Edwards Stands Out On Health Care Debate

Las Vegas

Seven of the Democratic presidential contenders spent all of Saturday morning talking about their health care policies at an union organized forum at UNLV; and while they vowed to provide universal coverage if elected, only John Edwards presented a plan with any significant details.

"One of the reasons that I want to be president of the United States is to make sure that every woman and every person in America gets the same things that we have," Edwards said referring to the announcement last week that his wife Elizabeth will be in cancer treatment the rest of her life.

Edwards was also the only candidate who said that, without doubt, taxes would have to be raised to be pay for the $90-120 billion price tag on his plan for universal coverage. Anybody saying otherwise, he said, is likely trying to sell the voters the "Brooklyn Bridge." Senator Barack Obama didn't rule out raising taxes, saying he would do "whatever it takes" to get universal coverage by the end of his first term but wasn't specific.

Edwards' plan, first unveiled earlier this year, calls for an expansion of both public and private health plans, forces employers to either provide health care or pay into a fund that does, mandates individuals to buy insurance and offers government subsidies for families with incomes of up to $80k who can't afford it.

Hillary Clinton also made a spirited presentation to the hundreds of audience members brought in by forum co-sponsor, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), but she was more vague in how she would achieve universal coverage. She put her emphasis instead on ending the "discrimination" exercised by insurance companies when they exclude or disenroll policyholders. "Every health insurance company will have to insure everybody with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions," she said.

The forum was co-sponsored by the Democratic think tank, the Center for American Progress.

Barack Obama, who has suffered from accusations that he deals too much in platitudes and not enough in concrete offerings, came to the forum surprisingly unarmed with details. He admitted that he has not yet finalized a plan but promises one will be forthcoming, Instead he listed a number of "principles" that would guide him toward covering all Americans. "The basic principles," he said, "are everybody is in it, there has to be more money for prevention, and some form of pooling of costs and risks. If we have another forum in a few months and my plan is still not on my website, I will be in trouble." Obama also strongly suggested that he was the best candidate to provide the missing leadership needed to pass fundamental reform. "Every four years, somebody trots out a health care plan. The question is do we have the political will and sense of urgency to actually get it done. I want to be held accountable to get it done."

Second tier candidates Bill Richardson, Christopher Dodd, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich also made presentations. Richardson said he would pay for coverage by using the billions now spent in Iraq. Kucinich, as he did a month ago when the Democratic candidates met in a Carson City forum, chided all of his competitors for not having sufficient courage and clammed them for not directly confronting insurance companies and for not proposing a single-payer system in which the government would underwrite all health care. He offered no details on how the system would work or how it would be financed. He did tickle the audience and the press, however, with one of the more colorful lines of the day. "You need a president who didn't fall out of Christmas tree," he said. "You need a president who doesn't have a key in the back being wound up by special interests."

SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger along with former Bill Clinton aide and current head of the Center for American Progress John Podesta met with the press after the forum to offer their evaluations. Both were excessively cautious and non-committal praising all of the candidates for now being more specific. When I asked Podesta to be specific about which new specifics he heard he answered only in vague terms. Another high-ranking West Coast SEIU official, speaking to me off the record, said: "If the election were held today, we'd be supporting Edwards. When he comes into town he asks what he can do for us. Hillary asks us what we can do for her."

In 2004, the SEIU was an early endorser of Howard Dean and by the end of the general campaign had put $65 million into pro-Democratic campaigns. "This time around I can tell you it's not going to be less than $65 million," Burger told me, referring to the '08 campaign. SEIU will not, however, endorse a Democratic candidate until this coming September.

Comments (74)

1. "You need a president who didn't fall out of Christmas tree," ...

   Or who didn't choke on a pretzel...

   Or who can ride a bike without falling off...

   Or who can pronounce the word "nuclear"...

   Posted by Lillian at 03/24/2007 @ 9:52pm

2. Does anyone think Edwards would use ANY system that he would want us to use..on his wife?

   Posted by john maasch at 03/25/2007 @ 01:50am

3. We need a president who can do math.

   ..look at the spiraling cost of government today, with Soc. Sec.(oxymoron if there ever was one) ponzi scheme running out of workers, medicaid and medicare costing 100 times what is was designed to do..and now universal health care ...any bets on how much over budget this bureaucratic nightmare is going to cost us?

   I want no part of it...should be an option...if the unions want it, let them pay for it...if the middle class DOESN'T want it after they are shown the math and the history of all the other govt programs...then they shouldn't be stiffed for the bill...

   If me and my family want to "buy" in to the universal program, we should be allowed to do so, but if we choose private coverage, we should be allowed to go private and not be screwed into paying for any other program, especially one designed by people who are trying to get your vote...and as a side point, have no experience in medicine or insurance...a sure recipe for disaster.

   Posted by john maasch at 03/25/2007 @ 02:02am

4. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/25/2007 @ 02:02am

   But having a CIC that has no experience in warfare or balancing any budget works for you.

   Naivety aside, I would take a plan that had 5-7% overhead as opposed to the vaunted private sectors +20% that we have now. Real world example of our "beeyro-cratless" system as it exits: I go to a specialist, I pay a co-pay, then I get a bill for my deductible, then I get a series of bills from the Dr for things that are supposed to be covered by the Insurance agency, after several phone calls and an hour on the phone I begin getting reimbursements, one is for $12.67, then $7.42, then another for $12.67. Then I get another bill for $7.42. More phone calls. Another reimbursement for 2.59. Then another bill for $300, more phone calls. 6 months later, still working to clarify billing for one visit, not to mention the 2 since. Plus my wifes visits. Each time we see a DR we spend at least an hour on the phone with our carrier.

   good thing we have a private system, it is soooooo much more efficient than guvt. The reality is, the US spends more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation. How's dem apples, John? As long as your getting ripped by a private company you are happy?

   Go Edwards.

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2007 @ 05:05am

5. NATION STAFF: how about a story on wether or not Oregons system is working? This trial ranks procedures by efficacy and cost/benefit. It leads to.. (gasp) rationing, which is what we need in some form. Paying out hundreds of thousands to keep Grandma alive for a few more weeks is not a sustainable system.

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2007 @ 05:09am

6. Or, we could bring the troops home (Support our OOPS) and use the money now being spent to kill brown people to cure our own brown people. We know that neo-cons love to borrow and spend, lets spend it here so we don't have to spend it over there. We could do this whole thing "cost plus". Good enough for our troops, good enough for RIO?CPT?MAASCH. Right?

   Even better, lets look at all the un-insured that John Maasch is paying for now anyway. No inefficiency there. Nope, none. Everything is OTAY!.

   Did I mention insurance companies posted RECORD profits last year? Or that people such as former Sen Billl Frist made millions on healthcare? Along with his siblings. Meanwhile good Christians struggle with healthcare debt, it being the SINGLE most common reason a person declares bankruptcy. Who pays the bills the? Why, John Maasch does. Along with me and anybody else that pays a premium for healthcare coverage.

   MAASCH, have you noticed that HUGE companies are forming up behind the universal coverage bandwagon? hmmm, maybe they want more guvt beeyro-crats. YEah, that must be it.

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2007 @ 05:25am

7. Americans encourage spending funds in war and not in health care, strange country, strange philosophy, strange people.

   Posted by areyouok at 03/25/2007 @ 07:07am

8. Edwards plan is not going far enough. The only workable system is a single-payer government-funded systen, using variations of the systems in place in all other industrial democracies. Only Kucinich has the guts to call for a goverment- funded single-payer system. And that is the only way. Every other industrial democracy in the world has a government-funded healthcare system. It works. Politicians (including Democrats) are just afraid to support the only workable system. It would eliminate the health insurance companies. O boo hoo!!!

   Posted by philbq at 03/25/2007 @ 07:44am

9. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/25/2007 @ 01:50am

   Of course not, and that's one of the two alternative nightmare scenarios we have to choose from with Federally-run health care.

   1. A two-tier system, in which the rich and powerful will have their "spas", with no waiting times, quick access to the latest pharmaceuticals, and doctors/nurses/etc who are well-paid and enjoy their work. The rest of us? Well, let's say the E.R. in downtown Detroit on a Saturday night will be paradise in comparison, with docs and nurses looking to escape the "Federal Hospital" ASAP and land themselves a cushy "spa" job.

   2. Taxes raised so high, to cover so many "basic" benefits, that the economy of the 1970s will be paradise in comparison. But which will become unsustainable.

   But hey...it'll be "fair"...atleast for those who are stuck in it!

   Elizabeth Edwards never would be though.

   Sadly, the way the system is so broken...we are DOOMED to an eventual takeover of the health care system by the Fed, there's no escaping it now.

   Posted by Mask at 03/25/2007 @ 08:01am

10. Paying out hundreds of thousands to keep Grandma alive for a few more weeks is not a sustainable system.

    Posted by CRABWALK 03/25/2007 @ 05:09am |

    See, that'll be fun to watch. Nobody wanted that idiot Tom Delay deciding that Terri Schiavo could NOT be taken off life support....but CRAB has no problem with the Government saying when "Grandma" WILL be taken off life support!

    BTW, think ANY politician, even Edwards or Dennis Kucinich will mention THAT in their universal coverage plans???

    Posted by Mask at 03/25/2007 @ 08:04am

11. It seems to me that Edwards is taking a big risk by going into specifics with his health care plan, and it is a risk that could actually pay off. I do think it is worth noting, Mr. Cooper, that Edwards said he would pay for his health care plan by rolling back the tax breaks to the wealthy that Bush pushed through Congress. Reuters made a similar mistake when it posted its headline on his health care plan earlier this year. It's a distinction that needs to be made, because Edwards isn't saying he'll push through a general tax increase as a means of paying for health care, and Republicans will not hesitate to use that failure to distinguish in order to portray Edwards as a tax and spend liberal. We're in a class war in this country right now in which the wealthy have been squeezing the poor and middle classes and getting away with it, largely by fooling the latter economic categories into thinking their taxes would be raised if a Democrat gets into office. The same tactic is used to convince many factory voters that environmentalist policy -- and not corporate greed -- is somehow responsible for layoffs.

    Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/25/2007 @ 09:04am

12. "MAASCH, have you noticed that HUGE companies are forming up behind the universal coverage bandwagon? hmmm, maybe they want more guvt beeyro-crats. YEah, that must be it. "

    CRAB OLD SPORT,

    of course they are lining up behind the plan.. they KNOW the libnuts is Washington will take their health care programs that people like LIZA want them to pay for,...and...will take the responsibility away from corps(private payers, not private health care)and expense AWAY from them(the corps) and put it on the tax payer..look at the airlines...if you like national healthcare and love the post office efficiency with the finacial model of medicare...then you will be a candidate when the next politician come along and take over the pension plan where you work..cause thats next...it isn't fair some don't have a pension.

    The corporations want idiots like Edwards and Kucinich to take over the health care...it then frees up the company so they won't have that on their bottom line...the libs just keep jacking the system to "help" and the fuck all of us...fairly of, course...and the corporations laugh all the way to the post office...and the health care industry? It will fill up with "bee-ro-cats" and will be loaded with govt educated Drs and nurses..straight out of the affirmative action programs in all our universitys, unionized of course, with all the efficiency demand of them as the TSA workers at the airport..

    Your doctor of choice? he will be forced out of practice so all the people who do not want the govt program will have no choice or go to another country, like the Brits and Canadians who are here for the real care now...or if they allow the good doctors to practice private, they will become rich again...for obvious reasons Mask touched on...and as a case in point...Elizabeth Edwards would never be seen in the govt sponsored waiting rooms..but you will be in there long enough for your symtons to worsen, only to find out you were in the wrong line....Edwards and Denny boy are doing this for one thing ...you votes...

    20% of the US economy is what the health care industry represents...Why do you want the US to take a portion of the economy that equeals California...and run it as a govt entity?

    Can you name one program that the govt has run well to use as a model of success to justify the scheme?

    Posted by john maasch at 03/25/2007 @ 10:49am

13. Crab,

    To sit and call all day for $ 12.75 bills is a waste of your time...call your insurance man or another broker, ask for a MSA...medical savings account...the premiunms are lower totally per year than what your are paying now.... but the deducts are larger..however,you pay all out of pocket, ...drugs, eye glasses , foot cremes, everything,dental,..no co pay....deduct my be $ 4,000....but you will be paying LESS on a yearly basis than monthly premiuims, deductions combined that you pay now(not counting fighting for $ 12 refunds)....AND ...at the end of the year you can roll the money in your MSA into next year,follow the same pattern, and your MSA can be treated as an IRA..you can borrow or what ever...all pre tax...check it out and FIRE YOUR HMO OR PPO it is a rigged program designed by, well,...that program is your old buddy, Ted Kennedys creation...wait till he gets your total care...

    Do the math and take the same "bets" the insurance companies take..they have done the math and you(we) haven't....but I have.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/25/2007 @ 10:57am

14. ARCHANGEL OF HEALTH CARE DEATH,

    ". I do think it is worth noting, Mr. Cooper, that Edwards said he would pay for his health care plan by rolling back the tax breaks to the wealthy that Bush pushed through Congress."

    There isn't enough money from the evil rich taxes to pay for this...christ man, there are 300 million of us, not counting illegals and you expect top 1%, or 3 miilion to pay for this? OR TOP 10%? REMEMBER TOP 1% pay 35% of all taxes as it is..

    JUST FOR SHITS AND GIGGLES...DO THE MATH ON THIS ONE.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/25/2007 @ 11:07am

15. masschy

    Your MSA account plan has a major flaw you only need one major med claim (heaven forbid it doesn't require a long term stay in the hospital or a long rehabilitation) to wipe out your account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

    Of course if your one of the now uninsured Americans who can't afford to put funds into an account because you need to feed your family oh well you got yours why should anyone else matter.

    Obviously you don't believe we could help our business's be more competitive in the world market by taking the burden of health care off the table with national health care?

    Edward's plan to rollback gw's & friends BS tax cuts is a great start.

    On March 13 CNBC's Liz Clayborn interviewed Warren Buffet when asked if the tax cuts should be made permanent Mr Buffet replied that he paid less (@15%) on his total gains then his secretary did. That he believed that anyone with wealth who didn't have a good tax shelter manager was a fool and that the tax cuts heavily favored the rich.

    Unfortunately your do the math BS is somewhat limited in actual scope.

    Posted by dycel8r at 03/25/2007 @ 12:26pm

16. Oop's wrong wipidey address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_savings_account

    Don't want to confused with lv?l.

    Posted by dycel8r at 03/25/2007 @ 12:30pm

17. be

    Posted by dycel8r at 03/25/2007 @ 12:31pm

18. Does anyone think Edwards would use ANY system that he would want us to use..on his wife?

    this is the wrong question. edwards has not at any time made the claim that universal health care would demolish class differences. it would merely provide care to those who can't afford it?

    is maasch actually opposed to providing health care to those who can't afford it? if so, he really is living in some sort of warped, morally-depraved bubble.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/25/2007 @ 12:39pm

19. anyone who believes that universal health care will diminish the quality of health care for the well off, is living on pluto. maasch, you have nothing to worry about. just go back to your kiddie porn, dude.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/25/2007 @ 12:43pm

20. here are the facts:

    40% of americans don't have health care. most of these probably can't afford it (plain and simple).

    at what point will this become a serious, long term issue? will we actually lose power and prestige if more and more americans become vulnerable to disease and death?

    it is morally responsible to deny health care to those who need it (no matter what the cost)?

    why do we fund wars and not health care without ever thinking about the costs to society (even when said wars were forged on illegal and false premises)?

    Posted by darladoon at 03/25/2007 @ 12:53pm

21. Your doctor of choice? he will be forced out of practice so all the people who do not want the govt program will have no choice or go to another country-MAASCH

    My doctor left the BC/BS system already. Billing and collection was too much of a nightmare.

    ask for a MSA...medical savings account..-MAASCH

    Guess what, thats what I have!! Ever since, the problems have gotten worse!! Yes, spending time on the phone is a complete waste of time. Dr's offices have people that that is ALL they do. They spend time on the phone, I spend time on the phone, my wife spends time on the phone. It is a giant waste. Because it is full of beeyro-crats! Middlemen.

    sorry, the PPO is an insurance industry thing. Just like the HMO's hat were going to save us. Blame Ted all you want, I hve never had him on the phone for an hour trying to explain a bill with 14 lines for one procedure, with credits, deductibles, off-sets, co-pays, disallowed credits etc etc. It is a crock of Sitmpy.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2007 @ 1:33pm

22. DarlaDoon-Some people just don't care that others don't have insurance as long as they do.My guess is that whatever Maasch does for a living has no social benefit,but people who work in social services do,but typically can't afford insurance which means that such people will be forced to not pursue those jobs in favor of other,less needed occupations.I used to run a group home for developmentally disabled adults.People who worked in this field couldn't afford health insurance,but I had a friend who was delivering pizzas who could afford health insurance.One of our college educated folks quit the group home business in order to deliver pizzas.This is causing more problems than many realize.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/25/2007 @ 1:42pm

23. DarlaDoon-In the group home I mentioned we were training the developmentally disabled to lead more productive lives which included becoming tax payers if the person was functioning on a high enough level,but if maasch has his way then such people will have to be stuck back into tax funded institutions which will raise maaschs taxes.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/25/2007 @ 1:51pm

24. A clarification:

    "Single Payer" is NOT the same as "State Run".

    It means "the Fed. Government is the Payer (of hospital costs)" - docs and hospitals would continue to enjoy complete autonomy, and the free market would determine which would succeed and fail.

    The state would only step into the role that the insurance companies play now, in the process cutting through reams of red tape and wasted money and insurance profiteering. Administrative overhead and wasted time from navigating a system with many payers would become a thing of the past. The system would be more efficient and provide better results for both doctors and patients.

    Posted by maddox at 03/25/2007 @ 2:28pm

25. 'Edwards was also the only candidate who said that, without doubt, taxes would have to be raised to be pay for the $90-120 billion price tag on his plan for universal coverage.'

    Why don't we pay for it by an Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill? Works pretty good for the Republicans and now our fiscally responsible Democrats. Lets let our children, and their children and their children pay for it! Charge to the Treasury credit card. No need to raise taxes. Come on.

    Posted by OneVote at 03/25/2007 @ 2:58pm

26. Those who view this issue from a primarily financial point of view need to remember that one way or another Americans have to pay for those without insurance.Hospitals do treat them in emergencies and pass the cost on to consumers with insurance,those without insurance do develop more serious health care issues due to not having check ups or early prevention and do end up in county or similar type hospitals with more advanced diseases.Those with jobs lose more time from work which costs everybody.Even if you don't care that someone is going to die from colon cancer, rather than live, because they weren't able to get an early prostrate exam just remember that he will cost you more money because he now has an expensive disease to treat and it will be treated despite the fact that hope is pretty much gone.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/25/2007 @ 3:33pm

27. Don't forget that the Government Accounting Office has estimated a present value debt of approximately $450,000 per American household for unfunded government entitlements projected out over approximately 30 years, including social security and medicare. Just how are we going to raise taxes enough to pay all this off? Think of it this way. What is the annual debt service on a $450,000 mortgage with a 30 year amortization? Doesn't leave much (any) money left over for discretionary spending, after you consider housing, food, clothing, etc. Whats going to happen to our economy when taxes are raised so high to pay all this off? Not good.

    Posted by OneVote at 03/25/2007 @ 4:15pm

28. Folks, please keep in mind that if universal health care goes into effect under the Edwards or Kucinich plan, expect a lot of hospitals to close.

    Why? because the bigger the hospital, the bigger the budget and level one trauma centers cost the most. Also, many have huge research facilities attached to them as well.

    So can anyone do the math on this one? Let's see, a workable budget will include the maintenance of the facilities, adequate staffing (nurses, doctors of all specialties, technicians, housekeeping, food prep, etc.), surgical supplies, pharma supplies, first aid supplies, linens, medical equipment (CAT Scans, MRI, X-ray, EEG/EKG machines, etc.), computers (not to mention constant upgrades), grounds maintenance, parking, housing for nursing and student physicians, lab supplies, C02, backup generators, phone system and paging system, beds, wheelchairs, etc. And this is just a fraction of what my hospital needs.

    So, the way I see the scenario is, either the gov't will force large hospitals to scale back on their budgets, or small to mid size facilities will be forced to merge with larger ones, which may mean you have to travel greater distances to see a physician.

    Is that a sacrifice you're willing to make?

    Posted by ACook at 03/25/2007 @ 4:33pm

29. "Your MSA account plan has a major flaw you only need one major med claim (heaven forbid it doesn't require a long term stay in the hospital or a long rehabilitation) to wipe out your account"

    Mine does.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/25/2007 @ 6:59pm

30. "Unfortunately your do the math BS is somewhat limited in actual scope.

    Posted by DYCEL8R 03/25/2007 @ 12:26pm | ignore this person

    Actually , your math is....

    Buffets,Kennedy,Edwards,Clintons,Obamas,Kerrys,Bush,Rockefellers...all pay less percentages due to the TYPE of taxes they pay...they are not W-2 or 1099..they are capital gained in most areas or defered..it makes a huge diference

    the people yopu will hit the most , despite the repeal of the of the increase in taxes from last years take on the rich, are the middle class that they(politicians) say they are helping..

    so,...

    the poor who have nothing, will pay nothing,..

    the rich, who will not have taxable income enough to cover the cost, will pay more...for the health care they will never use..

    leaving who else to pay for the balance?..whether they use or want the health care you will design?..the middle class..

    Yikes...take a poll of the middle class and ask them and see if they are willing to add another pay roll deduction to their check..for care in the post office or TSA model..

    for your plan to cover everybody...

    Posted by john maasch at 03/25/2007 @ 7:10pm

31. Crab,

    " I hve never had him on the phone for an hour trying to explain a bill with 14 lines for one procedure, with credits, deductibles, off-sets, co-pays, disallowed credits etc etc. It is a crock of Sitmpy.

    Posted by CRABWALK 03/25/2007

    just imagine how many forms and phone calls you will need whrn the govt takes over..it will be cheaper and less painful to die.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/25/2007 @ 7:14pm

32. I would have you take into concideration that Mr. Edwards had more time to come up with a proposal. The other candidates do have to address other concerns on a day to day basis. I would take that into concideration.

    Posted by vwcat at 03/25/2007 @ 8:59pm

33. I know this is probably an outrageous concept to those Maaschs of the world, but how bout instead of hiking taxes to rape the middle class a little more, we simply draw funds from any of the hundreds of bloated bureacracies currently polluting the american political landscape.

    Sayyyyyy....the military? I bet you could trip over $150 billion when looking at our military spending. You neocons all squawk at the thought of $150 billion dollars to help sick KIDS and people who aren't lucky enough to afford appropriate health care, but when George Bush brings the defecit to biblical proportions, chasing after muslim boogeymen, all you can do is smile and say "well it's wartime after all."

    Posted by MADLIB 03/25/2007 @ 8:39pm

    This is probably not an argument you want to make, because it undercuts, at the very least, any advocacy of a single-payer system. Unless you're actually suggesting that the military is a bloated bureaucracy just because it's the military (which is a little silly), your argument actually seems to be working from the premise that government programs have a tendency to be inefficient, particularly when they're supported with large amounts of money.

    The reason this is problematic is because the implication of that premise is that a single-payer health care system will create the exact same bureaucratic mess that you describe. If I'm right, in other words, my response functions as what might in jargon be referred to as a "link-turn"; buying your premise actually links you into a position that attacks universal health-care rather than supporting it.

    Posted by Thrawn at 03/25/2007 @ 10:24pm

34. "One of the reasons that I want to be president of the United States is to make sure that every woman and every person in America gets the same things that we have," Edwards said

    Cool. Thanks, John. I'll think I'll have one of those 28,000 square foot auditoriums that you live in.

    Idiot.

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

    Does this sound to anyone like what Hillary said when BJ Clinton was having his heart surgery? "Oh, we just feel so fortunate to have health insurance and just wish that everyone else did, too." Smells of political opportunism. Maybe all those talking heads were right when they said Edwards would use his wife's condition to boost his campaign.

    Posted by usc1 at 03/25/2007 @ 11:57pm

35. Posted by MASK 03/25/2007 @ 08:04am

    I'm glad you caught this. Crab is already deciding who lives and who dies. It also implies that he is determining who is worth saving.

    Posted by usc1 at 03/26/2007 @ 12:01am

36. Actually, it's worse than that. He wants government to decide who is worth saving.

    And with Darla once stating it's "un-American" to have more than one child, she apparently would let government decide who can have children and how many.

    And they say Republicans are fascist.

    Posted by usc1 at 03/26/2007 @ 12:08am

37. And before I go, let's not forget who we have to blame for this wonderful system you folks love to complain about. It was hmmm...lemme see...oh yes...YOURSELVES!!! Shall we quote Teddy boy one more time? Ok, for old times sake.

    "On March 3, 1978, Senator Edward Kennedy bragged, 'As the author of the first HMO bill ever to pass the Senate, I find this spreading support for HMOs truly gratifying. Just a few years ago, proponents of health maintenance organizations faced bitter opposition from organized medicine.' He added, 'HMOs have proven themselves again and again to be effective and efficient mechanisms for delivering health care of the highest quality. HMOs cut hospital utilization by an average of 20 to 25 percent compared to the fee-for-service sector.'

    I wonder if it will take you guys another 30 years to realize how bad your current idea is.

    Posted by usc1 at 03/26/2007 @ 12:25am

38. Edwards' plan, first unveiled earlier this year, calls for an expansion of both public and private health plans, forces employers to either provide health care or pay into a fund that does

    FORCES??!? So much for freedom. So let that be a lesson to all you businesses out there. If you ever, EVER offer another benefit to an employee, then government will assume that that benefit is actually a RIGHT, and FORCE you to provide it.

    Posted by usc1 at 03/26/2007 @ 12:32am

39. MAD, "we simply draw funds from any of the hundreds of bloated bureacracies currently polluting the american political landscape.

    Sayyyyyy....the military? I bet you could trip over $150 billion when looking at our military spending."

    We all know the libs want to cut the military every time they look at cuts...military is what, 19% of the budget and "entitlements" are 56 % or so...think there is any "bloated bureacracies currently polluting" in any of these gems of efficiency...and you want to give the govt ANOTHER 20% of our economy over to them?..in light of your statement the military is a waste?

    Think this over a little more and re read USC!...

    Posted by john maasch at 03/26/2007 @ 12:54am

40. ISRAEL DEMANDS US NUCLEAR ATTACK ON IRAN - DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS COMPLY

    http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1888.shtml

    Mar 26, 2007, 01:02

    WASHINGTON DC, -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly "Argumenty Nedeli." Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.

    The attack is slated to last for 12 hours, according to Uglanov, from 4 am until 4 pm local time. Friday is the sabbath in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

    Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: "I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran."

    Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill that would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and from Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.

    Posted by plunger at 03/26/2007 @ 05:30am

41. Nancy Pelosi Speech to American Israel Public Affairs Committee;

    Text of Remarks http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47885

    5/24/2005 12:11:00 PM

    WASHINGTON, May 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee at their 2005 Policy Conference last night. Pelosi discussed the relationship between the United States and Israel and the continued effort for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Below are her remarks:

    "Thank you, Amy Friedkin, my dear friend for so many years. Californians, North and South, are proud of your great leadership at AIPAC. And to Bernice Manocherian, President of AIPAC, thank you. All who care about peace in the Middle East are grateful for your strength and wisdom in guiding AIPAC. As a native of Baltimore, I take special pride of your incoming President, Howard Friedman, who will continue in the tradition of outstanding leadership at AIPAC.

    "I also want to acknowledge all of the students who are here. It is great to see so many young people taking such an interest in public affairs, especially on one of the critical issues of our time: peace in the Middle East. This spring, I was in Israel as part of a congressional trip that also took us to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. One of the most powerful experiences was taking a helicopter toward Gaza, over the path of the security fence. We set down in a field that belonged to a local kibbutz. It was a cool but sunny day, and the field was starting to bloom with mustard. Mustard is a crop that grows in California, and it felt at that moment as if I were home.

    "And then we were told that the reason we had to land in that field, as opposed to our actual destination, was because there had been an infiltration that morning, and they weren't sure how secure the area was. And that point alone brought us back to the daily reality of Israel: even moments of peace and beauty are haunted by the specter of violence.

    "While in Israel, we met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Vice Premier Shimon Perez. From them and from other leaders, we heard something I had not heard in a long time: cautious optimism. This was an attitude quite different from the one that confronted us when I spoke to AIPAC two years ago.

    "One thing, however is unchanged: America's commitment to the safety and security of the State of Israel is unwavering. America and Israel share an unbreakable bond: in peace and war; and in prosperity and in hardship.

    "Prime Minister Sharon's leadership of Israel at this crucial time has been remarkable. He has brought Israel through an extremely challenging period, and now he has made the difficult decision that it is in Israel's national security interest to disengage from Gaza.

    "In the next few months, Israeli settlers will be evacuated entirely from Gaza and from four settlements in the northern West Bank. This courageous decision is gut-wrenching for Israel.

    "Israel's decision can be a decisive milestone on the road to peace. If the Palestinians agree to coordinate with Israel on the evacuation, establish the rule of law, and demonstrate a capacity to govern, the world may be convinced that finally there is a real partner for peace.

    "Any progress on the Roadmap for Peace must be based on real change on the ground, as evidenced by the establishment of an accountable, and reconstituted Palestinian security force that prevents terrorism, not promotes it.

    "Fortunately, Palestinian Authority President Abbas is no Yasir Arafat. He has condemned terrorism in Arabic, stating that it prolongs the day that the Palestinian goal of statehood can be achieved, and, at least as significant, stating that terrorism is immoral. He has begun to restructure the security services. All that is commendable.

    "But he has not removed Arafat's corrupt cronies from positions of power, nor has he moved to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. That is, I am sorry to say, cause for concern. President Abbas has said his goal is to establish the rule of law, but he has done nowhere near enough to realize that vision, and now he is confronted with a huge challenge: by the end of summer, Israel will be out of Gaza.

    "Can Gaza become a pilot case for self-government for a Palestinian state? Or will it become a terrorist haven, a launching pad for rockets into Israel? President Abbas must act, for his own good, against those he must know are his enemies and are the enemies of the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

    "The United States, just as Israel, wants to see him succeed. That is why I was so pleased when President Bush dispatched Jim Wolfensohn to help with the Gaza withdrawal. It is why I supported additional aid to the Palestinians in the Emergency Supplemental bill that recently passed Congress.

    "There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist.

    "The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology.

    "Proliferation represents a clear threat to Israel and to America. It must be confronted by an international coalition against proliferation, with a commitment and a coalition every bit as strong as our commitment to the war against terror.

    "The people of Israel long for peace and are willing to make the sacrifices to achieve it. We hope that peace and security come soon - and that this moment of opportunity is not lost. As Israel continues to take risks for peace, she will have no friend more steadfast that the United States.

    "In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel 'as hiding places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of water in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.'

    "The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and forever."

    Posted by OneVote at 03/26/2007 @ 09:00am

42. Rio Bravo-please work on your reading comprehension skills and please remember that the right believes in abortion by bullets and bombs just not doctors.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/26/2007 @ 09:02am

43. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/25/2007 @ 7:14pm

    pure bs.

    a beeyrocrat is a beeyrocrat is a beeyrocrat. This funny little world you live in is bizarre.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/26/2007 @ 10:15am

44. It's strange: People like Maasch bitch and moan about unions; they want to do away with unions altogether. At the same time, they preach this "free" market mumbo jumbo that continues to send jobs over seas (and turns a blind eye to all the cheap, illegal labor coming up from the Central America). And all of this means lower wages for working class America.

    Lower wages for the working class means less money to spend. This is a consumer society; it benefits all of us when goods are purchased. At the same time, lower wages means less money for Social Security and Medicare.

    And now, with wages for working Americans low, stagnating and the costs of healthcare increasing steadily, they are opposed to a single payer system or any attempt to develop a national health care policy like all the other industrialized nations of the West.

    Their concerns are for themselves only, not what is best for the country as a whole. Like selfish, self centered little children, they can see only as far as their outstretched hands.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/26/2007 @ 10:24am

45. Posted by USC1 03/26/2007 @ 12:01am

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/26/2007 @ 01:14am

    morons.

    Just think about it. You are happy to kill 650,000 out of a misguided fear of the non-existent. You are willing to pay to keep Grandma alive for 2 extra weeks, on your dime no less. No, not a dime, try several k a day. Meanwhile kids go without basic care. SO they go to the emergency room instead of a primary care doc. you pay for that too.

    What did it cost to keep Shaivo alive? Hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep a kohlrabi going for years. Money/time/care that could have been used to save someone else's life. Think of all the babies that will get pre-natal care if mom doens't have to go to the ER for help.

    so much for the Christ followers. Let em eat cake, right nut jobs?

    I would think MASCH would love a program like Oregons. Rank procedures that work, leave out those that don't. cost/benefit. The very base of capitalism, isn't it?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/26/2007 @ 10:26am

46. $411,615,353,434

    Gee, maybe we could have insured EVERY GD kid in America instead of starting a civil war across the globe?

    Instead of living in fear, maybe you nuts should try living in hope.

    Taxpayers in Nebraska will pay $3.3 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

    1,008,845 People with Health Care

    Taxpayers in Texas will pay $37.3 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

    8,118,090 People with Health Care

    Taxpayers in Texas will pay $37.3 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

    631,620 Port Container Inspectors

    Taxpayers in Texas will pay $905.5 million for ballistic missile defense in FY2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

    370,691 Children with Health Care

    Taxpayers in Nebraska will pay $79.6 million for ballistic missile defense in FY2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

    32,638 Children with Health Care

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/26/2007 @ 10:33am

47. Weird, this got posted at the top. Try again.

    $411,615,353,434

    Gee, maybe we could have insured EVERY GD kid in America instead of starting a civil war across the globe?

    Instead of living in fear, maybe you nuts should try living in hope.

    Taxpayers in Nebraska will pay $3.3 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

    1,008,845 People with Health Care

    Taxpayers in Texas will pay $37.3 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

    8,118,090 People with Health Care

    Taxpayers in Texas will pay $37.3 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

    631,620 Port Container Inspectors

    Taxpayers in Texas will pay $905.5 million for ballistic missile defense in FY2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

    370,691 Children with Health Care

    Taxpayers in Nebraska will pay $79.6 million for ballistic missile defense in FY2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

    32,638 Children with Health Care

    Posted by CRABWALK 03/26/2007 @ 10:33am

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/26/2007 @ 10:35am

48. Posted by USC1 03/26/2007 @ 12:25am

    Nice little nugget from almost 30 years ago.

    Just for grins, whaddya say we see what Teddy has to say about the state of healthcare now?

    Posted by drhammer at 03/26/2007 @ 10:43am

49. Posted by USC1 03/26/2007 @ 12:25am

    Nice little nugget from almost 30 years ago.

    Just for grins, whaddya say we find out what Teddy K has to say about the state of healthcare today?

    Posted by drhammer at 03/26/2007 @ 10:47am

50. Posted by DRHAMMER 03/26/2007 @ 10:43am

    Sorry for the repeat.

    Don't know what happened.

    Posted by drhammer at 03/26/2007 @ 10:59am

51. Posted by MADDOX 03/25/2007 @ 2:28pm

    Can we just stop this LIE before it continues.

    "Single payer" DOES mean "Federal control" over health care, because of the Golden Rule of Government Largesse...."Whoever pays out the gold, makes the rules!"

    You REALLY think the "Federal Health Service" is just going to "write out checks" to doctors and hospitals for every bill they get? Hell, no. Abuse, fraud, and waste MUST be investigated...and if investigated, regulated...and if regulated, penalized.

    And when was the last time the Government got some power and "held themselves back" from garnering more power to them.....huh, Patriot Act opponents???

    This "Oh, it isn't nationalizing health care...it's just having the Government paying for it, regulating it, overseeing it, making the decisions about it, and controlling it...but it's not about 'nationalizing' it" crap has got to go.

    As I said, we're DOOMED to it anyway....so atleast don't LIE about what it's going to be, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 12:25pm

52. Posted by CRABWALK 03/26/2007 @ 10:26am

    Just curious, CRAB....who decides when to pull the plug on Grandma?

    "The doctor"?...really?!?!?...what if he decides, since the Government is paying for it...not to?

    THEN who decides?

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 12:28pm

53. Mask:

    Government does, of course. I believe that doctors take an oath to "do no harm." So the soldiers of government will invade Granny's room and inject her with some lethal concoction. And don't you try to stop them, or you will be nailed with obstruction of JUSTICE. (Hmmm, I wonder where Crab stands on the death penalty, anyway. He's gonna have to be awfully limber to twist his way out of that conundrum.)

    Actually, I'm surprised Crab didn't back away from the question. He leaves himself open to sooo many questions. So the question now becomes WHEN does he murder Granny (or Gramps)? What about people with Alzhiemers? Should we kill them immediately after being diagnosed or maybe give them a week? Why waste Crab's precious tax dollars on something that's going to kill them anyway. Cancer? Don't bother trying to treat them. Just kill them. It saves money. What about children with mental retardation who can't function in society? Easier and cheaper to kill them. Sounds a lot like what the Nazis did, doesn't it, Crab? Are you a Nazi, Crab? You certainly sound like it to me.

    Posted by usc1 at 03/26/2007 @ 1:58pm

54. I wonder how Crab felt about that nursing home that was abandoned during Hurricane Katrina. Didn't some of those residents die? Was he disgusted with the lack of responsibility? Or did he congratulate them on their foresight and progressive thinking?

    Posted by usc1 at 03/26/2007 @ 2:03pm

55. How is it possible for all the other industrialized nations of the West to provide universal healthcare for all their citizens at a fraction of the costs the US currently pays for a dysfunctional system?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/26/2007 @ 2:48pm

56. Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/26/2007 @ 2:48pm

    You answered your own question...because they aren't the "United States".

    The main flaw in the "Won't it be wonderful when we have government health care like they do in Europe" argument is...We're not Europeans.

    Americans, whom I love dearly, have developed a keen sense of entitlement and would naturally assume that "since it's 'free' from the Government, we should get anything we want"....and they start to push their representatives to start the "free nose jobs", "free liposuction", "I want to stay in the hospital when I get the sniffles" aspect of government-run health care, that Europeans who've lived since the end of World War-2 with it...never would.

    Or they won't support the HUGE tax rates that Europeans do....remember, those Europeans pay out the nose, even the middle class, and WELL before we get to that aspect...Americans will revolt.

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 3:01pm

57. Posted by MASK

    We're already paying through the nose for health care, insurance that doesn't provide the care and attention necessary. As long as Americans continue to live in this make believe world that is propagated by those seeking to divide the population for their own selfish gains, we will continue to suffer the costs of failing to progress as a society. It is not 1795; there is no longer a Western Frontier to flee to; we are all interconnected, what affects one affects all others. It's time to grow up and deal with the ugly reality of the time we live in. This is the wealthiest country in the world; yet we have the highest poverty rate, the most incarcerated, the vast majority of the population is indebt...

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/26/2007 @ 3:23pm

58. Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/26/2007 @ 3:23pm

    Yes, yes, MTSP...."It can't get any worse"...."Nobody is an island anymore".

    I know, heard it for years. Everything's "community" now and any problems we have is because "the community" isn't in control of it, and if you stand in the way of that, you're some kind of Neanderthal.

    And the fact that THE leading liberal, Ted Kennedy...was the one back in the late 70s who came up with THIS system (HMOs)...and now pushes for a "universal system"....well...are best ignored.

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 3:38pm

59. Posted by MASK

    Don't try to throw the son of a bootlegger in my face. Teddy is a rich boy. He's just part of the upper crust that's bright enough to understand some crumbs must fall to those down below if he wants to continue eating at his table.

    Is the situation we have now with HMO's the same plan originally proposed? Or were there innumerable compromises between the start and end, compromises intended to retard the effort?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/26/2007 @ 3:52pm

60. To control costs, the Nixon administration proposed and Congress passed the Health Maintenance Organization Assistance Act in 1973, which created the term HMO and required businesses with more than 25 employees to offer HMO coverage to their employees if they offered any insurance at all. The act also provided federal funds to HMOs during their start-up periods to encourage their development, and created a certification process for organizations to qualify for those federal funds.

    The term health maintenance organization was created by Dr. Paul Ellwood, an adviser to President Nixon, and was used to describe any organization that combined insurance and health care in a single organization.

    www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/doctors.under.the.knife/stories/hmo. history/index.html

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/26/2007 @ 4:29pm

61. Can we just save this (from "The Blues Brothers") for the years 2017, 2025, 2030, when Federally run UHC is a disaster and we need some liberal blogging on "why it failed"?

    "I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD."

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 4:30pm

62. Posted by DRHAMMER 03/26/2007 @ 10:43am

    I'm sure he's one of the ringleaders in the move to socialized medicine.

    But has he admitted (or can he admit) what a colossal error it was that he perpetrated on our health care system? If so, how does he convince us that what he is now proposing is the answer? Track record so far is not so good.

    Posted by usc1 at 03/26/2007 @ 4:54pm

63. Quick Facts Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973

    Enacted in: 1973. Amended several times, most recently in 1995.

    Applies to: Any employer with an average of 25 or more employees that offers a federally qualified HMO as a medical insurance option to its employees

    Focus of law: If an employer offers a federally qualified HMO option to its employees it must be offered in a manner that does not favor another insurance option over the HMO

    Government agency enforcing the law: Various administrations within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)

    Penalties for non-compliance: Specific enforcement by the DHHS and civil liability

    Interesting note: In 1995 the HMO Act was amended to eliminate the requirement that employers with more than 25 employees must offer an HMO insurance option to employees if there was a federally qualified HMO operating in their area

    www.acordia.com/img/assets/1104/13_HMO.pdf

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/26/2007 @ 4:58pm

64. And the fact that THE leading liberal, Ted Kennedy...was the one back in the late 70s who came up with THIS system (HMOs)...and now pushes for a "universal system"....well...are best ignored.

    Posted by MASK

    So Teddy boy came up with the HMO did he?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/26/2007 @ 5:02pm

65. Interesting note: In 1995 the HMO Act was amended to eliminate the requirement that employers with more than 25 employees must offer an HMO insurance option to employees if there was a federally qualified HMO operating in their area

    Uh-huh. Right. Ever wonder what people (esp. liberals) would say about a company that didn't offer a health plan (or one that liberals didn't like)? They become Public Enemy #1. Please see Liza Featherstone and her collection of "Wal-Mart Sucks" articles.

    Posted by usc1 at 03/26/2007 @ 5:15pm

66. What just happened? My 5:15pm post was posted BEFORE Mt Spence's two posts even though they were written after and in response to his.

    Posted by usc1 at 03/26/2007 @ 5:18pm

67. Uh-huh. Right. Ever wonder what people (esp. liberals) would say about a company that didn't offer a health plan (or one that liberals didn't like)? They become Public Enemy #1. Please see Liza Featherstone and her collection of "Wal-Mart Sucks" articles.

    Posted by USC1

    Well, the gov doesn't provide universal health insurance; an employer like Wal-Mart doesn't pay enough for an employee to purchase insurance. What is supposed to happen? Being an employer, operating a business that profits from our society creates certain obligations. You must give as well as take.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/26/2007 @ 5:33pm

68. When did providing health care become the obligation of a business? It is a benefit. Nothing more. It is not required for businesses to offer it at all.

    But, like I said earlier, offer a benefit long enough and people will begin to think that they are entitled to it. Or worse, others start to think that it is your obligation to provide it.

    Posted by usc1 at 03/26/2007 @ 6:49pm

69. National Governor's Association....1978-

    "I see national health insurance as the last, best chance of keeping the health care system under control. It is more than a financing method. It is a system that will allow the nation to budget its health care expenses prospectively and then live within it; it is a system that will provide incentives for alternative, less costly delivery models--such as HMOs."---Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy (D-MA)

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 9:44pm

70. the rich, who will not have taxable income enough to cover the cost, will pay more...for the health care they will never use..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/25/2007 @ 7:

    masschy - Once again you completely missed the fact to post the retoric. Lets review the facts if the rich write off 90% of their net gains through the use of tax shelters their taxable income is less than the average middle American so in your mind its ok for them to have major tax cuts because they need the money.

    Remembering what Warren Buffet said about the tax cuts: On March 13 CNBC's Liz Clayborn interviewed Warren Buffet when asked if the tax cuts should be made permanent Mr Buffet replied that he paid less (@15%) on his total gains then his secretary paid on her annual salary. That he believed that anyone with wealth who didn't have a good tax shelter manager was a fool and that the tax cuts heavily favored the rich.

    Once again we see your feeble attempt to rationalize reality.

    Posted by dycel8r at 03/27/2007 @ 12:22am

71. When did providing health care become the obligation of a business? It is a benefit. Nothing more. It is not required for businesses to offer it at all.

    But, like I said earlier, offer a benefit long enough and people will begin to think that they are entitled to it. Or worse, others start to think that it is your obligation to provide it.

    Posted by USC1

    Yeah, it's called "decency". And without a national healthcare system it has fallen on the backs of employers to provide insurance; now that the burden is growing too heavy and business interests are beginning to buckle under the weight the nation is moving towards a national health system. With both parties in the pockets of corporate America, you know the plan that finally comes out will be designed for the benefit of corporations, not the population.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/27/2007 @ 10:13am

72. National Governor's Association....1978-

    "I see national health insurance as the last, best chance of keeping the health care system under control. It is more than a financing method. It is a system that will allow the nation to budget its health care expenses prospectively and then live within it; it is a system that will provide incentives for alternative, less costly delivery models--such as HMOs."---Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy (D-MA)

    Posted by MASK

    In 1972, President Richard M. Nixon heralded his desire for the HMO in a speech to Congress: "the Health Maintenance Organization concept is such a central feature of my National Health Strategy."4 The administration had already authorized,without specific legislative authority, $26 million for 110 HMO projects.5 That same year, the U.S. Senate passed a $5.2 billion bill permitting the establishment of HMOs "to improve the nation's health-care delivery system by encouraging prepaid comprehensive health-care programs."6

    http://www.cchconline.org/privacy/hmoart.php3

    No, Mask, you are a liar. It was not all Ted Kennedy's doing.

    The rise of the HMO By Douglas S. Wood CNN Interactive ATLANTA (CNN)

    -- The modern-day health maintenance organization (HMO) has its roots in not-for-profit health care organizations like Kaiser Permanente, which was one of the first to offer prepaid group health plans, for construction workers beginning in the late 1930s.

    However, few Americans had access to prepaid group health care plans in the 1940s and 1950s. The medical community resisted prepaid health plans, preferring the existing fee-for-service arrangement. Health care plans like Kaiser also faced a host of legal restrictions from state governments.

    That all began to change in the early 1970s. Medical costs were rising faster than the economy, which was stifled by rising inflation, and fee-for-service plans were seen as part of the problem.

    Under cost-based reimbursement, doctors had little incentive to control costs and hospitals could either raise prices or offer more services to maintain their revenues.

    To control costs, the Nixon administration proposed and Congress passed the Health Maintenance Organization Assistance Act in 1973, which created the term HMO and required businesses with more than 25 employees to offer HMO coverage to their employees if they offered any insurance at all. The act also provided federal funds to HMOs during their start-up periods to encourage their development, and created a certification process for organizations to qualify for those federal funds.

    The term health maintenance organization was created by Dr. Paul Ellwood, an adviser to President Nixon, and was used to describe any organization that combined insurance and health care in a single organization.

    http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/doctors.under.the.knife/stori es/hmo.history/index.html

    Instead of muddying the waters you should try to contribute something useful, honest to the conversation, Mask.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/27/2007 @ 10:18am

73. Instead of muddying the waters you should try to contribute something useful, honest to the conversation, Mask.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/27/2007 @ 10:18am

    I did....I said "You're going to win", MTSP. We are DOOMED to that "universal health care system" that you so keenly desire...it's inescapable.

    YOU WILL GET Federal health care (and yes, it will be Federally-run and managed, because it will be Federally-PAID FOR).

    You're going to win....you'll get it.

    Now, aren't you just tickled pink that you and I agree on the inevitablility of UHC....just not the inevitable result of it.

    Posted by Mask at 03/27/2007 @ 11:07am

74. Yeah, it's called "decency".

    Funny that you define decency as taking something that doesn't belong to you.

    And without a national healthcare system it has fallen on the backs of employers to provide insurance;

    Nooo. Not for a lack of socialized medicine, but for a lack of foresight by good ol' Teddy and his merry band of ignorami who ignored the warnings of the medical establishment and instituted HMOs. Not to mention the foul-up by gov't when they gave tax breaks to employees who bought health insurance through their company, but not to people who bought it on their own.

    now that the burden is growing too heavy and business interests are beginning to buckle under the weight the nation is moving towards a national health system.

    in which all the health concerns of 300 million people will be paid for by the gov't. where is gov't going to get that money again? by taxing the marmalade out of BUSINESSES, um and you and me.

    Posted by usc1 at 03/30/2007 @ 10:41pm