance companies have the added ability to adjust premiums based on risk.

    Now before some accuse me of defending HMOs and insurance companies, I'm not a fan of them, either. However, Medicare is just another HMO albeit with a hell of a lot more power, the power to increase taxes on Ho-ho if they so desire. That's frightening. And it's none of their business if I enjoy the occasional Ho-ho.

    Lastly, I have always been a proponent of limiting all third-party involvement as much as possible. The oft-used example being we don't charge our car insurance for oil changes, so why do we do it for health care.

    Posted by plainbruce at 06/20/2009 @ 11:23am

91. the power to increase taxes on Ho-ho if they so desire. That's frightening. And it's none of their business if I enjoy the occasional Ho-ho.

    no not frightening, it is untrue. the gov't is restrained by us voters. we are in charge of who works for us. we have no such power over insurance companies. the hoho thing is just a crock.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:30am

92. enjoy the vacation Herr Scheindoktor. I hope you have arranged coverage for your patients.hahahahahaha

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:31am

93. cont.

    Much of the basic and preventive care that could be provided could be done for much less without any third-party invovlement. I have given examples before: the cost of plastic surgery, LASIK, and vasectomies have all decreased in real dollars over the last twenty years despite advances in technology. What do they all have in common? They are completely out-of-pocket. There are doctors all around the country that accept no insurance/medicare at all and are able to see patients for an annual check-up for $45. That's about a 1/3 or 1/4 what we charge for the same. Lab tests are a fraction of the usual cost as well. This is where ED and I agree: third party invovlement increases prices. Where he and I disagree is the cost of governemtn involvement. Someone before had posted that Medicare increases costs 30% compared to 50% for HMOs (number might be a little off). Point being they BOTH increase costs. Prices will come down with LESS interference; that includes government.

    And before ED chimes in, I am NOT advocating NO involvement by government, but a limited role for those who truly can't afford it. For those patients there should be subsidies from government (for lack of a better term) to cover the TOTAL price; not short-changing the reimbursement as they do now. (As an aside, this is also a reason for the increasing premiums of insurance. They have to cover the shortfall created by medicare/medicaid. That rarely gets mentioned by liberals in this whole discussion).

    Posted by plainbruce at 06/20/2009 @ 11:35am

94. Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:30am

    You do realize that OUR representatives are in discussions now about increasing fees on soft drinks and snacks that THEY deem inappropriate.

    Posted by plainbruce at 06/20/2009 @ 11:37am

95. Sorry about the above rambling posts, but I'm trying to get it out before the lady of the house returns. There are some blanks, but hopefully the main idea gets across.

    Posted by plainbruce at 06/20/2009 @ 11:38am

96. enjoy the vacation Herr Scheindoktor. I hope you have arranged coverage for your patients.hahahahahaha

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:31am

    My partners have it covered, but thank you for your concern.

    Posted by plainbruce at 06/20/2009 @ 11:39am

97. Posted by plainbruce at 06/20/2009 @ 11:37am | ignore this person | warn this person

    yes, the jungle drums have been loud on that subject. we've done it with cigs and booze

    . my point remains. we don't like those rules we can throw them out. as we did the repugs recently.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:41am

98. Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:41am

    Ironically, if you want to decrease or eliminate taxes on such things, you will likely have to vote IN conservatives.

    Have a good day. Vacation starts

    NOW!

    Woo-hoo!!!

    Posted by plainbruce at 06/20/2009 @ 12:06pm

99. who said I would wish to do so?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 12:10pm

100. Please read former FCC Commissioner Nicholas Johnson's recent blog entitled Universal Single-Payer a Necessity Now: http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/

     Posted by tomslockett at 06/20/2009 @ 12:14pm

101. "However, liberals never complain when government has to do these things, only insurance"

     that's a convenient excuse.

     oh, and about increasing costs on soft drinks?

     who cares?

     Posted by darladoon at 06/20/2009 @ 12:25pm

102. Anti tries to say that they do so by limiting care. This isn't quite sufficient, though; unless their care is so limited that it's no larger in scope than Medicare is in our country, limitations simply can't account for the lack of economic devastation. Anti has also never answered why insurance companies don't have a strong motive to also deny care whenever they can find an excuse to do so.

     Posted by Thrawn at 06/20/2009 @ 08:41am

     that was only part of the answer I gave.

     You ignored that the example of France that I gave, Doctors make about 1/3 of what Doctors earn here.

     Malpractice insurance averages 55k here and is only a fraction of that in France (55k being the average salary of a doctor in France).

     And costs are beginning to drive France into bankruptcy. <In 1990, 7% of health-care expenditures were financed out of general revenue taxes, and the rest came from mandatory payroll taxes. By 2003, the general revenue figure had grown to 40%, and it's still not enough>

     Much like Medicare is doing to the US. they project that within 40 years, Medicare will consume all tax revenue. Where do you think a UHC plan will take us. It looks like even low income wage earners will have to pay 60-70% in taxes just to keep the system afloat. Middle income people will be at 90%.

     that may be an acceptable world for you, but not what I want for my grandchildren. Thankfully, I won't be around to see it.

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/20/2009 @ 3:24pm

103. veh left us with some interesting figures that show the outlandish compensations paid to these champions of the best medical system in the world. I have some news for the senators that would be the first to jump up and proclaim, "We have the best health care system in the world." You are wrong senators. You and your friends have the best health care system in the world. For the large part, the working citizens have squat.

     The rewards for corporate greed don't stop at the CEO's either. Every time we have to pay an outlandish out of pocket expense for an overcharged hospital visit, keep this in mind. Some of that overcharge goes into the pockets of those very congressmen who swore they would help out country in this time of need. If you need an explicit example of this, then look no further than senator Max Baucus of Montana. Follow the money, see who donated to his campaign. We are at a critical point in our history. Some of the politicians who campaigned for fair and honest change are going to remember in the history books for their actions and not their words.

     Posted by center-left at 06/20/2009 @ 5:45pm

104. And I still don't see where the 1.45% (or 2.9% for Anti and myself) income tax becomes 60-90%. It will need to be upped to account for the graying of our population, but not to the hyperbolic degree our dear rev would have us believe.

     Posted by snowball666 at 06/20/2009 @ 6:30pm

     <Thus, the total Medicare debt is a staggering $61.6 trillion. Let me put this number in perspective for you.

     Assuming that federal income tax revenues remain at the 50 year average ... the Medicare debt of $61.6 trillion is 62 percent of all future federal income tax receipts.

     Thus, if Congress passed legislation today, binding on all future Congresses, setting aside 62 percent of all federal income tax revenues from now to eternity, you could just pay for promised Medicare benefits.

     The transfers required to pay current law benefits given current law taxes and premiums will grow from their current level to almost 19 percent of Federal income taxes in 2015, to over 32 percent in 2025, and will require over 90 percent of projected federal income tax revenues by 2075!>

     http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/5-02-18AllTaxes.htm

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-uVw7iXDAk

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/20/2009 @ 7:39pm

105. Neocons are always turning inside out over this.

     Private sector good, public sector bad. Yawn!

     So Blackwater is better than the US Army?

     UPS better than UPS?

     Aetna better than Medicaid?

     Profit hospital better than the VA?

     Always and forever, Amen! It's idiot. Doctors, procedures, medicines, everything would still be positively subject to the market - most effective techniques, imaging technologies, surgical interventions, pharmaceuticals, etc., would still compete based as they are now, albeit very imperfectly, to be the most efficacious. Moreover, single payer would reduce some of the AMA-Big Pharma grip on everything by virtue of reducing their lobbying power.

     Posted by winyahn at 06/20/2009 @ 8:21pm

106. USPS

     Posted by winyahn at 06/20/2009 @ 8:22pm

107. The neocons are always railing about how the Post Office is a model of govt. inefficiency and UPS or FED-EX generates profit blah, blah, blah...

     It's not a realistic comparison because neither UPS or FED-EX gives the same service on such a huge scale at US postage rates.

     It's the same old ruse, take a good worthwhile government program and portray it as wasteful. (See Jindal and volcanoes)

     And, talk about waste...The Pentagon has the worst reputation for wasting taxpayer money.

     Posted by koroviev at 06/20/2009 @ 11:21pm

108. "And, talk about waste...The Pentagon has the worst reputation for wasting taxpayer money."

     Fair enough and I agree, let's use this great example - the Pentagon - to illustrate the danger of government monopolies.

     ----------- Emile, who has me on ignore, wrote, "the gov't is restrained by us voters. we are in charge of who works for us. we have no such power over insurance companies. the hoho thing is just a crock."

     Really? We're in control over the government, but powerless against the insurance companies - the same companies OUR GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE REGULATING?

     [Sigh] George Will sums up this whole subject well in his latest column.

     Have a wonderful weekend all.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 06/21/2009 @ 01:33am

109. The problem with healthcare in this country is the disconnect between the MDs and patients that has been created by managed care (HMOs). Before managed care, there was no problem with being uninsured one would pay cash to their doc. Medicare and medicaid filled in the gaps appropriately. In my opinion, we need to return to catrostophic insurance coverage if our financial situation warrants. The idea that some unknown beauracrat can dole out healthcare effeciently and fairly is ludicris, it's never happened before and I will not put faith in it happening ever. As for the posters who argue for government-sponsored healthcare by pointing out other government failures (like the military), your points have little or no merit. Please don't get me wrong as I am neither dem or rep and consider both to be the same really. I firmly believe this issue is really another power-grab for the power elite of this country. One more step towards total control of our daily lives. "1984" is past but in actuality it is looming on the horizon.

     Posted by liberty4all at 06/21/2009 @ 12:00pm

110. Posted by freiheit1 at 06/21/2009 @ 01:33am

     Emile's comment sounds may have been more of a declaration of 'what should be' per the founding ideals, and less of 'what is'. I say this because s/he's generally very grounded in reality, IMHO.

     Posted by liberty4all at 06/21/2009 @ 12:00pm

     What's your opinion on the VA system? Think Medicare is worse than HMO's?

     Posted by winyahn at 06/21/2009 @ 6:47pm

111. snowball666,

     I just came across another one for you.

     Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits

     By DAVID GRATZER | Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:30 PM PT http://www.ibdeditorials.com /IBDArticles.aspx? id=299282509335931&kw=Castonguay

     Posted by sjchermak at 06/21/2009 @ 7:40pm

112. Thanks wingyahn. Emile is actually someone I'm quite fond of and has given me a great deal to think about in the past years. He grossly misunderstood a post of mine over a year ago and cut me off completely. Eternal ignore. I too used to think he was grounded in reality.

     What I find really interesting in this debate is how we all have actually the same goal. An environment of coverage where everyone can afford health care. Like food, which isn't a right, by the way, but a personal responsibility, health care should be readily available and not out of reach of all income groups.

     Sorry, I just don't trust the Federal Government to provide that. The motivations of business people are obvious and predictable. shareholder value and devious elimination of competition :-). Politicians' incentives are less transparent and have little to do with "the people".

     Business people without the force of govn't backing them are helpless against consumers.

     Liberals have told me for years the vast majority of americans are against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I actually want to agree. So, why are our troops still there? Because politicians are doing our bidding?

     Posted by freiheit1 at 06/21/2009 @ 8:08pm

113. no possible medical breakthroughs can ever happen with a socialized medical system:

     "A Canadian-led research team has discovered where the AIDS virus hides in the human body, work the scientists say could lead to a new way to treat the disease and perhaps even a chance to eradicate it.

     Doctors can't cure patients with HIV-AIDS. The anti-viral drugs used to subdue the wily human immunodeficiency virus and limit the damage it inflicts on the immune system don't completely clear it from the body.

     There are hiding places– HIV reservoirs – where the small numbers of virus lay low, ready to launch an attack. Until now, scientists didn't know where these safe havens were, but the possibilities included the brain or the kidneys.

     In a paper published in the journal Nature Medicine, The University of Montreal's Rafick-Pierre Sékaly and his colleagues report that HIV finds refuge in a type of long-lived immune system cell."

     Posted by frosty zoom at 06/21/2009 @ 9:59pm

114. snowball666,

     You say ".....Lemme know when you've got a different link (you did a Gratzer article the other day) from someone who isn't a paid stooge for a lobby. ...."

     Comment rejected....that is just the standard stuff.....that is similar to the same stuff that the global warming proponents say about any scientist who disagrees with their concepts ("So and so scientist is being paid by Corporate America, is just a mouthpiece for Exxon Mobil, etc etc etc").

     So your argument didn't fly....instead...try telling me why it is OK for Sweden to tell somebody they can not buy a medicine with money out of their own pocket....try and tell me why a gross violation of freedom is OK, and tell me why we should slough off the possibility that we would be headed for the same kind of thing happening in this country some day, by allowing Obama to get the ball rolling on this march towards socialized medicine.

     Tell me why representatives in Congress should not vote against and veto any and all legislative attempts that would start us down this path.

     Posted by sjchermak at 06/22/2009 @ 07:28am

115. "...that is similar to the same stuff that the global warming proponents say about any scientist who disagrees with their concepts ("So and so scientist is being paid by Corporate America, is just a mouthpiece for Exxon Mobil, etc etc etc")." ---------------Posted by sjchermak at 06/22/2009 @ 07:28am |

     No...of course not...it's just a....coincidence, that conservative think tanks who were the strongest opponents of the idea of GW, like the Competittive Enterprise Institute ...

     got $700,000 from Exxon.

     Totally unrelated.

     Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 08:12am

116. HR676

     (a) IN GENERAL.--All individuals residing in the United States (including any territory of the United States) are covered under the USNHC Program entitling

     (VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:13 Jan 27, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H676.IH H676 jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS 4 •HR 676 IH)

     them to a universal, best quality standard of care Each such individual shall receive a card with a unique number in the mail. An individual's social security number shall not be used for purposes of registration under this section.

     So the illegals will be assured of free health care, and won't have to go through the hassle of getting a fake SS number to sign up.

     If health care is a "right", would someone tell us how much and what kinds of health care one has a "right" to? Where is this written down so we can e-mail it to our friends? What law was/is it that codifies this?

     Posted by sntauri at 06/22/2009 @ 08:55am

117. Mask,

     That is fantastic, that the subject of "GW" is unrelated to the thread.

     I already know that, I was simply pointing out that snowball666 was using the same methods in the argument about socialist medicine that other libs employ in global warming debates ----

     which is if a link is posted with an analysis that runs counter to the lib belief, then that link is declared invalid for (fill in the blank) whatever lib supplied reason.

     And it is a common theme that libs will say this or that or whatever is invalid because it is the product of some corporation, etc, or "stooge", or whoever said whatever is being paid off by some other wealthy corporation or wealthy Republican, etc etc.... it goes on and on and on..

     .....and thus the lib is freed from actually having to take issue with the logic in the post, because the post is declared automatically invalid by the lib.

     Besides global warming, and now socialist medicine, it seems I remember libs declaring what the Swift Boat Vets said about John F. Kerry, the war hero, was invalid because their book was financed by a wealthy Republican.

     It is a common theme, just pointing it out.

     Since you felt it necessary to expand upon the discussion, you certainly are aware that with regard to "GW" there are plenty of scientists who have taken issue with the concept of "GW" in it's various ways it is promoted, who are not financed by Conservative think tanks, Exxon Mobil, etc.

     And you of course are aware that not all participants in that UN IPCC that is held up with such great esteem and authority by libs are not pure scientists but other officials that are no doubt biased in favor of your beloved "GW"

     And you know that a lot of leftist "causes" are bankrolled by people like George Soros.

     Posted by sjchermak at 06/22/2009 @ 09:05am

118. Mask,

     I was running up to the word limit again....

     I just wanted to conclude by letting you know that your argument has been REJECTED.

     Thus, my post to snowball666 was relevant...that is why I made it.

     Also, as a result of my post above, I do find it necessary to call a penalty on myself because I did engage in a little bit of SWIFTBOATING and that of course is wrong.

     Swiftboating violation, I am guilty as charged!

     Posted by sjchermak at 06/22/2009 @ 09:08am

119. snowball666,

     You say "...We're not Sweden...or France..or Canada....."

     I know we are not now.... but we will be if a lot of libs get their way.

     Of course, by the time we are Sweden, France and Canada some of those countries will probably have out of necessity gone to market oriented reforms to fix systems that are failing them!

     One of your earlier posts, by the way, was from what appeared to be an advocacy group promoting "single-payer"....so I declare that INVALID.

     You also say I have not provided hard data.....you seem to be looking for poll numbers or something......my posts have included concrete examples of real life situations......people entering the emergency rooms of hospitals in Canada and seeing complete chaos........ambulances with patients in them just waiting around in the UK so that when they finally bring an ill patient to the ER they can be processed in a manner that will meet the NHS requirement.....so the patient is not being dealt with in a timely manner but according to the fine print of the rules the patient is being dealt with!

     People with serious conditions whose care goes awry because of some paperwork mistakes.....mistakes in paperwork that is probably burdensome and excessive and unnecessary to begin with......

     A guy in Sweden who is not allowed to purchase medicine with HIS OWN MONEY!!! In what is supposedly a "free" country!!

     You have no answer for any of this, it is obvious.

     Posted by sjchermak at 06/22/2009 @ 09:16am

120. snowball666,

     Has the person who is 22 and could not get her surgery paid for because she was 26 attempted any kind of review with the insurance company?

     Perhaps the age 26 is a restriction that could be waived if the doctors who decided on the surgery were to make a clear case that she needed this to save her life?

     You offer no information if anything further on that end could have been done or was done.

     You talk about private insurance and paperwork......not taking into consideration that some of that paperwork was created by government requirements to begin with.....and please to not even try to tell me something that would affect people's lives would get as bolexed up by a private firm as it would with government because of paperwork mistakes.

     In the real world (private enterprise) at some point when there are issues you come to a person who has authority and latitude to make decisions......

     In government even "managers" are just paper shufflers in many cases just doing with the "regulations" tell them to do and nothing else.....they would get into trouble othewise....they do not have authority that a manager in the real world would have.......

     I used to work for the government, do not tell me no....don't even try....

     You give government too much credit.... we already are far more of a socialistic type nation than we used to be.....leftist judges make rulings that they have no right to make (because they are effectively making law) according to our Constitution now....

     Roe v. Wade is the worst example of this, even some pro-choice legal experts agree it was bad law......

     But it is reality...you have your head in the sand......

     It's a convenient leftist tactic to declare anyone who warns against this as an "extremist".

     Try again.

     Posted by sjchermak at 06/22/2009 @ 10:02am

121. snowball666,

     The government option, if what is being proposed takes place, i.e., choosing the government insurance plan, will price any private insurance out of the market.

     The government does not have to "compete"... the government is not dependent on successfully gaining a certain amount of market share to make their existence in the market viable, compared to private businesses where financial metrics are the basis around which a business succeeds or fails and is able to gain the capital needed to operate.

     The government plan will inariably be lower priced, more and more people will choose that opition, and ultimately private insurers will be out of the market and it will be totally a governement plan.

     Other approaches than the liberal/democrat approaches discuss assistance to those who need it, towards purchase of insurance in the current system.

     As you know, the "45 million" who don't have coverage has been debunked, once those who can afford insurance and do not purchase it, and those who are illegal aliens and not citizens, etc are removed from the amount the actual amount of those who are excluded from the ability to get insurance becomes a lower number for which assistance would be a better option than changing our system to something that is inferior, and proven to have been elsewhere.

     You talk about admin costs.....are those going to go away because of a government run system....you are delusional if you think they won't.

     I am not going to say that if somebody's claim is denied that it is a trival matter because it does matter....but all through this and the past thread where we have argued this one would come away from looking at your posts with the impression that any serious insurance claim is always denied. You overdo it.

     Posted by sjchermak at 06/22/2009 @ 10:50am

122. Posted by sjchermak at 06/22/2009 @ 09:05am

     Yes, good thing you guys NEVER attack climate change by trying to point out dubious items from its supporters.....like "Algore"?

     Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 10:55am

123. Mask,

     It would be a BAD thing if we NEVER attacked climate change by pointing out dubious items from its supporters .....like Algore.

     Of course, "we" don't have to go out of "our" way to do it, anyway.

     Since that judge in the UK ruled that any school showing students Algore's movie HAS to point out the 9 things in the movie that are wrong.

     Posted by sjchermak at 06/22/2009 @ 11:08am

124. snowball666,

     I repeat again, the government is not a business and will price the government opiton where it will drive the private insurers out of the market.

     There would be no correlation between the price that the government option would be set at for someone to purchase the government insurance, and the amount of resources the goverment would be able or willing to put towards this later on.

     Repeat after me, so you understand "THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS, IT DOES NOT OPERATE LIKE ONE"

     The various effects of all this would not necessarily be in place on day one. You ignore the incremental nature of some of these things.

     You say there will be a market for private insurance. If too many people purchase the government options, then the market goes away.

     With your comeback to my comment that some of the 45 million consists of those who could afford it but do not purchase it, the comeback that they are paying their mortgage... you demonstrated you did not read information in the links I provided.....because the categorization of the people (that could afford it but do not purchase it) in the articles indicates that the group of those people are NOT people for whom their mortgage payment is inhibiting their ability to buy insurance.

     The vouchers and coupons you allude to would be for those who can't afford insurance to buy insurance...you say the vouchers are good for someone like you.......if you could afford it otherwise you wouldn't be getting nor should you be getting a voucher!!!

     Keep coming with it, snowball666....keep trying....throw up your arguments and I will bat them away for you, if you like.

     Posted by sjchermak at 06/22/2009 @ 11:58am

125. Because they're trying to make their mortgage...

     Posted by snowball666 at 06/22/2009 @ 11:16am

     This is a common debating tactic: Making a blanket statement asserting a particular person in a group is representative.

     I read the Larry Elders link Cher posted. Elders did the same thing you did. He mentions a young relative who smokes, drinks, eats out, and lives on his cell phone, but doesn't spend $100 a month on health insurance.

     Elders claims that just under half of the 45 million (I'm guessing 20 million?) are young adults. It is my impression that generally, these people rent and don't have mortgages. I come by this impression from the fact that I have 11 neices and nephews. Three are under 18. Of the remaining eight, the four that are married and/or have kids all have mortgages and health insurance. Three of the four unmarried/no kids have insurance through college. The fourth has no insurance.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/22/2009 @ 12:07pm

126. I should have inlcuded that the one without insurance is always broke because she spends her money on alcohol and just got back from a vacation in Las Vegas.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/22/2009 @ 12:08pm

127. To be completely fair, I should also include that the sister of the one without insurance has insurance, but got sick and had an unexpected $500 bill for her deductable.

     My wife and I gave her $500.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/22/2009 @ 12:11pm

128. a commodity with nearly inflexible demand.

     Posted by snowball666 at 06/22/2009 @ 12:12pm

     This misunderstanding is at the heart of the single payer debate.

     Demand for healthcare is incredibly elastic (not inelastic of inflexible.) This is not true for things like heart, lung, and liver transplants. But these treatments are a tiny fraction of the cost of healthcare.

     Demand is incredibly elastic for pain management; weight loss (bariatric surgery); medical equipment like moterized wheelchairs, sleep apnea devices, hearing aides, glasses/contact lenses; depression medication (including generic vs. newest thing on the market); cholesterol medication (vs. diet); chiropractic services; mental health services (couples councelling?); MRI/CAT scans; smoking cessation aides; etc.

     Single payer is required to develop one standard of "medically necessary" and you are shit out of luck if you don't meet it (and can't drive to the US to purchase it if you wish.)

     Under market-based care, 90% of individuals are allowed to determin for themselves what is medically necessary. I think that is a superior system.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/22/2009 @ 12:25pm

129. Posted by sjchermak at 06/22/2009 @ 11:08am

     I could point 50 things Limbaugh got wrong....and it wouldn't stop you from visting his website "every day", would it?

     Oh, but I'd have to use Media Matters, which would prove it's all "liberal lies"....right?

     Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 12:30pm

130. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/22/2009 @ 12:25pm

     I forgot my favorite example: boner pills! Would you say that the "medical nessessity" for boner pills was easily defined or that the demand as inelastic?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/22/2009 @ 12:45pm

131. Well, if this is the way Europe and Canada do it that's probably enough reason NOT to do it that way. Despite the raucus from Baucus, a system that does not force the providers of the product to reduce its cost can never last. Oh, you'll cover everyone.. that is until your entire economy collapses under the financial weight.

     But then, Buacus probably won't have to worry about that, will he.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/22/2009 @ 2:18pm

132. It's time for single payer healthcare. Private insurers have made it clear they are only interested in covering the healthiest Americans. But how many of us need insurnace for that?

     When we are sick, as people inevitably become, then these companies penalize us with increased premiums, denied coverage, and outrageous deductibles and co-pays. They've made it clear, they want to earn a buck. Go ahead.

     But let the overwhelming majority of Americans get a government health plan. According to the World Health Organization, currently we rank #37, just below Bosnia in healthcare-I believe there is room for improvement.

     Posted by 4wrdthnkndad at 06/22/2009 @ 3:23pm

133. What's your opinion on the VA system? Think Medicare is worse than HMO's?

     Posted by winyahn at 06/21/2009 @ 6:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     The VA system is a total failure, especially wrt mental health care. Medicare is an HMO, just gov run.

     We need to get back to a direct doctor-patient relationship for non-catastophic medicine, no hmo middleman denying care or controlling costs. I trust the doctors tremendously more than an insurance adjuster or a gov beaurocrat. If you have wealth or investments (home) to protect then you would get insurance for catastrophic care, kinda like the difference between full-coverage and liability insurance. State programs would still be required for the exceptionally poor but they will always be needed anyway. I don't want to see anyone denied care but each person should be held responsible for their bills. Every hospital I am aware of will take whatever the debtor can afford to pay even as little as 5$/month, and it's always been this way as most hospitals started as charitable orgs anyway. When I was uninsured I made payments to the hospital and doctors to birth my children, they both worked with me to set up payments I could afford.

     The truth of the matter is we (US) are broke and to expect the federal governement to pay more is unrealistic. If it is as easy as many of the posters here opine then why not have the government provide us all with homes and cars too. It's not that easy, that's why socialistic ideals have always failed before and never can succede. Human nature is similiar to a certain law of physics that says water will take the path of the least resistance, humans will take the path of the least work, this is why socialism breeds laziness and coersion is the end result to enforce the ideals.

     Posted by liberty4all at 06/22/2009 @ 10:47pm

134. Just like in China for the last couple hundred years, socialized system and the culture has been stagnant. It turned capitalistic and now they are going to be the next world superpower, all without imperialism either. Ask an older Russian what they think of government run healthcare, I think we all know the answer without asking.

     One last point, if Canada's system is so great why did my grandfather come to the US to have his gallbladder removed, the 6-8 month wait for an operating room. He told me that having the surgery here was the best 15K he ever spent, that coming from a retired gov employee.

     Posted by liberty4all at 06/22/2009 @ 10:59pm

135. my grandfather... retired gov employee.

     Posted by liberty4all at 06/22/2009 @ 10:59pm

     1- Was he embarrassed to be a government employee?

     2- Did the fact that he was not in the private sector impact his motivation? Did he have pride in his work, or did he slack off and do a lousy job?

     ----------------------------------------------------

     VA Outranks Private Sector in Health Care Patient Satisfaction

     By Donna Miles American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Jan. 20, 2006 – Veterans continued to rate the care they receive through the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system higher than other Americans rate private-sector health care for the sixth consecutive year, a new annual report on customer satisfaction reveals.

     Posted by winyahn at 06/23/2009 @ 10:18pm

136. VA Outranks Private Sector in Health Care Patient Satisfaction

     By Donna Miles American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Jan. 20, 2006 – Veterans continued to rate the care they receive through the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system higher than other Americans rate private-sector health care for the sixth consecutive year, a new annual report on customer satisfaction reveals.

     Posted by winyahn at 06/23/2009 @ 10:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Do you think the author deserves any merit in the truth dept seeing she's a trough feeder also? Gimme a break :-}

     He was a proud retiree of the equivelant of the ATF, but was not about to let 6-8 months of wait ruin his retirement time (if you're not aware, gb problems usually result in severe indigestion and other gastric maladies). And guessing by his pay and retirement bene's I'd assume he was a good employee but don't know for sure since I'm his grandchild and not a coworker.

     Posted by liberty4all at 06/24/2009 @ 4:00pm

137. i've been rallying against government intervention on most things but this must be done, and i'm a health insurance sales rep and business owner, check me out here http://www.echealthinsurance.com I would lose my job and my business but I can't stand seeing people lose their benefits due to the economy which was ruined by intervention and now we r going to have to watch the worst depression ever. check out my blog and collection of articles at http://www.echealthinsurance.com/blog/ my point is as long as the nation is going bankrupt at least let our country have access to necessities. food, medical care, and dwelling. no other program be it the nea or any government establishment is necessary but we do need medical care. its part of the reason we have no other capital as we are spending so much on healthcare. a new plan in miami florida is http://www.dadeblue.com a blue cross plan in florida which is as an experimental new plan.

     Posted by echealth at 06/25/2009 @ 01:43am