Talking About Health Reform, But Not About A Cure

Health care reform is a vital and engaging concern for America - and for Americans.

But you would not know it from Thursday's White House Forum on Health Reform, which was so narrowly focused and uninspiring that it almost made Hillary Clinton's bumbling efforts of the 1990s look good.

President Obama sounded some of the right notes:

Now I know people are skeptical about whether Washington can bring about this change. Our inability to reform health care in the past is just one example of how special interests have had their way, and the public interest has fallen by the wayside. And I know people are afraid we'll draw the same old lines in the sand, give in to the same entrenched interests, and arrive back at the same stalemate we've been stuck in for decades.

But I am here today because I believe that this time is different. This time, the call for reform is coming from the bottom up, from all across the spectrum - from doctors, nurses and patients; unions and businesses; hospitals, health care providers and community groups. It's coming from mayors, governors and legislatures - Democrats and Republicans - who are racing ahead of Washington to pass bold health care initiatives on their own. This time, there is no debate about whether all Americans should have quality, affordable health care -- the only question is, how?

Unfortunately, that is a mighty major "only question."

And the people who in the past have answered it wrong were in the room and at the table Thursday. Indeed, they were bragging about their successes in blocking past reform initiatives. "I don't see what happened in the '90s as a failure," Congressman Joe Barton, the Texas conservative who is the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told a breakout session at Thursday's forum.

Barton was not an outlier.

The East Room at the White House was packed with the political players, union leaders and corporate lobbyists -- some of them good, many of them bad -- and a few administration-designated "Everyday Americans," who helped to illustrate the depth of the crisis that the insiders have allowed to metastasize over the past decade or so.

Only a handful of serious reformers got in the room.

Thanks to pressure from the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Healthcare, Physicians for a National Health Program, Unions for Single Payer Health Care and the Progressive Democrats of America, an invitation was extended to House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, the sponsor of H.R. 676, legislation that seeks to create a the single-payer insurance program that would take profiteering out of the health care system.

A few other real reformers were heard from -- including Californian Congressman Pete Stark.

And Dr. Oliver Fein, the director of Physicians for a National Health Plan was in the room.

But right before the doctor from Physicians for a National Health Plan on the White House list of "Community Leaders and Stakeholders Expected to Attend" were the CEOs of Pfizer and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

And while the doctor was not included on any of the lists of breakout session speakers, the CEOs were, along with representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, America's Health Insurance Plans, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and the Business Roundtable.

In other words, the overwhelming weight of opinion at what was supposed to be a wide-ranging discussion of health reform was -- at best -- on the side of tinkering with the existing for-profit system.

Change we can believe in was not on the agenda.

Who could have put it there?

Dr. Quentin Young, the Chicago physician who served as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s personal physician and whose medical office once included a young Chicago activist named Barack Obama on its patient list, ought to be at the table. Here's Young discussing his support for single payer.

And where, on the lost list of members of Congress present, was the name of U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin? Elected to Congress as an outspoken advocate for single-payer health care, the Wisconsin Democrat is a member of the key committee in the House that deals with health care issues -- Energy and Commerce -- and she has succeeded in developing bipartisan coalitions that allow for state experimentation with various reform plans. In other words, she's a principled yet very practical player in the debate.

Baldwin should have been speaking.

So, too, should have been the working nurses of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC), the union that represents 85,000 RNs in all 50 states.

Ardent advocates for real reform, CNA/NNOC members correctly argue that: "Insurance-based reform will fail, and undermine public trust; only Medicare for All can achieve administration goals"

Here's what the nurses are saying:

While welcoming President Obama's call for achieving "comprehensive" healthcare reform this year, "a laudable commitment and a huge departure from the dismal healthcare policies of the past eight years," the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee warned that most of proposals floating around Congress would default on the promise and principles set by the administration.

"And, they would almost certainly fail to contain the rising costs that put so many families in peril or to repair our broken healthcare system," said CNA/NNOC Co-president Geri Jenkins, RN.

"That's the reason the majority of the nation's nurses and doctors -- the very people who have the most daily interaction with our healthcare system and see its failures and tragedies up front, favor a single-payer approach, or expanding Medicare to all."

"To achieve the lasting and cost-effective reform the president seeks and most Americans desire, we must confront the source of the present crisis -- an insurance industry that has been steadily pricing people out of access to care, or bankrupting them if they attempt to use it," Jenkins said. "Insurance company practices drive skyrocketing costs, a problem that won't be solved by more technology, electronic medical records, or any other stopgap measures some propose."

Jenkins welcomed the principles outlined by the administration for reform, and the call for progressive tax changes to help finance them, but warned that any reform "premised on expanding an insurance-based system will likely fail, frustrate the public desire for a real solution to our healthcare crisis, and undermine the political capital the administration has earned for reform."

"Private insurance plans aren't universal because they exclude people based on pre-existing conditions or age or anyone else they think will be expensive to cover. They don't guarantee choice of physician or hospital, but limit you to their network of providers.

"The insurers won't assure affordability because they are constantly raising premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and other fees to generate high revenues and profits. They can't guarantee safety and quality because they actively discourage the delivery of care or deny treatments, diagnoses, or referrals they don't want to pay for. And, they will never be fiscally responsible because there is no independent oversight, decisions are made in secret in closed boardrooms or CEO offices, and, their priority is profits, not care," Jenkins said.

"Medicare for all, however, does succeed in all eight areas. It removes the incentive for price gouging, and it takes control of our health away from the insurance companies, and puts it where it belongs, in the hands of patients, families, and their doctors and nurses," said Jenkins.

This reform, she added also promotes national recovery by creating 2.6 million new jobs, infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues, and injecting $100 billion more in wages into the U.S. economy, according to a recent CNA/NNOC study.

HR 676, the U.S. National Health Care Act by Rep. John Conyers, is the plan that best meets the grand vision painted by our president. "We call on Congress and the administration to work with us to enact it," Jenkins said.

The point here is not to give up on the Obama administration as a vehicle for real reform.

White House forums of the sort that was held Thursday are "for the cameras" events that set the tone -- not the policy -- of an administration.

The president knows that single-payer is the right fix for what ails the American health care system.

He was once a reasonably consistent advocate for a single-payer system, appearing at events in Chicago organized by Dr. Young and Physicians for a National Health Care Plan.

As recently as last August, Obama told a health care forum in New Mexico that, "If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system."

The insurance industry and its allies don't want to start from scratch and make a system that works.

They want to keep patching up a system that doesn't work -- that fails to provide care to roughly 50 million Americans, that leaves another 50 million under-insured and that is defined more by its cost overruns than its quality -- so that they can keep profiteering.

Thursday's White House sessions provided a great forum for advocates of "patching up" and "tinkering" with a broken system.

But that's not the treatment that is needed. That's a prescription for failure.

Obama is better positioned that any president in decades -- perhaps ever -- to design a system from scratch.

The special interests, corporate insiders and congressional compromisers who made the mess and fear the change won't remind him of that fact – as Thursday's forum so amply illustrated.

Real reformers should keep banging on the doors and demanding a place at the table.

Single payer is not "an alternative."

It is not one of "various treatment options."

It is the cure.

Comments (201)

1. What libs would like to see in health care is NOT the cure:

   Let Dr. Williams tell you why:

   http://www.gmu.edu/departments/ economics/wew/articles/09/SwedensGovernmentHealthCare.htm

   A MINORITY VIEW

   BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

   RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2009 AND THEREAFTER

   Sweden's Government Health Care

   Government health care advocates used to sing the praises of Britain's National Health Service (NHS). That's until its poor delivery of health care services became known. A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, "Delay, Denial and Dilution," written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now "waiting lists" for the waiting list.

   Government health care advocates sing the praises of Canada's single-payer system. Canada's government system isn't that different from Britain's. For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks. Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless.

   to be continued

   Posted by sjchermak at 03/05/2009 @ 10:21pm

2. Sounds like it was a cross-section of ALL interests, Mr Nichols....

   kind of like...oh....

   the country.

   Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 10:22pm

3. Dr. Williams, continued:

   Canadians have an option Britainers don't: close proximity of American hospitals. In fact, the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in our country. I wonder how much money the U.S. government spends for Americans to be treated in Canada.

   "OK, Williams," you say, "Sweden is the world's socialist wonder." Sven R. Larson tells about some of Sweden's problems in "Lesson from Sweden's Universal Health System: Tales from the Health-care Crypt," published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Spring 2008). Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor's request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.

   Malmo, with its 280,000 residents, is Sweden's third-largest city. To see a physician, a patient must go to one of two local clinics before they can see a specialist. The clinics have security guards to keep patients from getting unruly as they wait hours to see a doctor. The guards also prevent new patients from entering the clinic when the waiting room is considered full. Uppsala, a city with 200,000 people, has only one specialist in mammography. Sweden's National Cancer Foundation reports that in a few years most Swedish women will not have access to mammography.

   to be continued

   Posted by sjchermak at 03/05/2009 @ 10:22pm

4. Dr. Williams, continued:

   Dr. Olle Stendahl, a professor of medicine at Linkoping University, pointed out a side effect of government-run medicine: its impact on innovation. He said, "In our budget-government health care there is no room for curious, young physicians and other professionals to challenge established views. New knowledge is not attractive but typically considered a problem (that brings) increased costs and disturbances in today's slimmed-down health care."

   These are just a few of the problems of Sweden's single-payer government-run health care system. I wonder how many Americans would like a system that would, as in the case of Mr. D. of Gothenburg, prohibit private purchase of your own medicine if the government refused paying. We have problems in our health care system but most of them are a result of too much government. Over 50 percent of health care expenditures in our country are made by government. Government health care advocates might say that they will avoid the horrors of other government-run systems. Don't believe them.

   The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, who published Sven Larson's paper, is a group of liberty-oriented doctors and health care practitioners who haven't sold their members down the socialist river as have other medical associations. They deserve our thanks for being a major player in the '90s defeat of "Hillary care."

   Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

   COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

   Posted by sjchermak at 03/05/2009 @ 10:24pm

5. Hey, SJCHER....

   will we be able to "doctor shop" for extra Oxy prescriptions under government-run health care?

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 10:30pm

6. CNA/NNOC Co-president Geri Jenkins, RN.: "....we must confront the source of the present crisis -- an insurance industry that has been steadily pricing people out of access to care, or bankrupting them if they attempt to use it," ....

   When I read this, I thought, isn't the tort bar one HUGE reason our healthcare costs are so high?

   Another thought, since Magic will be printing money in the trillions, why not just buy all the outstanding stocks of Humana, United Healthcare, Cigna, etc....their combined market cap can't be much more than $100 to $200 Billion? Buy Pfizer too, get the world's largest pharma company for less than $100 Billion!

   If you loonies end up cramming UHC and/or single-payer down our throat, you better rein in the tort bar....Gubber Immunity and all....but then, the tort bar is the number ONE source of campaign money, ain't that a bitch?

   Posted by Happy at 03/05/2009 @ 10:36pm

7. Hi this is bondjames I think this site is providing information about drug intervention. I thin drugs are very dangerous in the world. I think this site is to be useful to acknowledged to the public. I fully recommended to public about this site. ========================= bondjames <a href="http://www.drug-intervention.com/plan-b.html">Drug Intervention</a>

   Posted by bondjames at 03/05/2009 @ 10:53pm

8. Every civilized democracy in the world provides healthcare to all of its citizens, except the U.S. The only system that will control costs is single-payer government-financed healthcare. There will be no savings as long as the insurance companies extract their profit. That is the bottom line. Medicare processes claims with a 3% overhead. Private insurance takes 15 to 30% overhead. Do the math. Single-payer healthcare is the only viable cost-effecient option. But Obama lacks the political courage to go the whole way. And half a loaf is nowhere.

   Posted by philbq at 03/05/2009 @ 11:11pm

9. Posted by philbq at 03/05/2009 @ 11:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   If we get it, hope you catch nothing fatal that requires immediate treatment to live! Otherwise they will just write your death up as "by natural causes" and the doctor will call out "patient #6312"-next?

   Posted by comancheamerican at 03/05/2009 @ 11:35pm

10. Posted by philbq at 03/05/2009 @ 11:11pm

    Single-payer will do you no good if your doctor won't accept Medicaid in any form.

    Posted by ACook at 03/05/2009 @ 11:36pm

11. Ahhh...ACook, but Obamanation is using the soviet plan, first there is no god so all doctors MUST perform abortions, hence they all must accept medicare! Thats why he repealed Bush's executive order that the doctors could follow their conscience!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/05/2009 @ 11:50pm

12. Posted by philbq at 03/05/2009 @ 11:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Has not even considered all the news stories where foriegners spend fortunes traveling to the U.S.A. JUST to avail themselves of our healthcare system! Just hasn't sunk in yet after all these years!?!?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/05/2009 @ 11:58pm

13. Posted by Happy at 03/05/2009 @ 10:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    For the sake of the A.B.A. the largest proffesional lobby and biggest donors to the Undemocrat party you can bet your bippy that there will be NO govermental immunity from prosecution for doctors, hospitals etc. extended if national healthcare is legislated in! They have to gift their lawyer friends or face the consequenses!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/06/2009 @ 12:07am

14. Posted by comancheamerican at 03/06/2009 @ 12:07am

    Great minds think alike....I visited Rush's website and noted that he took some hard jabs at the tort bar today....which I didn't catch in my 15 minutes or so listening.

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

    New "Stack of Stuff" for his show tomorrow.....I can see the rationale to make sure the FDIC can cover whatever shit may hit the fan....but the amount is breathtaking.....we are being conditioned to think of BILLIONS as millions.......another scaremongering, probably intentional! From WSJ Online:

    Bill Seeks to Let FDIC Borrow up to $500 Billion

    By DAMIAN PALETTA

    WASHINGTON -- Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd is moving to allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to temporarily borrow as much as $500 billion from the Treasury Department.

    The Connecticut Democrat's effort -- which comes in response to urging from FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner -- would give the FDIC access to more money to rebuild its fund that insures consumers' deposits, which have been hard hit by a string of bank failures.

    Last week, the FDIC proposed raising fees on banks in order to build up its deposit insurance fund, which had just $19 billion at the end of 2008. That idea provoked protests from banks, which said such a burden would worsen their already shaken condition. The Dodd bill, if it becomes law, would represent an alternative source of funding.

    Posted by Happy at 03/06/2009 @ 12:27am

15. When I read this, I thought, isn't the tort bar one HUGE reason our healthcare costs are so high?

    If you loonies end up cramming UHC and/or single-payer down our throat, you better rein in the tort bar....Gubber Immunity and all....but then, the tort bar is the number ONE source of campaign money, ain't that a bitch?

    Posted by Happy

    Rein in the Tort Bar? Or, in other words, preclude people from seeking malpractice lawsuits.

    Would this mirror the Tort reform my state applied to auto insurance industry?....

    You have the option of a "limited tort" policy in which you give up certain rights to sue auto insurance co.s. in return for lower premiums.

    It would be great. The insurance companies clean up because they won't have to pay judgments. Hell, they won't even have to pay for representation in most cases.

    No relief for M.D.s or Hospitals because the possibility of lawsuits still exist. So, they'll still need to pay.

    Remember, under this model, rich people will be able to afford access to the courts.

    Posted by koroviev at 03/06/2009 @ 01:00am

16. For the sake of the A.B.A. the largest proffesional lobby and biggest donors to the Undemocrat party you can bet your bippy that there will be NO govermental immunity from prosecution for doctors, hospitals etc. extended if national healthcare is legislated in! They have to gift their lawyer friends or face the consequenses!

    Posted by comancheamerican

    Insurance companies or the AMA do not lobby? What a Goddamn joke.

    Also, what do you propose? No malpractice lawsuits? Are they always frivolous?

    I'm finding this:

    "there will be NO govermental immunity from prosecution for doctors, hospitals etc. extended if national healthcare is legislated in!"

    qoute very confusing. Govt. immune from prosecution? Or physician and hospital immunity from malpractice litigation? If you meant Govt. immunity from suits because the Govt. is now healthcare provider, than there probably would be some form of limit. There are limits now. In my state Penn. DOT has a statutory cap on damages from law suits.

    Posted by koroviev at 03/06/2009 @ 01:15am

17. Sounds like it was a cross-section of ALL interests, Mr Nichols.... kind of like...oh.... the country.

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 10:22pm

    sounds like a cheney energy policy dealydoo with better p.r.

    kinda like squirrels; they're just cute rats.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 02:07am

18. since Magic will be printing money in the trillions,

    Posted by Happy at 03/05/2009 @ 10:36pm

    actually, it was already doubled last year.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 02:09am

19. Posted by koroviev at 03/06/2009 @ 01:15am | ignore this person | warn this person

    You are in one of only 25 states that some form of cap or limitation on damages, but that may NOT be applicable to non-economic damages! The are 25 states that allow NO caps period on either economic or non-economic!

    I did not say they didn't lobby, they just represent little importance. The insurance lobby is less than 1/20th of the A.B.A. political lobby money and has always been. The Undemocrat party has a long history of gifting the legal profession with opportunities to file lawsuits for any concieveable reason. The latest gifts were the americans with disabilities act and the new privacy laws of graham-leachy act, and on and on and on.

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/06/2009 @ 02:11am

20. funny thing....

    every time there is a health care thread,

    a reaganoid always screams, "IT WILL STIFLE INITIATIVE. NO RESEARCH WILL EVER HAPPEN".

    a yet every time there is a health care thread,

    i always find a story like this on googlenews:

    ANTIBODIES TACKLE SEVERE ASTHMA

    Patients with a type of severe asthma benefit from injections of an antibody, research has shown.

    Two teams, in the UK and Canada, found the treatment mepolizumab helped those patients with asthma exacerbated by a condition called eosinophilia.

    The drug not only reduced the frequency of severe attacks, but enabled patients to cut back on the use of steroids, which are associated with side effects.

    The studies feature in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 02:40am

21. You are in one of only 25 states that some form of cap or limitation on damages, but that may NOT be applicable to non-economic damages! The are 25 states that allow NO caps period on either economic or non-economic!

    It is applicable to Non-economic damages. There was a Pa SC case which ruled delay damages were also limited in a case involving negligence that resulted in a person impaled on a piece of highway material.

    There are several areas that the Federal Govt. is immune from law suits already. Flood damage from Army Corp. of Engineers levys and dam failures. See Katrina, Hurricane.

    I just find it a laughable characterization... the poor, disadvantaged insurance companies with the monster lawyers of the ABA using greedy disabled people to scam the innocent, cherubic insurance companies.

    Posted by koroviev at 03/06/2009 @ 03:00am

22. "When I read this, I thought, isn't the tort bar one HUGE reason our healthcare costs are so high? -HAPPY TOSELLCIGGARRETESTOKIDS

    Nope. Sorry HAP. You will have to find another reason to hate our legal system. Tort litigation accounts for about 2-3$ of our overall healthcare cost.

    What do you think tobacco adds to the cost of healthcare in this country?

    [The Undemocrat party has a long history of gifting the legal profession with opportunities to file lawsuits for any concieveable reason]-COMMACHE

    No, RIO, that would be the constitution that allows law suits. Then there is this person called a "judge" that can decide whether a case is merit less. Barring that, a jury of the defendants peers can declare them not guilty. 70+% of district and circuit court judges were appointed by republicans.

    Please see the recent WYETH case for a case that took up a LOT of court time, even though they LOST every appeal.

    Writing of court cases, how come no comment about Alito "attacking Christians" in his latest opinion? You cons seem to be avoiding comment on that almost as well as you dodge Bush when you see him on the street.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 07:36am

23. Should read "2-3% of healthcare cost."

    If one wants to read an example of a judge tossing a merit less lawsuit, I suggest one use The Google to look up "Paula Jones".

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 07:41am

24. The facts: Malpractice costs are .62 percent of the nation's health care expenditures. According to the Department of Health and Human Services actuaries' most recent report on growth in health care expenditures, in 2002 health care expenditures rose 9.3 percent to $1.553 trillion.4 Expenditures on malpractice premiums reported to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners that year were $9.6 billion,5 making malpractice costs about .62 percent of national health care expenditures. Malpractice costs rated only an eleven-word mention in the actuaries' 13-page report.

    The facts: Businesses and their attorneys are sanctioned much more often for frivolous suits. In a survey of the 100 most recent cases of federal judges imposing sanctions for the filing of frivolous claims or defenses, businesses and their attorneys were 69 percent more likely than individual tort plaintiffs and their attorneys to be sanctioned. Only individuals representing themselves without counsel were sanctioned more often than businesses.

    Lawyers have no incentive to file frivolous cases because they are not paid unless they win a case. Only about 12 percent of malpractice premium dollars are spent defending claims that are closed without payment.13 If attorneys never filed an unsuccessful suit, the savings would constitute less than one-tenth of one percent of national health expenditures

    The facts: U.S. businesses file four times as many lawsuits as private citizens. A survey of case filings in two states (Arkansas and Mississippi) and two local jurisdictions (Cook County, Ill., and Philadelphia, Pa.) in 2001 found that businesses were 3.3 to 5.8 times more likely to file lawsuits than were individuals

    http://www.citizen.org/documents

    /BushDistortionFactSheet12-15-04.pdf

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 07:47am

25. JOHN NICHOLS hasn't the faintest idea of what he is talking about. He says our system:

    >> fails to provide care to roughly 50 million Americans, that leaves another 50 million under-insured and that is defined more by its cost overruns than its quality <<

    The quality of our system is top notch. We have the best medical schools, hospitals, specialists, labs, equipment, pharmaceutical industry.

    Our system is sought out across the world, and it is open to 300 million Americans. No doc and no hospital may withhold essential medical care from any patient, or lose their license and accreditation.

    Our system is not the problem. Our problem is that while the affluent have insurance and the poor have Medicaid, the lower middle class, if uninsured or ineligible for Medicaid can be financially wiped out by even just a short hospitalization. The average 4 day stay is now around $20,000.

    How did this happen, who is responsible?

    It happened on July 1, 1966 when Medicare and Medicaid went into effect. Till then the average cost of a day in the hospital was around $100. Doctors back then had relatively modest incomes and made house-call; thus their MD license plates excused them from parking regulations. Their fees often took into account a patient's ability to pay. They commonly accepted pro bono work in public clinics or hospitals.

    All that changed the moment the govt could be billed for needy patients. Fees skyrocketed. The cost of medical supplies from linen and tongue depressors to dialysis and lung-heart machines soared, and so too the size of medical staffs. Because Medicaid/Medicare paid it all generously, and AHS had to keep pace. The old brake on what the industry charged had been removed. The shares connected to medical supplies zoomed from July 66 on.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 03/06/2009 @ 07:47am

26. Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 02:40am

    And that's all it is - a study.

    Medical and Scientific journals publish all kinds of research and data. The study you quoted is very small in scope, not to mention most of their major funding comes from outside sources, like the US.

    Stories like the one in your previous post fail to mention who funded the study - GlaxoSmithKline.

    (BTW Mepolizumab is still considered an experimental drug and is currently not approved for use in Canada.)

    Posted by ACook at 03/06/2009 @ 07:54am

27. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 03/06/2009 @ 07:47am

    Well SOB, and here I thought an MRI procedure was $2000 because the machine cost a couple of mil to make. Turns out it is because of Medicare.

    Thanks Huggy, I feel enlightened now.

    hmmm, maybe the cost of care has gone up due to increased knowledge and technology? nahh, tongue depressors are expensive because the govt has the lowest overhead of any insurance in the US. Must be.

    and Dr's have refused to take Medicare patients because they get paid too much. I see that in the news recently.

    I bet it is really B FRANKS fault.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 07:55am

28. Please do not roll over for any compromise on this issue. There is only one solution, and it is to offer a single payer option to every American. Our employment-based system is obsolete; it is killing us, literally, figuratively, and economically.

    -Wexler

    Posted by WWWexler at 03/06/2009 @ 07:56am

29. People, focus on the problem: The problem is that poor people can't afford care.

    You don't fix this problem by taking care away from the rich and giving it to the poor. The solution requires you to create the political will to tax the rich to pay for the poor.

    If you want to reduce healthcare as a percentage of GDP you can go two ways: You can ration care by getting the government to dictate who gets care and who doesn't, or you can make people financially responsible for their own care.

    If you think Conservatives demonize government today, just wait until you have beauracrats making our healthcare decisions.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/06/2009 @ 08:00am

30. If someone had the balls to do the right thing and design a plan to deny health care to free market ideologues, it would enjoy 90% popularity.

    Those guys know everything, so I'm sure they could do their own surgery. Everybody wins.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/06/2009 @ 08:12am

31. If you think Conservatives demonize government today, just wait until you have beauracrats making our healthcare decisions.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/06/2009 @ 08:00am

    How could that be any worse than businessmen making the decisions on who gets care and who doesn't?

    My brother used to work for a large Insurance/Healthcare/Hospital network. The database they ran pretty much played God. It decided who was to get care, get surgery based on age, how far into the disease they were etc.

    Doctor's didn't have the final call, it was jackasses in a boardroom. You can get rid of beaureaucrats making 50k a hell of a lot easier than CEO's making $2M. Also, the guy making 50k is more likely to side with the patient than the company making that extra 0.1% profit.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/06/2009 @ 08:40am

32. Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 02:07am

    FROSTY, Pete Stark is hardly the equivalent of Rex Tillerson.

    Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 08:43am

33. I can't speak to what's going on in Sweden, although it has long had a reputation for good care. A close Canadian friend of mine swears by Canada's health system's quality.

    What choice and quality? I have Arizona Blue Cross/Blus Shield, and I am limited as to providers and procedures. Many providers are indifferent and can hardly wait to get me out. Charges are outrageous, even with low co-pays. My insurance is virtually useless outside Arizona and there's a lot I can't get--more than $1,000 worth of dental work in a year or hearing aids...lack of aids has nothing to do with job functioning, right?

    I can't imagine that single payer would be worse than this lousy private coverage and it might be better. I'd like to see some providers who see me as more than a ten-minute money source breaking up their boring day! On with HR 676!

    Posted by mimsky at 03/06/2009 @ 08:44am

34. "The solution requires you to create the political will to tax the rich to pay for the poor."----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/06/2009 @ 08:00am

    Darin, do you favor eliminating ALL governmental (state or Federal) aid to those who become destitute?

    If not, how exactly would you pay for it WITHOUT "taxing the rich"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 09:58am

35. WWWexler, Wolfgang1, mimsky,

    You tout single-payer health care... Did you read what Dr. Williams has to say at the top of this thread?

    Why do you want our country to have lousy health care like they "enjoy" in Canada, the UK, and Sweden?

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 10:30am

36. Why do you want our country to have lousy health care like they "enjoy" in Canada, the UK, and Sweden?

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 10:30am

    I can't speak for the health care systems in the UK and Sweden, but here in Quebec City where I live as a permanent resident/US citizen, the quality and availability of health care services is excellent, as I detailed in an earlier thread.

    Call me naive, but being denied treatment for "pre-existing conditions" or health insurance period for lack of funds or receiving minimal emergency room care for lack of insurance under the wondrous existing U.S. system seems pretty "lousy" to me.

    Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 10:43am

37. Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 10:43am

    Now, kenny...who are you going to believe?

    One of SJCHER's authorities...or your own lying eyes?

    Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 10:44am

38. Are you repulsed by Obama's respect for the 'status quo'?

    If so... why...?

    If I remember correctly... He ran on "change we can believe in"... not 'revolution that will turn this world onto its ear'...

    Besides... haven't you got it by now? Obama isn't like Bush at all... thanks be to God... He does not discourage dissenting perspectives, and his policies benefit us more greatly by his graceful acknowledgment of the status quo than by wholesale denunciation of it.

    Would'st thou kindly refraineth from restraining ideologies and the incomplete proclivities of exclusive partisan cloisters?

    Posted by ttr at 03/06/2009 @ 10:51am

39. crabwalk at 07:55am said:

    >> and here I thought an MRI procedure was $2000 because the machine cost a couple of mil to make. Turns out it is because of Medicare.

    Thanks Huggy, I feel enlightened now. <<

    I read that before I noticed the author who I as a rule don't bother reading.

    For your information, previously, fancy equipment like MRI and dialysis machines and CAT scanners were confined to specialized centers or university hospitals. Smaller hospitals shuttled their patients to such centers for such diagnoses and procedures. But then local clinics and even physician offices began acquiring such special and expensive tools, and the staff to operate them; small hospitals got into the business of complicated surgery which they had previously farmed out, because the govt financed it.

    That has not made for efficiency but rather for unnecessary procedures and tests. Utilization of those machines, operating theaters and staffs is often low, keeping costs high, and success rates less than what they should be. Staffs need volume work to keep their skills honed.

    There you have part of the reason charges went up, along with misuse, malpractice and hanky panky.

    Not that that will enlighten you; for that you need a double lobotomy. It will take less than a gram off your weight but will do wonders. As you remember, I already recommended that a while back. If cost is a problem, you can do the job yourself with an ice pick.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 03/06/2009 @ 10:53am

40. Now, kenny...who are you going to believe?

    One of SJCHER's authorities...or your own lying eyes?

    Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 10:44am

    Sorry, Mask, dreamer that I am, gotta go with my myopic vision.

    Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 10:55am

41. The answer to the iniquitous health care disparity between rich & poor is obvious. Tax the virulent & bloated Troll to save his own life & save the life of a deserving poor man at the same time.

    Posted by Sorelish at 03/06/2009 @ 11:04am

42. "Call me naive, but being denied treatment for "pre-existing conditions" or health insurance period for lack of funds or receiving minimal emergency room care for lack of insurance under the wondrous existing U.S. system seems pretty "lousy" to me.

    Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 10:43am

    You aren't addressing the quality of the care..you are only stating they have to take you...which is the same as the Post Office.

    Our waiting rooms in the US have many Canadians getting health care here becasue they are rationed out or on a waiting list for appointment that would be longer than the life span of the problem..

    Address the care..not the fact they "take you even if you are broke "...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 11:24am

43. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 03/06/2009 @ 10:53am

    Who detirmines what is "unnecessary testing"?

    And how does your take on MRI's relate to medicare being the primary driver of high cost?

    I think it's great that you come to a lefty web site and then ignore the people that post here. Shows an open mind.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 11:28am

44. We have had multiple people from Canada and Europe post their ACTUAL experience with their systems. They say they like it. But the cons keep telling us how bad it is. Why is that? Why do the people that live here know more about the systems than the people that use them?

    I posted this last week:

    My wife needs to see an endrocronologist. Appt is at the end of June. BCBS denied the primary care payment visit because it was "diagnostic in nature".

    We have waiting lines. We have rationing. We have beer-yo-crats making healthcare decision. We have wonderful emergency care. We have poor basic care. We spend more than any other country, for results that vary wildly. You all pay for the uninsured now. Whay are you opposed to trying somehitng different? It is not a given that the head of this system will be a former head of a horsemans assoc.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 11:34am

45. Why do you want our country to have lousy health care like they "enjoy" in Canada, the UK, and Sweden?

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 10:30am

    Ask most Canadians what they think about their healthcare. They like it. What I've heard is sometimes you may have to wait a little longer for a procedure to be done, but you will eventually get it.

    Here, even if you're insured, doesn't necessarily mean you are covered for different illnesses. You pretty much need your attorney with you when you pick your health care coverage in this country. You see, all the talk you guys do about attorneys, but in fact, the big corporations have their attorneys writing the small print with the little catch phrases.

    I don't know much about single health care coverage one way or the other. What I do know is if the fed can get a huge group rating for people who are being presently screwed by their insurance company, why the hell not.

    Insurance companies are using the fact that small businesses and individuals aren't included in a large group, hence the group ratings. This just levels the playing field more. Why are you so against people being able to purchase their own insurance if they don't like the present coverage they have? Are you against free market principles and healthy market competition?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/06/2009 @ 11:41am

46. Our waiting rooms in the US have many Canadians getting health care here becasue they are rationed out or on a waiting list for appointment that would be longer than the life span of the problem.---Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 11:24am

    Okay, MAASCH....How many....exactly?

    Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 11:48am

47. Our waiting rooms in the US have many Canadians getting health care here becasue they are rationed out or on a waiting list for appointment that would be longer than the life span of the problem..

    Address the care..not the fact they "take you even if you are broke "... Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 11:24am

    how "many" canadians in which waiting rooms for what kind of care? specific examples please. i have already explained on another thread how my wife underwent oral surgery for an infected wisdom tooth within days of the infection and after being given - that's free of charge - antibiotics and anti-inflammatory drugs to stem the swelling. my own experiences are similar - prompt, efficient and pleasant - and we don't hear any complaints in our neighborhood. rationing? what are you talking about? and, by the way, what kind of care is no care if you can't afford it. LET THEM ADVIL!!!

    Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 11:53am

48. My concern is once government is responsible for our healthcare, it will believe itself empowered to tell us how to live our lives.

    Many of the simple pleasures we enjoy could be eliminated through the force of government, not only for our own good, but for the greater good.

    What it represents to me is yet another way the state becomes dominant over our lives. The costs of healthcare will not lower under a collectivist model. And I challenge anyone to show me where government bureauocracies demonstrate an incentive towards customer service and care.

    But those of you who seem to have undying faith in politicians and the belief that centralization is the answer to everything are in power now.

    As history has shown, it will end badly.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/06/2009 @ 11:54am

49. that should say LET THEM EAT ADVIL!!!!!

    Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 11:55am

50. the braindead repugs keep claiming our system is so great. here's a story from yesterday's TV. a woman in her 50s wants to have a colonoscopy done. this is a $3,000 test. her insurance company will not pay for this test. she puts it off.

    a few years later she moves to a different state. the very sane insurance company pays for that test in that state. why? because state law compels them to. she has the test. result: she is stricken with colon cancer, and what is perhaps worse, the cancer has spread to her lymph nodes. her chances of recovery have plunged.

    health insurance and health care are no commodities like a car or a house. it is literally a matter of life and death.

    a personal note. my mother was assured by her doctor that her rectal problems were due to hemorrhoids. she died of complications of colon cancer, a victim of medical malpractice. the doctor/killer was not held responsible.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 11:57am

51. The best blog comment from the Twitter story.....about Magic running out of ideas to rescue the economy:

    "Tell him, no offense, but maybe he should step down and call another election or something. Tell him that this crisis cannot be solved with a teleprompter and soaring oratory."

    HOPE AND CHANGE

    Posted by Happy at 03/06/2009 @ 12:05pm

52. Emile has me ignored, but he points out a root case without knowing it by stating, "a few years later she moves to a different state. the very same insurance company pays for that test in that state. why? because state law compels them to."

    STATE LAW. STATE LAW. It is worth repeating because so many of the inefficiencies of our healthcare system are the direct result of politicians. The unintended consequences of political regulations and special interests influencing the force of government through politicians.

    So what's the plan? Let's give politicians even MORE POWER.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/06/2009 @ 12:16pm

53. I've asked maybe 50 Canadians over the last five years if they're satisfied with their health care system. NOT ONE was dissatisfied.

    The only detractors of the Canadian system from my anecdotal experience were a couple wealthy Americans who "knew someone" who didn't "want to wait" for a procedure & just had to cross the border.

    And of course, I talked to the usual flotilla of hometown 'bubs, who didn't want anything to do with "socialist medicine", courtesy of right wing talk radio. Some happened to be on public assistance. Go figure.

    Posted by Sorelish at 03/06/2009 @ 12:18pm

54. Posted by freiheit1 at 03/06/2009 @ 12:16pm

    FREI, why are you worrying about it?

    Any plan won't be passed until the Fall and implemented by early 2010 and since...

    "Good chance the dollar may collapse as a currency in 2009."----Posted by freiheit1 at 11/13/2008 @ 4:37pm

    What will it matter? Seems a trivial part of the Impending Doom for you to worry about?!?!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 12:19pm

55. "Single payer is not "an alternative."

    It is not one of "various treatment options."

    It is the cure."

    The only thing single payer will cure is freedom of choice.

    I will continue to repeat that this is about a two pronged attack on freedom.

    1. It is designed to make the US govt have more control over our lives

    2. It is designed to "level the pay" between Doctors and Nurses" which is why the marxist California Nurses Association is so deeply involved. Not content with their 6 figure incomes, they want doctors incomes brought down to their level and they can only do that through Govt controlled healthcare.

    3. This is also about removing doctors from the free enterprise market system. The marxists want to force doctors to treat everyone and with no opportunity to participate in our market system.

    Once they get the healthcare system eliminated from the market economy, they will proceed to get rid of capitalism and open markets completely.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 12:21pm

56. Mask and kennyboy,

    You know, this really gets absurd after a while.

    You are dedicated to your beliefs, no matter what.

    You are fixated now that my posting about health care problems in Canada, the UK and Sweden are another Conservative myth, and by Mask's interaction with kennyboy, Mask and kennyboy think they have resolved the issue.

    Earth to Mask and kennyboy: You lose this argument.

    CBC website devoted to health care in Canada (brings up some of the issues): http://www.cbc.ca/news/ background/healthcare/ index.html

    Wikpedia article about the subject (article mentions the concerns I addressed) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Health_care_in_Canada

    Fraser Institute article: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/ Commerce.Web/product_files/ CanadasHealthCareSystemPoorValueforTaxDollars.pdf

    Long MRI wait time blamed on priorities (Windsor Star article) By Michelle Lang, Canwest News ServiceMarch 6, 2009 http://www.windsorstar.com/Health/ Long+wait+time+blamed+priorities/ 1358575/story.html

    In case the two of you don't get the point, 3 of these 4 sources are Canadian, eh?

    There is a possibility that Frosty Zoom may have read the last article directly in the print edition of the Windsor Star and not the Internet. It would be interesting to see what Frosty thinks of this.

    (But Frosty will probably just say Bonk!)

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 12:30pm

57. mooooooooooo!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 12:33pm

58. Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 12:19pm

    Please see Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 12:21pm

    LL articulates it perfectly, as usual.

    Furthermore, Mask, as faith erodes in our fiat currency and a new international currency is proposed (I doubt you even know what that would mean) health care will not suddenly become something one doesn't have to worry about, is it?

    I appreciate your taking a cynical swing at me, but why don't you put your smug expression to work explaining what's going on with the FDIC? You don't understand that either, do you?

    But that's okay, you just don't want to be a conspiracy nut like me. :-)

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/06/2009 @ 12:35pm

59. Here's a "single payer" system for ya:

    Pay for it yourself, and watch the cost come down when the medical profession suddenly realizes the price for their service is so far out of whack nobody can afford it.

    Such a solution addresses the COST of medical care, and that is the reason 46MM people are uninsured. Reduce the COST, and you reduce the uninsured.

    To do this you MUST make the provider of the service lower his price. Government subsidized or Gov mandated plans will not do this.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 03/06/2009 @ 12:39pm

60. frei,

    while the whole money thing is completely nuts,

    (i'm opening a bank; deposit 10 and i'll lend you 53!)

    [hey, i've come up with the idea of tree-based money; who needs gold, your dentist?!? ah, but trees......]

    it's what we little people have got to work with.

    and we pay taxes.

    and thus, i think we're smart enough to pool our resources to ensure that health care BECOMES a right.

    i think jesus would be proud.

    if we can pool our resources to provide enough police, fire and water services to make our life pertty darn good,

    i think we can also make sure that the sick get taken care of.

    never end a sentence preposition with.

    i think jesus would think that evermanforhimselfism is kinda selfish.

    and that's not the way.

    'course those ADM subsidies will have to go...

    [[[speaking of soyacorn,

    hey, did you hear that mcdonald's has added citi stock to its dollar menu?]]]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 12:52pm

61. To do this you MUST make the provider of the service lower his price.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 03/06/2009 @ 12:39pm

    i hear mount sinai hospital is relocating to laos.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 12:54pm

62. sjchermak

    i tried two of the links you suggested. both came up story not found. i highlighted and copied both links - twice. nothing. that's zero. zip. nada. nyet. kind of like the empty anti single payer arguments we see here. again. i don't hear any major complaints. issue solved. thanks mask.

    Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 1:02pm

63. kennyboy,

    Try taking the spaces out of the links. When I upload stuff into this website, somehow spaces get into the links because I have broken the links up in order that they will not be rejected by the server.

    I am not the only one who has commented on this and mentioned this.

    Thus, you certainly did not try very hard to resolve the problem. You claim to have done so, but then gave up and fell back to your lib conclusions.

    Try again and for some reason the damn links do not work they contain enough information that you can google and find them yourself.

    Certainly you are capable of finding the CBC website, the wikpedia, the Fraser Institute and the Windsor Star without being led by the hand to have to do so, arent you?

    For someone who claims to have all the solutions to health care you do not appear to be very computer literate, do you?

    Try again, lib.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 1:11pm

64. kennyboy,

    Just in case you post back with more stories of grinding failure on how to operate a computer, I did what I said up above (take the spaces out of the links)... and .....glory be!

    4 web pages came up about health care in Canada!

    Wow!

    Gee, just in case you still are not able to accomplish this seemingly impossible and mighty task... I suggest you go to your local school and seek somebody out IN the kindergarten class who can lead you through the steps necessary to bring this difficult effort to a successful conclusion.

    In order to provide articles that show opposite of what you say.

    Is that why there was difficulty to begin with? Mask hasn't posted back yet, probably has nothing to say right now.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 1:22pm

65. a personal note. my mother was assured by her doctor that her rectal problems were due to hemorrhoids. she died of complications of colon cancer, a victim of medical malpractice. the doctor/killer was not held responsible.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 11:57am

    Emile, Sorry about your mom. Unfortunately it's more common than most would think. I was told by my doctor that running a particular test was against the insurance companies wishes. At the particular time, I had ulcers in the upper stomach due to acid problems.

    I finally switched doctors, and had to take multiple forms of medicines, which didn't work before they would do an upper GI on me. Once they did that, they found out that, hey, this guy isn't lying, he really is having problems. Prilosec was in the early phases of testing and I was a ginuea pig. It worked for me, but who knows what would have happened had the doctor not done that upper GI.

    Point being that the doctors would run these tests (In the hosptitals) but unless you fit the profile for someone having that problem, they'll just tell you that you must have something else or it's in your head. I was told the same thing about sleap apnea. I didn't fit the profile because I'm not over weight. Well, guess what, they tested me in a sleep center and found out that I did indeed have it. These are life threatening problems that kill people and insurance companies along with their recommended doctors refuse to test people until it's too late.

    But the bottom line is that they get to make their profits, right. Who cares if the patient dies.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/06/2009 @ 1:24pm

66. Thank you Mr. Nichols for giving voice to the nurses' association. By eliminating the insurance industry in our corporate healthcare system we can eliminate profiteering and denial of healthcare to millions of Americans. The study conducted by the nurses shows there is plenty for all of us.

    Posted by nursevic at 03/06/2009 @ 1:25pm

67. 3. This is also about removing doctors from the free enterprise market system. The marxists want to force doctors to treat everyone and with no opportunity to participate in our market system.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 12:21pm

    That would be an uphill battle. The govt is not going to risk a fight with some of the best medical specialists in the world.

    Posted by ACook at 03/06/2009 @ 1:32pm

68. 3. This is also about removing doctors from the free enterprise market system. The marxists want to force doctors to treat everyone and with no opportunity to participate in our market system.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 12:21pm

    That would be an uphill battle. The govt is not going to risk a fight with some of the best medical specialists in the world.

    Posted by ACook at 03/06/2009 @ 1:32pm

    But it is where they are going and simply look at the most recent post by the marxist nurse to see that is their aim.

    "Thank you Mr. Nichols for giving voice to the nurses' association. By eliminating the insurance industry in our corporate healthcare system we can eliminate profiteering and denial of healthcare to millions of Americans. The study conducted by the nurses shows there is plenty for all of us.

    Posted by nursevic at 03/06/2009 @ 1:25pm"

    I know with your own example that not all nurses are like this; but there is a powerful marxist nurses union lobby that wants to bring just that kind of change to the US. Should they succeed, we will find doctor shortages that will devastate our healthcare in this country.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 1:38pm

69. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/06/2009 @ 1:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    the argument that you don't want a gov't bureaucrat making your health care decisions is a lie.

    in the system we have now, insurance bureaucrats are making the decisions.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 1:50pm

70. Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 1:38pm

    Dunno, seems the West Coast and NE States rely very heavily on Medicare/ Medicaid moreso than middle America. It may be due in part to them having higher concentrations of the poor because of all the free services they offer.

    However, if the CNA does manage something, it will probably effect all of California only. Sit back and watch what happens, it'll be like watching a 50-yard dash to see who crosses CA state line first. ;-)

    Posted by ACook at 03/06/2009 @ 1:58pm

71. Posted by freiheit1 at 03/06/2009 @ 12:35pm

    I'm simply asking about your PRIORITIES, FREI.

    Given the dollar has a "good chance" of collapsing THIS year...

    why are you so worried about a health care plan that won't go into operation until 2010?!??!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 2:09pm

72. Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 12:30pm

    SJ, I was merely pointing out that where as kenny is actually IN Canada and actually a PART of their health care system....

    you on the other hand have Walter Williams and Wikipedia.

    So now, who's going to take the word of somebody actually involved in the system you're discussing, when they've got your Cut & Pastes to go by?????

    (heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 2:12pm

73. Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 1:22pm

    no system is perfect, but this one here does a better job than the one south of the border in providing equal access. are there problems? of course there are, but compared to a denied coloscopy that missed an opportunity for an early cancer diagnosis, i'll take this system any day of the week.

    since you felt it necessary to insult me, i am not going to bother with your links. the so called conservative never misses an opportunity to get personal when all else fails. thank you so very much.

    Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 2:13pm

74. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/06/2009 @ 1:24pm

    I don't see how collectivising health care will bring us any closer to the five nines medical support you seem to expect.

    You chillingly state, "But the bottom line is that they get to make their profits, right. Who cares if the patient dies".

    You must know, because of the way you accuse everyone who disagrees with you as being a mental patient of some sort, you obviously have a lot of experience in this area.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/06/2009 @ 2:13pm

75. (last one, so I don't get accused of spamming)

    BTW, lvlib/anti-socks Larry....wanna make a bet?

    If Obama implements his "totalitarian state" by passing a universal health care plan...

    a year after it's enacted....

    you and Mrs. Liberty and all the Libertyettes are STILL not packing for a move to your 'last bastion of freedom'...El Salvador.

    Bet?

    Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 2:15pm

76. Posted by william.harry13 at 03/06/2009 @ 12:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    an absolutely brain dead post.

    pay for it yourself?

    an appendectomy costs $120,000.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 2:17pm

77. No you're not asking about my PRIORITIES Mask, you are being superficially ingenious or witty. That defines you here. My observation is you see disingenuousness as a virtue. I'm cool with that. It's who you are to me here.

    People get sick suffer and die regardless of the currency situation Mask, as you know. Why wouldn't we all worry about a plan going into effect in 2010?

    Plus, I have children inheriting this situation. Do you?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/06/2009 @ 2:26pm

78. Perhaps it wouldn't be if the damn Doctors couldn't charge that much.

    After the Gov takes over, count on $240,000 for the same operation.

    You may be a fool willing to part with your money, not this boy

    Posted by william.harry13 at 03/06/2009 @ 2:26pm

79. the so called conservative never misses an opportunity to get personal when all else fails. thank you so very much.

    Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 2:13pm

    did he call you "reagan"?

    ewwwwww.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 2:31pm

80. not this boy Posted by william.harry13 at 03/06/2009 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    boy is the operative word here. you are a child.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 2:33pm

81. EVERYMANFORHIMSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ~ st. ronnie

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 2:33pm

82. "My concern is once government is responsible for our healthcare, it will believe itself empowered to tell us how to live our lives.

    Many of the simple pleasures we enjoy could be eliminated through the force of government, not only for our own good, but for the greater good. " FREI

    Employers are already firing smokers because they drive up the cost of insurance.

    What you fear from guvt is being done by the mkt now.

    -----

    an appendectomy costs $120,000.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 2:17pm

    Mine was $28,000, 8 years ago. My bosses son had one last fall, the invoice was for around $35,ooo. If I had not had insurance there would have been no money to buy the equipment I needed to start my business.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 2:37pm

83. boy is the operative word here. you are a child. -- Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 2:33pm as a put-down of william.harry13.

    Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 2:13pm

    So, based on your comment, kennyboy, Emile is a conservative?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/06/2009 @ 2:38pm

84. you on the other hand have Walter Williams and Wikipedia.

    So now, who's going to take the word of somebody actually involved in the system you're discussing, when they've got your Cut & Pastes to go by?????

    (heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 2:12pm

    I'll stick with Walter Williams. His intellect is superior and his credibility is known vs this unknown blogger.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 2:42pm

85. Recipients of government healthcare:

    General Patreaus

    VP Richard Cheney- multiple procedures in a govt run hospital, Bethesda Naval.

    President Bush

    Sen Trent Lott- looks good for his age

    Sen Jesse Helms- lived quite long.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 2:43pm

86. Is anybody aware of a congress critter that is against Single Payer or other govt run health care refusing his/her/it's benefit plan while serving or as a part of their pension?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 2:48pm

87. BTW, lvlib/anti-socks Larry....wanna make a bet?

    If Obama implements his "totalitarian state" by passing a universal health care plan...

    a year after it's enacted....

    you and Mrs. Liberty and all the Libertyettes are STILL not packing for a move to your 'last bastion of freedom'...El Salvador.

    Bet?

    Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 2:15pm

    you're an idiot at times.

    here is where we are at.

    We are considering right now how to pay off any outstanding debt over the next 6 months.

    While doing so we are examining the options of walking away from our home and temporarily renting something small while we watch events unfold.

    If the Obama plans continue, we are working with family in El Salvador to set up a small business. We already own our property outright in El Salvado, having paid off the loan last year. One of our sons went with my wife last year after he formed an import/export corporation in California so we can send goods back and forth between El Salvador and the US.

    I didn't run a number of corporations here and in Asia just to sit by and do nothing while the country changes Mask. I have moved out of the country twice before and will do it again if I need to. While we have no idea what you do for a living, some of us actually do act upon our opinions.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 2:52pm

88. A typical comment from you Emile

    Of course, as I remember, you're the guy who can't accept the fact that for the past 300 years the general immigration pattern from Europe to America has been decidedly from there to here rather than the reverse. In the face of such subjectivity, How dare I take any of your opinions but with a grain of salt?

    Posted by william.harry13 at 03/06/2009 @ 2:56pm

89. Has not even considered all the news stories where foriegners spend fortunes traveling to the U.S.A. JUST to avail themselves of our healthcare system! Just hasn't sunk in yet after all these years!?!?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/05/2009 @ 11:58pm

    If you lived near Canada like I do you could go see the bus loads of US seniors driving to Canada so the seniors can buy cheaper drugs.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 2:57pm

90. Here's my take on this. The commercial powers in the medical industry would love nothing more than to have a collectivist medical care industry in the US. It would give them cartel control over competition, innovation and costs. They could use the FORCE of government in any way they so wish.

    Much like the cartel environment that has controled the banking industry since 1913. And hey, aside from a couple of world wars, a borrowing frenzied cold war, and hundreds of smaller hot wars, wide-spread poverty, a host of recessions and just one global depression, oh, and today's headlines, that system seems to be working really great!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/06/2009 @ 3:05pm

91. If you lived near Canada like I do you could go see the bus loads of US seniors driving to Canada so the seniors can buy cheaper drugs.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 2:57pm

    That seems pretty stupid unless they are going sightseeing.

    With all of the $4 prescriptions and even free prescription programs that we have here in the US.

    Not too mention that too many Americans are drug addicts to prescription drugs in the first place.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 3:05pm

92. Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 2:52pm

    mmmm, I just soak in that patriotism.

    ----

    william.harry13, what do you think of the pay packages granted to the CEO's of insurance companies and health care facilities? Are they overpaid, or does their work matter more than a physician?

    United Health Group CEO: William W McGuire 2005: 124.8 mil 5-year: 342 mil

    Forest Labs CEO: Howard Solomon 2005: 92.1 mil 5-year: 295 mil

    Aetna CEO: John Rowe 2005: 22.1 mil 5-year:57.8 mil

    Cardinal Health CEO: James Tobin 2005:1.1 mil 5-year:33.5 mil

    Humana CEO: Michael McAllister 2005:2.3 mil 5-year:12.9 mil

    PacifiCare Health CEO: Howard Phanstiel 2005: 3.4 mil 5-year: 8.5 mil

    avg salary primary care physician: 145k, 5- year 575k

    source: Forbes

    It seems to me that there is some room for correction of "the market" here.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 3:08pm

93. Just to back up my claim on free prescriptions

    Thanks to USA federal government incentives, pharmaceutical companies may provide free prescription medicines if:

    You have no insurance

    You have reached a gap in private or public prescription insurance coverage (like many Medicare beneficiaries do with Part D)

    You simply don't have enough money to pay for your medications

    Generally, if you earn less in a year than the levels shown below, you may qualify for some or all of the prescription drugs you need:

    $41,600 for single people

    $56,000 for couples

    $84,800 for a family of four.

    http://www.freemedicinefoundation.com/index.html

    And it's done without going to Universal Health Care.

    I don't personally agree with Americans being so dependent on prescription drugs, but there are alternatives to the massive federal control that the Obama and the left are trying to impose.

    And it's curious why Obama and the Democrats don't talk about programs like this. Perhaps because they want to dismantle the open market system?

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 3:09pm

94. Mask,

    You said I have Walter Williams and Wikipedia, and not the word of someone involved in the system?

    What about the other 3 Canadian links - the CBC, Fraser Institute and Windsor Star? Why did you leave those out?

    (heheh) to you, too.

    kennyboy,

    I felt it necessary to insult you because you tried to follow my links, and when they didn't work you just re-concluded your point to be valid and mine not, and declared victory.

    So now you up the ante by saying you are not going to follow my links, even though they will work, and in your mind your point is proven and you have won the argument, declaring victory again!

    Amazing, you libs keep declaring victory before there even is a contest! (actually a lot of libs do the same thing on the subject of global warming)

    You say that "so called conservatives" never fail to get personal - uh, have you ever looked at some of the comments from some of the libs here? Some (not all, no, but some) of the libs here do not hesitate to insult conservatives at the drop in the hat.

    Harry Truman said that if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 3:09pm

95. There is nothing in the US Constitution that justifies the Federal Government distributing taxation to provide universal healthcare. Just as there is nothing in the US Constitution justifying an income tax or a central bank.

    But since MOST Americans aren't really aware of our Constitution, these are the consequences.

    Hey, can you believe they made it a final 13 instead of 12 on Idol last night. How cool!...

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/06/2009 @ 3:14pm

96. Not too mention that too many Americans are drug addicts to prescription drugs in the first place.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 3:05pm

    Marketing works. That is why many drug companies spend more on that than they do R&D.

    You also assume that all the meds these people need/want are available for $4. Many of those low cost drugs are off patent and drug companies are seeking longer patent periods.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 3:15pm

97. Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 3:09pm

    Who pays for those "free" drugs?

    the customers that actually pay. If you think the drug companies absorb the cost of their "free" drugs, I think maybe you are not thinking it through. It would be against their fiduciary responsibilities to the stock holders.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 3:19pm

98. Who pays for those "free" drugs?

    the customers that actually pay. If you think the drug companies absorb the cost of their "free" drugs, I think maybe you are not thinking it through. It would be against their fiduciary responsibilities to the stock holders.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 3:19pm

    But you are still sidestepping the point. US citizens do not need to go to Canada to get cheaper prescriptions.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 3:23pm

99. CRAB,

    What's your point? Of course the pay packages for CEO's are absurd, but what has that got to do with a discussion on the best way to eliminate or reduce the amount of uninsured?

    Posted by william.harry13 at 03/06/2009 @ 3:28pm

100. Posted by freiheit1 at 03/06/2009 @ 2:26pm

     FREI, are you telling me that some universal health care coverage plan is on par...or even of MORE importance than the "total collapse of our currency"?!??!!??

     Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 3:42pm

101. Recipients of government healthcare:

     General Patreaus

     VP Richard Cheney- multiple procedures in a govt run hospital, Bethesda Naval.

     President Bush

     Sen Trent Lott- looks good for his age

     Sen Jesse Helms- lived quite long.

     Posted by crabwalk at 03/06/2009 @ 2:43pm

     This is true...and don't forget the entire congress,SC justices, ect..

     the difference is, and it is a huge difference...you will never get the same service they have..you will get your treatments at window 6 at the Post Office.

     I will never get the service they have now for free or even for a $20 co pay(which is free in my world)..

     My family will never set foot in your clinics at the Post Office,but will have the same care that the above list has....I will pay for mine...and it will still be cheaper than the trillions Obama thinks he is "giving" us for health care.

     BTW, Obama and his family will never set foot in one of the health care clinics you are drooling over.

     The Obama administration is destroying the entire capitalist system the currency, the individualistic drive...all the things that in truth buils the best nation on earth...he is destroying the golden goose in the name of "fairness".mediocrity will be the norm. I am with anti.

     I,too have traveled extensivly and there are many areas where one can still go and be allowed to build and grow. Obama and company are killing America off.

     I will be fine but my children will have a much harder time earning wealth, muchless expanding it for their own life,so we have to take measures now to save them from the future here...

     we are now in a situation where 50% of the voting public pay nothing for the cost of living here...Obama has now made that group a permament majority in control of govt and others $.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 3:43pm

102. Harry Truman said that if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.-----Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 3:09pm

     Didn't Harry Truman first propose a universal health care plan as President?

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 3:45pm

103. CRAB,

     What's your point? Of course the pay packages for CEO's are absurd, but what has that got to do with a discussion on the best way to eliminate or reduce the amount of uninsured?

     Posted by william.harry13 at 03/06/2009 @ 3:28pm

     Aren't those pay packages voted on and approved by the board? The board is where the pressure should be focused.

     All the money paid to all the CEOs of the country, when confiscsated will not pay for 1 week worth of health care anywhere.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 3:45pm

104. and temporarily renting something small while we watch events unfold.

     If the Obama plans continue, we are working with family in El Salvador to set up a small business.----Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 2:52pm

     Got it. And again, Obama gets his health care plan passed...say Fall 2009, implemented say January 2010....

     come January 2011...you'll still be in the States "planning".

     Bet?

     Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 3:47pm

105. Hey, MAASCH...think you missed my post-

     Our waiting rooms in the US have many Canadians getting health care here becasue they are rationed out or on a waiting list for appointment that would be longer than the life span of the problem.---Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 11:24am

     Okay, MAASCH....How many....exactly?------Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 11:48am

     Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 3:49pm

106. Got it. And again, Obama gets his health care plan passed...say Fall 2009, implemented say January 2010....

     come January 2011...you'll still be in the States "planning".

     Bet?

     Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 3:47pm

     If it's a single payer UHC that requires me to participate- absolutely I'm either gone or living in the mountains.

     I don't participate in the healthcare system now, and you want to make me ala John Edwards proposal-that's what this is coming to.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 3:50pm

107. Of course, as I remember, you're the guy who can't accept the fact that for the past 300 years the general immigration pattern from Europe to America has been decidedly from there to here rather than the reverse.

     this is just nonsense. I never articulated such a thing. ask Mask.

     what I have said is that western Europeans have by and large stopped coming, in comparison with earlier numbers. I'm talking immigrants here, not temporary workers.

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 3:55pm

108. Hey, MAASCH...think you missed my post-

     Our waiting rooms in the US have many Canadians getting health care here becasue they are rationed out or on a waiting list for appointment that would be longer than the life span of the problem.---Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 11:24am

     Okay, MAASCH....How many....exactly?------Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 11:48am

     Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 3:49pm

     I don't have numbers and I don't think it really matters. My family is full of surgeons and they have been talking about the Canadian health care for decades.. The system is good if you have general heqalth..stitches, broken legs, check ups,emergencies...but something really serious where one can't wait,it fails.

     Private practices are being encouraged once again in Europe and Canada...for a reason.

     I understand the need for sources, studies and facts written by a favorite researcher over another who isn't favored(see ALGORE refusal to debate scientists he doesn't believe.)...

     I believe my family and their practical hands on experience. I have been to China 4 times other parts of Asia 3 more...

     I can tell you...they are more friendly to business and capital for a reason...because capitalism works and provides the best services and life improvements faster than any other system..they are embracing capitalism and our current cabal is rejecting it..their schools teach capitalism, ours? social crap.

     we are building infra structure(maybe,according to pork package) by spending what we do not have and by raising taxes on business and "the rich" to get more money into the coffers..the Chinese have ZERO capital gains tax...short or long term...have cut their taxes in order to encourage infra structure development in China. All of Asia is doing this.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 4:03pm

109. Cont..

     If you want to compare numbers..compare India and China growth, wealth expansion and individual persona wealth there with ours over the next 4 years.

     BTW...one of the most popular cars in China....Buick.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 4:06pm

110. what I have said is that western Europeans have by and large stopped coming, in comparison with earlier numbers. I'm talking immigrants here, not temporary workers.

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 3:55pm

     This is true...all old European populations no ;onger immigrate, they are dying off. They have negative birth rates...europe is disappearing from within...the growth in europe populations is from Africa,Asia, and the Muslim world.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 4:08pm

111. what I have said is that western Europeans have by and large stopped coming, in comparison with earlier numbers. I'm talking immigrants here, not temporary workers.

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 3:55pm

     And I have shown that you don't know what you are talking about. You who said that Latin American immigrants represented 80% when the actual number is 29%

     European immigration has grown over the past 70 years.

     1940's 47k per year average

     1950's 140k per yr ave

     60's= 113k per yr ave

     70's= 83k per yr ave

     80s= 67k per yr ave

     90s= 135k per yr ave

     00s= 149k per year ave (2000-2007)

     http://tinyurl.com/9tj8on

     The number is based upon those being granted permanent resident immigrant status.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 4:10pm

112. If it's a single payer UHC that requires me to participate- absolutely I'm either gone or living in the mountains.-----------Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 3:50pm

     Ooooooh....are we getting some CAVEATS on how much "totalitarianism" you'll tolerate, Larry????

     Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 4:11pm

113. I don't have numbers and I don't think it really matters.----Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 4:03pm

     Nuff said, John. You should ask SJCHER about this word-

     "Truthiness" is a term first used in its current satirical sense by American television comedian Stephen Colbert in 2005, to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

     Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 4:13pm

114. Mask,

     Most here cite study afetr study as their Bona Fides...and when are pushed...most have no hands on experience.

     Expeience in the field is worth 10 studies of someone who was never there...

     my point is not everything is weighted on empirical data alone.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 4:18pm

115. Anti and Emile,

     WEstern,Eastern Europe in those numbers?

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 4:19pm

116. in the system we have now, insurance bureaucrats are making the decisions.

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009

     Agreed 100%.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/06/2009 @ 4:27pm

117. You must know, because of the way you accuse everyone who disagrees with you as being a mental patient of some sort, you obviously have a lot of experience in this area.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/06/2009 @ 2:13pm

     What seems to be your problem freiheit? Do you define yourself as a right wing wack job? If so, you did that, not me. Just like you and your pals keep calling most of us here left wing liberal socialist commies who hate America.

     Don't like it, then quit slinging the mud yourself.

     As far as anyone disagreeing with me, I have no problem with people who can come back with concrete evidence, not some line of B.S. about Canada, the U.K. or Sweden having inferior medical care to the U.S. Are you aware that a lot of Americans are actually flying to other countries to have medical procedures performed because it's cheaper and the in many cases, the care is better.

     Kind of shoots holes in the "we have the best medical care in the world" argument. The rich folks in this country have the best medical care in the world because they can afford to go to the best doctors anywhere in the world. Do you think we have some kind of ownership on medical care and doctors? A good sum of doctors in the U.S. hail from India.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/06/2009 @ 4:36pm

118. The number is based upon those being granted permanent resident immigrant status.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 4:10pm

     You'll also note Liv that Europeans are defined as people from former Soviet bloc countries including Russia. A large number of those immigrants are from there.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/06/2009 @ 4:46pm

119. Ooooooh....are we getting some CAVEATS on how much "totalitarianism" you'll tolerate, Larry????

     Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 4:11pm

     It is a apt caveat. If I'm not required to participate and I can opt out of contributing to it via taxes, I would stay. But it's doubtful that they would allow any freedom if they impose this thing.

     So, it's an unlikely caveat if we do get UHC.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 4:56pm

120. You'll also note Liv that Europeans are defined as people from former Soviet bloc countries including Russia. A large number of those immigrants are from there.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/06/2009 @ 4:46pm

     But if you look at the breakdowns, my point still holds true. Other than 3 spikes in the 20's, 50s, and 60s, Germany, is as high if not higher than ever. It is pretty much the same for the rest of Western Europe.

     There has been no drop off as Emile suggests in immigration from Western Europe.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 5:01pm

121. Interesting thread. My guess is that regardless of the desires of all of the parties involved, we're going to get something different than we have now. I don't know if it will be in 2009 or 2010, or if it will be a series of gradual changes or a titanic upheaval. But I believe something is coming. I find it difficult to believe that an educated citizen, with plenty of time and access to a variety of information sources, if going to have even the remotest chance of understanding what they are going to get. There will be vastly different projections, ranging from "free and efficient and equitable" to "costly and unworkable and unfair" and everything in between. The vote in Congress will be close, the President will sign something at a ceremony with lots of flags and smiling people behind him. We the people won't know what we actually have for many months or years to come. And whatever it is, we won't have a snowball's chance in hell of controlling the thing which is put in place. Nobody now will be able to predict what their medical care will look like a few years from now.

     Posted by sntauri at 03/06/2009 @ 5:05pm

122. There has been no drop off as Emile suggests in immigration from Western Europe.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 5:01pm

     The way things have been going and appear to be heading, those numbers may drop off significantly in the near future. I recently read where a lot of immigrant workers are packing their bags and heading home due to the lack of jobs and work. We are in a pickle to say the least.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/06/2009 @ 5:07pm

123. The way things have been going and appear to be heading, those numbers may drop off significantly in the near future. I recently read where a lot of immigrant workers are packing their bags and heading home due to the lack of jobs and work. We are in a pickle to say the least.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/06/2009 @ 5:07pm

     Illegal immigration is certainly way down. I have a lot of contact within that community and many are saying that if they can't do better here, it's better to go home back to the farms and ranches where at least they are in familiar environs.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 5:25pm

124. <i>Posted by freiheit1 at 03/06/2009 @ 3:14pm </i>

     How about...the interstate commerce clause? For those who believe that health-care is something that can/should be bought and sold, it easily follows that its a commodity that's significantly economic in character. And as for the interstate part...that's pretty easy. Even without the ridiculously (and, I think, distorted) expansive view of the Commerce Clause that has prevailed for some time, I think universal health care would clearly be within Congress' power. It might get thornier if it involved directing the states to pass legislation, since the Court has generally not let Congress do that.

     Naturally, it doesn't automatically follow that universal health-care is a good system; I'm still not quite convinced it is. It is, however, constitutional.

     Posted by Thrawn at 03/06/2009 @ 5:25pm

125. Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 3:09pm

     i've seen people who disagree with the liberal bent of this site use screen names like libzsuck and frankshits. just yesterday one of your brethren, who shall remain nameless, used the single insult "idiot" in two separate posts and often refers to those of us on the "left" as "loons." can't stand the heat? comparing me to a six year old for having problems accessing something - completely superfluous, juvenile nonsense and you know it. as far as problems with the health care system, we see news stories about it all the time. people who use the system generally have had experiences similar to mine. personally, i have had a half dozen contacts with the system since december 2007, mostly regarding my blood pressure, and have had good to excellent care every time, all you can ask. compare that to waiting in a new jersey emergency room for three hours with chest pains - that's with insurance - as i did in 1990 to find out i had a lung infection, then another two hours to actually be treated, then having to pay a high deductible - close to 60 percent - for the medication.

     if you have doubts about what you read here, why believe what's on the nearly as liberal cbc or any other outlet for that matter, simply because it provides some evidence to support your point of view. then, to doubt the actual experiences of people who have used the system. i don't "declare victory." i try to keep an open mind and hear all the evidence on both sides.

     i suggest you do the same.

     Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 5:26pm

126. It's the same old (sad) story; which weighs heavier--the interests of individuals (patients), doctors and nurses, or those of drug companies and private insurers? In the case of the latter, "interests" are to be defined as: profit. The result is a fairly widespread belief in the notion that access to health care for all citizens is "good" and/or "desirable". BUT!!!.........."we can't". Because..........."they'll" never stand for it. And they are already rallying--just as in 1993. Despite hard times, I'm expecting Harry & Louise type ads soon.

     As a practical matter, how about something like:

     Individuals or families who are happy with their current coverage can opt to keep it in force without change.

     Medicare would be expanded gradually, starting with the 18-25 and the 55-65 age brackets. Note that these brackets are the 2 least likely to seek (or be able to afford), private insurance which may serve to mollify the health industry. In time, ages 25-55 could be added to Medicare as well. The beauty of this approach is that we'd be staging a fair fight. Private insurers would have ample opportunity to show that they can offer better services or lower costs. Or not. I'm willing to accept either outcome; either way, it would be nice to be able to base our decisions on evidence rather than ideology.

     Posted by guitarslim at 03/06/2009 @ 5:30pm

127. There has been no drop off as Emile suggests in immigration from Western Europe. Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 5:01pm

     pay no attention to the satanic preacher.

     we went through this a while ago. I looked up the numbers. livert came back with temporary worker numbers, he can't read. the drop off in western europe was one of a factor of ten. I looked at the germany numbers and Ireland numbers.

     don't believe either of us. look it up yourself.

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 5:37pm

128. Illegal immigrants? 80% from Mexico and Latin America. my previous post left out the illegal part.

     stands to reason, they can walk across.

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 5:40pm

129. Naturally, it doesn't automatically follow that universal health-care is a good system; I'm still not quite convinced it is. It is, however, constitutional.

     Posted by Thrawn at 03/06/2009 @ 5:25pm

     You have engaged in a interpretive stretch that is simply not supported by any reasonable reading of the constitution.

     If one takes your view than truly everything must come under federal control.

     The regulation of commerce between the states is clearly enunciated as the role of the Fed to ensure that states do not bar the free exchange of goods and services between the various states. Not that they control what, how, when, and why. This was to keep open lines of commerce going between the states.

     To somehow construe this gives the Federal govt a power not enumerated in the constitution to determine the what, how, when, and why of healthcare is beyond credulity.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 5:44pm

130. pay no attention to the satanic preacher.

     we went through this a while ago. I looked up the numbers. livert came back with temporary worker numbers, he can't read. the drop off in western europe was one of a factor of ten. I looked at the germany numbers and Ireland numbers.

     don't believe either of us. look it up yourself.

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 5:37pm

     the info I gave from this post is "PERMANENT RESIDENT IMMIGRANTS". Try reading instead of strutting ignorantly.

     Here is the table header

     Table 2.

     PERSONS OBTAINING LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS BY REGION AND SELECTED COUNTRY OF LAST RESIDENCE: FISCAL YEARS 1820 TO 2007 – Continued

     Is there anything mentioning "temporary workers" in that header?

     You must have started your weekend celebrations early.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 5:47pm

131. kennyboy,

     First off, start slowing down with the lecture about how I conduct discourse and considering both sides.

     Because, with regard to discourse, you of course mention the name of libzsuck - but you don't list any names on the lib side, such as Lillian, brunowe, ficheye for example, who can always be counted on to tell me how stupid they think I am, etc... and that is the mild stuff, what about the Phillip McCrevices of this blog?

     Usually (and you can go through my blogs) I do not let fly like I did to you - but I did in this case because you irritated me.... I lectured you on computers and implied you were not computer literate... you forget that I get posts back from sanctimonious libs suggesting I look something up on the internet, not by saying "look it up on the web" but by saying "Remember, Google, G-O-O-G-L-E, try it, it works" or something like that.

     Or what about, apart from back and forth with me, the behavior of lib elite bigots and racists and pseudo-intellectual Yankee snobs slezell and chaoszen over on the "Limbaugh Demands To Debate Obama" thread?

     In other words, get off this kick about being offended because I insulted you. If you do not like it, go fly a kite. If you are so hyper-concerned about polite discourse, go work out the behavior of your lib compatriots first.

     On medical care, you say (about health care opinions) "if I have doubts about what I read here"... this is not the first time I have seen discussion about health care, or socialist style health care like in Canada or Europe.

     Those systems are backwards compared to what we have. It would make things worse for people. If people have issues with our system, then propose ideas to fix our system - but don't advocate we make it worse.

     Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 5:50pm

132. kennyboy,

     By the way, I would like to point out that I, in my post above to you, conducted myself with extreme courtesy and politeness.

     This is because I recommended you go fly a kite.

     Usually in a situation like that, something else is recommended.

     You know what that is, and it involves a very versitile word in our language that is used at various times as a noun, verb, or adjective, sometimes all three at the same time and even in the same sentence.

     I did not suggest you do that (the recommendation of what one can do to themself), I asked you to go fly a kite instead.

     See how polite I am?

     Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 5:56pm

133. Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 5:50pm

     these "backwards" systems work, as opposed to the u.s. health system with, what is it now, 50 million uninsured. by the way, being insulted by total strangers is not an excuse to behave the same way. rise above it. stick the issues. that's all i ask.

     Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 5:57pm

134. stick to the issues.

     Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 5:58pm

135. Posted by sntauri at 03/06/2009 @ 5:05pm

     True enough, but it is what we do know that scares most rational people when the govt gets involved..

     1. It will cost 10 times more than expected.

     2. It will function well at first then exponentialy decay down to a point where thinking people will not go near it.

     3. The over all system will become worse than the one it suplanted.

     4. We will wounder how we got there and wish for the good old days.

     5. We will pay even more for the privilege to seek a private service.

     6. The people running it will may us all wish we could shoot them(see TSA, MVD, IRS employees).

     7. We will never be able to get rid of it or fix it.

     8. The politicians will use it against anyone who trys to do something to adjust it.

     9. We will hate it as it becomes the but of National jokes.

     10. Our children and grandchildren who will have to pay even more for it will hate us for it.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 6:11pm

136. Mask Like numbers.

     Here, Mask are so numnbers from an expert in economics. "A MINORITY VIEW BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2009 AND THEREAFTER

     Sweden's Government Health Care

     Government health care advocates used to sing the praises of Britain's National Health Service (NHS). That's until its poor delivery of health care services became known. A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, "Delay, Denial and Dilution," written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now "waiting lists" for the waiting list. Government health care advocates sing the praises of Canada's single-payer system. Canada's government system isn't that different from Britain's. For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks. Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless. Canadians have an option Britainers don't: close proximity of American hospitals.

     cont

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 6:15pm

137. cont.. In fact, the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in our country. I wonder how much money the U.S. government spends for Americans to be treated in Canada. "OK, Williams," you say, "Sweden is the world's socialist wonder." Sven R. Larson tells about some of Sweden's problems in "Lesson from Sweden's Universal Health System: Tales from the Health-care Crypt," published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Spring 2008). Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor's request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine. Malmo, with its 280,000 residents, is Sweden's third-largest city. To see a physician, a patient must go to one of two local clinics before they can see a specialist. The clinics have security guards to keep patients from getting unruly as they wait hours to see a doctor. The guards also prevent new patients from entering the clinic when the waiting room is considered full. Uppsala, a city with 200,000 people, has only one specialist in mammography. Sweden's National Cancer Foundation reports that in a few years most Swedish women will not have access to mammography. Dr. Olle Stendahl, a professor of medicine at Linkoping University, pointed out a side effect of government-run medicine: its impact on innovation. He said, "In our budget-government health care there is no room for curious, young physicians and other professionals to challenge established views.

     cont

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 6:17pm

138. cont..

     . New knowledge is not attractive but typically considered a problem (that brings) increased costs and disturbances in today's slimmed-down health care." These are just a few of the problems of Sweden's single-payer government-run health care system. I wonder how many Americans would like a system that would, as in the case of Mr. D. of Gothenburg, prohibit private purchase of your own medicine if the government refused paying. We have problems in our health care system but most of them are a result of too much government. Over 50 percent of health care expenditures in our country are made by government. Government health care advocates might say that they will avoid the horrors of other government-run systems. Don't believe them. The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, who published Sven Larson's paper, is a group of liberty-oriented doctors and health care practitioners who haven't sold their members down the socialist river as have other medical associations. They deserve our thanks for being a major player in the '90s defeat of "Hillary care." Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

     Think he was at the Health Care Summit at the WH?

     And if not, why not?

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 6:18pm

139. Antisocialist

     "The regulation of commerce between the states is clearly enunciated as the role of the Fed to ensure that states do not bar the free exchange of goods and services between the various states. Not that they control what, how, when, and why. This was to keep open lines of commerce going between the states.

     To somehow construe this gives the Federal govt a power not enumerated in the constitution to determine the what, how, when, and why of healthcare is beyond credulity."

     What really defies credulity is the utter disconnect between your "scholarly" arguments and the real world. I enjoy splitting a hair or two myself now and again, but remember--we're talking about human beings for God's sake!! If you love your country, doesn't it shame you that we can't match Portugal or Greece in providing health care (while spending twice as much)? Does that make you feel proud? Are we really doing a heckuva job?

     As to the substance of your argument.......I've read it a dozen times or more, and if there's a point there, I confess to being so dim-witted, I just can't seem to find it.

     Posted by guitarslim at 03/06/2009 @ 6:21pm

140. Posted by guitarslim at 03/06/2009 @ 6:21pm

     It has nothing to do with pride or lack thereof. It has to do with following the constitution. Our constitution was set up to give maximum leeway to the individual states to decide what kinds of charities and general welfare they wanted. It move power down locally where it is best decided.

     Why should Californians being the most populated state have undue influence in the healthcare decisions of people in Wyoming or Rhode Island?

     Why is the left afraid to tackle this as the constitution dictates at the state level? The only reasonable answer is that this has nothing to do with really caring about people's health and everything to do with power and control.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 7:01pm

141. kennyboy,

     You say stick to the issues.

     OK, here is an issue:

     You say: (about Canadian, British and Swedish health care) "...these "backwards" systems work"

     Dr. Williams mentioned (in his article) "......A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, "Delay, Denial and Dilution," written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now "waiting lists" for the waiting list...."

     Huh?

     25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year come from a system that works?

     How is the NHS a system that works?

     Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 7:25pm

142. these "backwards" systems work, as opposed to the u.s. health system with, what is it now, 50 million uninsured. by the way, being insulted by total strangers is not an excuse to behave the same way. rise above it. stick the issues. that's all i ask.

     Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 5:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Try 14 million american citizens and the rest ILLEGAL aliens paying no taxes!

     Posted by comancheamerican at 03/06/2009 @ 7:29pm

143. Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 7:01pm

     " It has been wisely observed that Puritanism is not so much a form of religion as an attitude to life, and that there are Puritan sects in Islam as well as in eastern and western Christianity. A meeting of the mind which comes into the world already "Puritan", and the mind which is liberal by temperament has always meant a struggle, and the first named has never troubled to make a declaration of war, but has offered instant battle to his soul's antagonist. Once victorious, the repressive type has shown no mercy to victims of its aggression." From- The Book of Gallant Vagabonds Selection-Thomas Morton of Merry-Mount By Henry Beston Copyright 1925

     In your case, the stated intention to expatriate is strictly your own. Guilty conscience? Shadows of forgotten ancestors? Bon voyage!

     Posted by Sorelish at 03/06/2009 @ 7:42pm

144. If single payer will give me a better choice of medical providers, I'm all for it. The insurance companies have the worst providers on their lists.

     Posted by abeete at 03/06/2009 @ 7:52pm

145. One out of three Americans under 65 were without health insurance at some point during 2007 and 2008, according to a report released Wednesday. With respect to health care reform, "the cost of doing nothing is too high," says Families USA.

     With respect to health care reform, "the cost of doing nothing is too high," says Families USA.

     The study, commissioned by the consumer health advocacy group Families USA, found 86.7 million Americans were uninsured at one point during the past two years.

     14 million huh, commanche?

     cyber pissing matches aside, why is it that we can find 2 billion or so a pop for a b2 bomber and who knows how much on an air defense system that can't launch in time to reach four hijacked jumbo jets, but funding a health care system is somehow out of reach. let's not get started on the military's black budget for who knows what. and those five figure screw driver - fuhgedabout!

     and how many unnecessary cancer deaths might there be in the u.s.a. because people can't afford insurance or minor illnesses becoming major ones for the same reason?

     anyone? anyone?

     anyway, i have to go find a kite and, where was i supposed to put that thing again?

     Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 7:53pm

146. kennyboy,

     You say "...... why is it that we can find 2 billion or so a pop for a b2 bomber and who knows how much on an air defense system that can't launch in time to reach four hijacked jumbo jets, but funding a health care system is somehow out of reach...."

     The first part is an oldie but goodie. The classic liberal view that "...gee we could build x number of schools and x hospitals and pay x teachers with the amount of money saved by not building the (fill in the blank) weapon system..."

     That overlooks the need to defend the country, otherwise hospitals and schools are a moot point, and it overlooks that the money not spent on a weapon system will be wisely spent by the government for whatever (and it usually is not).

     You are going to get your wish anyway, Obama will be cutting back military spending.

     We will have the same disastrous results from that as we did when Carter and Clinton pared back the military. Another terrorist attack.

     On the second part you are responding so fast you just pulled the part about an air defense system not responding to 4 jets out of your rear end. You know full well nobody except the terrorists knew what was going to happen until the buildings were stuck and Flight 93 plowed into the ground. Our air defense system was not expecting 4 civilian aircraft to be used as weapons.

     You want the money "saved" on the military to fund a health care system. Why is it up to the government to set up and fund a health care system? Is it so we can have a system where people wait in discomfort with conditions that get worse while they wait for the 2nd level of treatment, as is the case in Canada?

     I would like to tell you where to put your kite but YOU told me I must take the high road and not suggest stuff like that.

     Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 8:13pm

147. typo above,

     I said "......and it overlooks that the money not spent on a weapon system will be wisely spent by the government for whatever (and it usually is not)......."

     I meant assumes, not overlooks.

     My sentence should be:

     "......and it assumes that the money not spent on a weapon system will be wisely spent by the government for whatever (and it usually is not)......."

     Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 8:16pm

148. In your case, the stated intention to expatriate is strictly your own. Guilty conscience? Shadows of forgotten ancestors? Bon voyage!

     Posted by Sorelish at 03/06/2009 @ 7:42pm

     No guilt; just the desire to live free instead of under socialism.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 8:17pm

149. I agree that health care is broken and something should be done to lower costs

     But I'm terrified by the prospect of the same Lefty wonks that run the universities running health care.

     We could never cut costs anywhere. Propose that we spend less trying to save life-long smokers, they'll find a statistic that says black people smoke more, and call you a racist.

     We'll be paying for people to change their sex, then change back again. If your fourteen-year-old son wants a sex change, they won't let some bigoted country doctor say no.

     I know that sounds extreme, but I went to a public university, in Chicago. Wherever the Left sets up shop inside an institution, they become very insular, and obsessively compete with each other to be more condemnatory of the broader society. There's always some new paper coming out explaining why some heretofore innocuous thing is now a part of the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. (Burn your White Sox bobbleheads! They are ___-ist!) These people are very intellectually inbred and far, far adrift from normal Americans of either party.

     You can gang up on antisoc. I don't agree with him on everything. But when he says he is worried that this is about "power and control," I believe him.

     Posted by gangpapist at 03/06/2009 @ 9:02pm

150. The Obama administration is destroying the entire capitalist system

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 3:43pm

     by far your dumbest sentence ever.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 9:36pm

151. I don't have numbers and I don't think it really matters.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 4:03pm

     finally, the perfect summary of your "knowledge".

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 9:56pm

152. Ask most Canadians what they think about their healthcare. They like it.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/06/2009 @ 11:41am

     damn straight.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 9:57pm

153. I recently read where a lot of immigrant workers are packing their bags and heading home due to the lack of jobs and work. We are in a pickle to say the least.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/06/2009 @ 5:07pm

     even the slaves are leaving!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 9:58pm

154. The Obama administration is destroying the entire capitalist system

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 3:43pm

     by far your dumbest sentence ever.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 9:36pm

     You believe this because you are not in the capiatlist system, you contribute nothing of substance to it, and take more from it than you put in...

     and all know you are hard at work trying not to be in it by gracing your family with $18k a year.

     It does take hard work to not make any money, one can do nothing and get $30k or so... but if you are honest and the entire nation of Canada had people with your drive and work ethic which resulted in $18k a year...

     you wouldn't have any health care.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 10:00pm

155. finally, the perfect summary of your "knowledge".

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 9:56pm

     experience is worth more than studies is the point....

     try it.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 10:01pm

156. but here in Quebec City

     Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 10:43am

     mmmmmm,

     fin du monde!

     http://www.unibroue.com/produits/fin.cfm

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 10:02pm

157. YourJomamma

     don't you have an island to ruin somewhere?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 10:04pm

158. YourJomamma

     don't you have an island to ruin somewhere?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 10:04pm

     No, thats Castros job...I am sure ypou approve. Free health care and all kinds of stuff...even rice cookers and partial electricity. A good home for you.

     You are a joke. I have a sister in law like you. We had to raise and educate her children...

     You are becoming more and more like Darlaloon. You two are a perfect pair.

     Adios, chump.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 10:07pm

159. see john,

     what you fail to understand is that if more people lived like we do,

     the cost of government would be a LOT cheaper.

     and of course, that includes health care.

     none of us have been to the doctor in about two years......

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 10:13pm

160. Maasch and the satanic rev keep threatening to leave our country. promises, promises.

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 10:15pm

161. JR,

     Wie Gehts....

     I will protect my assets, such as they are...it is my future I am concerned with at the present time...and the future of America is endangered by social engineers who have never run anything...Bush started the damage and Obama will inflict 6 times the damage..

     Govts hacks going to build a health care system on outdated models and not a doctor in the bunch..

     They should fix the banks first....but they are not doing that...instead, they are stuffing the goose with loads of socialistic programs in order to get them in placee..then re arrange and control the banks(currency) that will cement in the programs...

     America will be stagnant and non first rate power for years now,...self inflicted disease of mediocroty.

     Asia willl surpass and dominate the economic world as we become Europe...slowly irrelevent and dying....

     And my guess, based on history...Asia will not be as benevolent as the US has been, for all our flaws. The world will not have a buffer against an aggressive Asia.

     The visual will be of a one of the Village People, in full regalia trying to fend off a trained martial artist who has just kicked sand in the face....as a purposed move.

     Besides, should I do well, there will be a table for you in my island bar..

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 10:34pm

162. We will have the same disastrous results from that as we did when Carter and Clinton pared back the military. Another terrorist attack.----Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 8:13pm

     What SPECIFIC major cut-back in the Pentagon budget caused 9/11, SJCHER?

     and how much was it?

     (Truthiness again?)

     Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 10:40pm

163. MAASCH, just seems to me that...

     a study with NUMBERS showing how many Canadians a year are crossing the border to come to our hospitals and clinics...

     would bolster your case. Instead of just SAYING it, and then embarassingly saying "Well, I don't know HOW many...but it SOUNDS right, doesn't it?" when challenged.

     Yes?

     Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 10:42pm

164. Americans Filching Free Health Care in Canada

     By CLYDE H. FARNSWORTH,

     Lacking a national health care system of their own, thousands of Americans are tapping into Canada's -- illegally.

     "It's not an epidemic in any one person's practice," said Keith MacLeod, an obstetrician in Windsor, Ontario, across from Detroit, "but I would estimate that from 12 to 20 of my patients at any one time are ineligible Americans. And I'm just one of 520 doctors in Windsor, 23,000 in Ontario."

     Dr. MacLeod, former president of the Essex County Medical Society, delivers about 400 babies a year.

     http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?

     sec=health&res=9F0CE7D8143AF933A15751C1A965

     958260

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 11:26pm

165. Every doctor will have to hire translators, in some locales for multiple languages, paid for either by the government, or the doctor, who will pass on the cost to the consumer, i.e., the government.

     Posted by gangpapist at 03/06/2009 @ 11:56pm

166. Only a single-payer approach will end the inhumanity of our failed healthcare insurance system, where profits are more important than patients' health.

     Only a single-payer approach will end the current disgraceful practice of insurance companies refusing to pay for medical treatment, denying claims, and engaging in rampant price gouging that discourages patients from going to the doctor and has resulted in 50 million Americans without healthcare.

     The solution? NON-PROFIT, UNIVERSAL, SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE. It works well in many, many countries around the world.

     HR 676, The United States National Health Insurance Act, would ensure that every American, regardless of income, employment status, or race, has access to quality, affordable health care services.

     The solution? The United States National Health Insurance Act, H.R. 676. You can read about it here: http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/

     Ask your Representatives to co-sponsor HR676.

     Posted by RDWalsh at 03/07/2009 @ 12:05am

167. Why is there a media blackout on single-payer healthcare reform? Senator Baucus refuses to put single-payer reform on the table. However, the majority of the public and the majority of doctors favor single-payer reform. How can we get the truth to the people? http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2009/030609FAIR.shtml

     A NEW STUDY SHOWS THAT SINGLE-PAYER REFORM WOULD BE MAJOR STIMULUS FOR THE US ECONOMY and would provide:

     ** 2.6 Million New Jobs, ** $317 Billion in Business Revenue, ** $100 Billion in Wages, and ** $44 Billion New Tax Revenues

     You can find out more about this study here: http://www.CalNurses.org/

     Posted by RDWalsh at 03/07/2009 @ 12:06am

168. Posted by RDWalsh at 03/07/2009 @ 12:05am

     Posted by RDWalsh at 03/07/2009 @ 12:06am

     Anyone want to take a guess who is paying this guy?

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/07/2009 @ 12:16am

169. You know full well nobody except the terrorists knew what was going to happen until the buildings were stuck and Flight 93 plowed into the ground. Our air defense system was not expecting 4 civilian aircraft to be used as weapons. Posted by sjchermak at 03/06/2009 @ 8:16pm

     wow. in a single afternoon, i seem to have lined up the entire right wing blog brigade here against me. damn, sometimes i am just so in love with myself.

     anyway, sj, everyone but you seems to have read the memo "bin laden determined to strike u.s." from august 2001 and you seem also to have forgotten that in 1999 - those dreaded clinton years again - the government broke up another plot to, um, what was that again, hijack airliners and um crash them. sort of a twisted millenium celebration. oh and there was also the fema report from the late 90s showing a sketch of the WTC, which in case you missed it was attacked in 1993, in cross hairs. oh and there were all sorts of warnings in the summer of 2001.

     and, by the way, once we were at war with iraq, how much cash just up and vanished? enough to, say, build a decent hospital or two?

     since i'm so feeble and can't operate a pc - a six year old who speaks only french is typing this message - i was wondering if you could tell me again about that kite thing and what i am supposed to do with it.

     what IS a kite, eh?

     now, lillian and all you other "lefty loons" be nice to sj. he seems the hypersensitive type and his can't afford sugar for his mapo, tough times and all.

     and as for you frosty, i think the unibroue brand has suffered markedly since charlebois sold it to corporate interests.

     un deux trois quatre cing six sept QUE-BEC.

     Posted by kennyboy at 03/07/2009 @ 02:19am

170. anyway, back to bed. my wife says the handcuffs are getting cold. post on chirpies.

     Posted by kennyboy at 03/07/2009 @ 02:23am

171. All the money paid to all the CEOs of the country, when confiscsated will not pay for 1 week worth of health care anywhere.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/06/2009 @ 3:45pm

     A 10% reduction in the top 20 paid CEO's would pay for more then a year of insurance for 35,000 people.

     20 people take a 10% cut from several million, 35,ooo people benefit. Who loses? Your ideology?

     Hey John, do you see how well "boards" ran CITIGROUP, GM, AIG, Lehman Bros, Goldman Sachs, Countrywide etc? I can tell that they set performance as a primary goal. I am sure you would make the same argument about school boards and teacher pay, right?

     Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2009 @ 02:35am

172. CRAB,

     What's your point? Of course the pay packages for CEO's are absurd, but what has that got to do with a discussion on the best way to eliminate or reduce the amount of uninsured?

     Posted by william.harry13 at 03/06/2009 @ 3:28pm

     To do this you MUST make the provider of the service lower his price. Government subsidized or Gov mandated plans will not do this.

     Posted by william.harry13 at 03/06/2009 @ 12:39pm

     If the CEO of a health care provider is making 7 mil/year, that sure leaves a lot of room for lowering the cost to the customer, more than a dr making 145k. Medicare lowers the cost, to the point that some doctors stop taking those patients, but the other day some con was whining about medicare RAISING the cost of care. There has to be a median here. With some work we can find it.

     Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2009 @ 02:45am

173. KENNY, remember, according to the cons Clinton ignored AQ, even though we were at war with them. Bush comes into office, we are still at war with AQ, but somehow the cons think it is fine that he ignored warnings about a sworn enemy that had declared war on the US and had killed US soldiers. They thought "the oceans would protect them" in the globalized world economy they wanted to build. This is a world in which goods and capital are able to move freely, but somehow in their minds they forgot that other things can squeeze into that system unchecked.

     Now they tell us how great Bush was at protecting us (same as Clinton really, maybe worse) but STILL bitch about taking their shoes off and not being able to bring fluids onto a plane. Shoes and liquid explosives are proven methods used by terrorists, but the cons whine and moan about it anyway, WHILE they jail people for YEARS without charges or a trial. Logic don't enter into it.

     Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2009 @ 02:54am

174. kennyboy,

     You have shown yourself to be a complete leftist ass.

     In earlier discourse you howled and whined because I insulted you.

     I pointed out that if you were to assume the role of discourse police, that there were plenty of leftists here worthy of your attention.

     So now you say I am hypersensitive.

     As you know the August 2001 memo has been debated on these blogs before - it was not some kind of glaring smoking gun with specific information on attacks that you on the left declare it to have been.

     But then you go on and make up stuff on the fly. You say that I have forgotten that in 1999 (clinton years) the government broke up a plot to hijack airliners.

     You may be interested to know what really happened, and it didn't involve Clinton or airliners.

     An alert customs agent questioned a guy who seemed nervous as he was coming into the U.S. at a border crossing in Washington State.

     She had him open the trunk of his car. There were bombs in the trunk.

     We now know that this person was intending to go to LAX (Los Angeles International) Airport to bomb that.

     As a result, there was no "twisted millennium celebration" in Seattle that year because there was no millennium celebration at all, even though there were celebrations in the rest of the world. Seattle was nervous because it had not yet been found out that the LA airport was the target.

     How come you only learned to count to seven in French.

     Huit, neuf, dix in order to get you to 10. You should at least be able to count to ten.

     Posted by sjchermak at 03/07/2009 @ 06:30am

175. Willies last post was erased....????

     Anywhoo, Willie, If you want me to pay for all my health care, I have to get up and go to work. If they call at 2:30 am, I git-r-dun then.

     Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2009 @ 1:25pm

176. Willie is a juvenile who does not understand the concept of insurance.

     if everyone had to pay for their health care directly, the way you buy a loaf of bread, only the very rich could afford to see a doctor in a hospital. the way it used to be in the dark ages.

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/07/2009 @ 1:32pm

177. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 5:44pm </i>

     Guitarslim's response to you on the constitutional argument didn't make any sense; I think we're agreed on it. The standard is what the Constitution allows, not what we would like it to allow.

     That said, I think this falls in the original understanding of the commerce clause for two reasons:

     1) The more narrow interpretation you offer is nowhere to be found in the Clause itself. The power to regulate interstate commerce cannot reasonably be understood as simply a power to "override bans/limits by states." You might be able to argue that the purpose was to generate uniformity in many trans-state economic enterprises, but that covers health-care very nicely if you maintain that health-care can be described at least partially as an economic commodity.

     2) Caselaw backs me up on this (see Gibbons v. Ogden, decided within 50 years of the Constitution's adoption). There was a heated debate at the time of ratification on how far the Clause went, but I think it's relatively clear that it was never understood to be quite as limited as you would argue here.

     Posted by Thrawn at 03/07/2009 @ 1:42pm

178. sjchermak

     my first instinct was to let fly, but you ain't worth it. what i did instead was google the name dr. walter e. williams. lo and behold, he is desribed as a libertarian/conservative commentator who once in a while fills in for, you guessed it, old pills himself, one r. "im not making this up" limbaugh. additionally, on the who website, there is no mention of these unnecessary cancer deaths in britain, but you can find out the name of the director general that williams doesn't mention while deigning to quote or at least paraphrase said person. kind of an important item in a news story based on information purportedly provided by that person. saying there are "as many as" 25,000 unnecessary deaths is like an ad that says "up to 60 percent off" when, yes one or two items are marked down 60%, the rest far less if at all. so it seems the who really isn't sure how many unnecessary deaths there are. and it gets better. the organization is dedicated to the growth of "free enterprise."

     curiouser and curiouser. enough.

     by the way, for the uninitiated "un deux trois quatre cinq six sept QUEBEC" is the refrain from "Les Ailes D'un Ange," a very very popular song by Robert Charlebois the now former owner of Unibroue, the producer of the brew Fin du Monde.

     and that customs agent who prevented the LAX attack worked "on Clinton's watch," as some like to say. in other words, she was doing her job.

     meanwhile, the bush cartel received warnings from israel, italy and other governments, specifically warning that hijacked planes would be used in the attacks and an fbi agent uncovered similar evidence, which was ignored. the "Duh, we didn't know" defense doesn't work. i'm out of characters,onze douze, treize, quatorze, quinze, seize, dix sept, dix huit ......................

     Posted by kennyboy at 03/07/2009 @ 2:12pm

179. uh correction. the institute of economic affairs is dedicated to the growth of free enterprise.

     Posted by kennyboy at 03/07/2009 @ 2:18pm

180. Posted by kennyboy at 03/07/2009 @ 2:12pm

     This is Reses Canadien cousin. Just clueless as to the facts.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/07/2009 @ 4:10pm

181. kennyboy,

     You misrepresented the events in 1999, that is why I clarified them. Yes the customs agent was doing her job. She was the only person who is responsible for that bomber having been stopped.

     The reason I mentioned it again now, and I did not introduce this element before, was that mentioning Clinton is totally irrelevant. That should be obvious, but unfortunately the Clinton administration took credit for having stopped that bomber, thus implying that Clinton administration activity or policy was responsible for the successful prevention of an attack at LAX.

     But it was a customs agent doing her job, and doing it well, and it would have been the same circumstance no matter who was President. But, as one would expect (except libs who love Slick Willie), Slick Willie allowed his administration to take credit for something they did not deserve credit for.

     As far as discrediting Dr. Williams, because he leans conservative, nice try but you failed. That is a standard lib ploy, that the person is Conservative or the source is a Conservative publication, and thus invalid, according to you libs.

     The rest of your first paragraph, not written in English or French but in gobbledygook, does not disprove that there were 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths.

     Has anybody ever told you that you are Un emmerdeur de premiere?

     Any Quebec connection you have may not be of help to you on that one, if you don't recognize it.... it is not Quebec French but Parisian French.

     Posted by sjchermak at 03/07/2009 @ 4:53pm

182. and as for you frosty, i think the unibroue brand has suffered markedly since charlebois sold it to corporate interests.

     Posted by kennyboy at 03/07/2009 @ 02:19am

     hmmm,

     i was unaware...

     oh well, there's always beet juice.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/07/2009 @ 9:31pm

183. dix huit ......................

     Posted by kennyboy at 03/07/2009 @ 2:12pm

     party like it's one thousand, nine hundred, four twenties and nineteen!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/07/2009 @ 9:35pm

184. I see a couple fellows on here debating this issue, seems neither one, especially the right wing anti guy is sure about what he's saying. This is a very good column. Single payer is the cure for sure. OBama is the CEO, and we need some health insurance, we can buy a plan that costs 17.5% of our GDP, (the plan we have now), or a plan for about 12% of GDP. So you'd think the more expensive plan would be better? Nope, not by a long shot. It only covers 85% of the people, while the other plan covers 100%. I see alot said about Sweden England etc., Canada, the real fact is, those countries, the people live almost three years longer than we do. The amount of people who come to the US for healthcare from Canada is about 1% or less of their population by the way. And most always, the really rich people. By the way, you'll find single payer all over the world, from Australia to Japan, our "system" of healthcare is actually rated 37th in the world, not first. So anyway, back to the CEO who has to make his decision, the cost of our plan now is about 2.2 TRILLION per year, now, if he can get even better coverage for over a third less money, which do you want him to pick? Just one more point, HR 676 says "all medically neccessary care" would be covered. And guess who would decide it? Your Doctor, and you! Not some greedy Insurance Company buraucrat! Still not convinced? How about this, every hour in this country, about 30 families go bankrupt mainly from healthcare bills, guess what the rate is in those other countries with single payer? ZERO!!!!!!! We do have about the best healthcare facilities and staff that exists in this world, but way too many, are "rationed out" either by not enough coverage, or no coverage at all. This one is a no-brainer friends.

     W Horter 15074

     Posted by willhort at 03/08/2009 @ 05:58am

185. I forgot the most important part. This is what the Insurance Companies don't want you to know, Insurance Companies, add nothing to healthcare, but cost! 33 cents of every healthcare dollar goes for administration fees, and I saw the post about Bill McGuire, his take as CEO wasn't in the millions, it was a billion plus! Yes, BILLION. William McGuire, you can Google him. Also google PNHP, great site for info.

     W Horter 15074

     Posted by willhort at 03/08/2009 @ 06:09am

186. Posted by willhort at 03/08/2009 @ 05:58am

     your're right. i haven't articulated myself at my best, but single payer, in spite of the inevitable problems, is the way to go for the general health of the population and the society's psyche as well.

     Posted by kennyboy at 03/08/2009 @ 06:10am

187. $.extend({}, $.fn.maxlength.defaults, settings); function length(el) { var parts = el.value; if ( settings.words ) parts = el.value.length ? parts.split(/\s+/) : { length : 0 }; return parts.length; } return this.each(function () { var field = this, $field = $(field), $form = $(field.form), limit = settings.useInput ? $form.find('input[name=maxlength]').val() : $field.attr('maxlength'), $charsLeft = $form.find(settings.feedback); function limitCheck(event) { var len = length(this), exceeded = len >= limit, code = event.keyCode; if ( !exceeded ) return; switch (code) { case 8: // allow delete case 9: case 17: case 36: // and cursor keys case 35: case 37: case 38: case 39: case 40: case 46: case 65: return; default: return settings.words && code != 32 && code != 13 && len == limit; } } var updateCount = function () { var len = length(field), diff = limit - len; $charsLeft.html( diff || "0" ); // truncation code if (settings.hardLimit && diff < 0) { field.value = settings.words ? // split by white space, capturing it in the result, then glue them back field.value.split(/(\s+)/, (limit*2)-1).join('') : field.value.substr(0, limit); updateCount(); } }; $field.keyup(updateCount).change(updateCount); if (settings.hardLimit) { $field.keydown(limitCheck); } updateCount(); }); }; $.fn.maxlength.defaults = { useInput : false, hardLimit : true, feedback : '.charsLeft', words : false }; })(jQuery);

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/08/2009 @ 11:42am

188. For Willhort and Kennyboy.

     The bottom line is that you both ignore that there is not constitutional authority for the Federal govt to be involved in healthcare in the US.

     Secondly, I would prefer that employers stop offering healthcare plans altogether. It was started because of competition for hiring. That day is long past and this albatross to employers needs to go the way of the dinosaur.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/08/2009 @ 11:45am

189. Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

     This is the problem. The "general welfare" language can be used to justify any conceivable expenditure. There really is nothing that some clever politician cannot fit into this escape clause. We are forever screwed!

     Posted by sntauri at 03/08/2009 @ 12:00pm

190. There is a determined blindness to ignore the obvious: our greatest funding challenges are our existing obligations under the Social Security act. That is coming down the pike, and we don't know how to handle it.

     But Obama's solution is to assume this even greater nationalized medical expense.

     We refuse to examine how and why medical costs have risen so much in recent decades and how the proposed insurance would increase this money hemorrhage.

     Once there is an open govt wallet, there is nothing to break the costs. No mechanism breaks the system. The upshot will be people in Washington DC deciding whether uncle Herbert gets his hernia fixed this month, or whether he has to wait his turn and not breathe too deeply for two or three years.

     There is a solution. It gives the public a choice. It lets it shop for modalities of care. Medical providers would list their costs and the patient would get a share of what is saved by not opting for the most expensive facilities, tests and treatments.

     Just as the best meal is not necessarily the most expensive on a menu, or consumed in the most expensive restaurant, so too is the best medical care is not necessarily the costliest. But now the most expensive is automatically adopted, because it gives the institutions their biggest profits. The insurers screen against that, but are either easily outwitted, or forced to adopt cruelly rigid rules.

     Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 03/08/2009 @ 12:09pm

191. <i>Posted by sntauri at 03/08/2009 @ 12:00pm </i>

     It's not even just that; I made two arguments earlier, unresponded to, as to why the Commerce Clause can apply to this case as well. The interpretation that antisocialist would require is not only more narrow than the Supreme Court has ever held, but also inconsistent with the wording of the Clause itself.

     Posted by Thrawn at 03/08/2009 @ 1:44pm

192. It's not even just that; I made two arguments earlier, unresponded to, as to why the Commerce Clause can apply to this case as well. The interpretation that antisocialist would require is not only more narrow than the Supreme Court has ever held, but also inconsistent with the wording of the Clause itself.

     Posted by Thrawn at 03/08/2009 @ 1:44pm

     Not all. Until the Roosevelt SCOTUS trampled on the constitution with it's decision in Wickard v Filburn, the Commerce Clause had very limited application

     "In the landmark 1995 case of United States v. Lopez, the first decision in six decades to invalidate a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeded the power of the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court described Wickard v. Filburn as "perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate commerce."

     The Supreme Court majority that decided the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich relied heavily on Filburn in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law. In Raich, the court held that, as with the home grown wheat at issue in Filburn, home grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce. As the Court explained in Gonzalez:

     Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself "commercial," in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity."

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/08/2009 @ 2:45pm

193. In order to get the support of the American people you must open the whole plan up for inspection by the people. Let the debate begin on the specifics. How would we prevent a system like in Canada or Europe? All the questions must be answered. It may take awhile to get all the issues resolved (that's an understatement) but if we don't do this, it will never happen.

     Posted by pyeatte at 03/08/2009 @ 9:52pm

194. In order to get the support of the American people you must open the whole plan up for inspection by the people.-----Posted by pyeatte at 03/08/2009 @ 9:52pm

     You mean like how everybody in America knew what was in the Patriot Act before it was passed?

     Posted by Mask at 03/08/2009 @ 10:23pm

195. Mask: The Patriot Act waspassed as a result of 9-11 and basically was an emergency war act. Just remember is was re-enacted years later after much debate. As for completely doing a "reset" of our health care system, only the American people can approve this, otherwise it will not pass.

     Posted by pyeatte at 03/08/2009 @ 10:58pm

196. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 03/08/2009 @ 2:45pm </i>

     True, but I think your own link betrays you there. The expansion brought about by Wickard, and later reigned in by Lopez, was to expand the Commerce Clause to include non-economic activity or activity that was not by its clear nature interstate. Health-care fits neither of those categories. I think there's a strong argument that it is economic activity, and its interstate nature strikes me as equally clear. Which of these components would you describe as faulty?

     Posted by Thrawn at 03/08/2009 @ 11:57pm

197. True, but I think your own link betrays you there. The expansion brought about by Wickard, and later reigned in by Lopez, was to expand the Commerce Clause to include non-economic activity or activity that was not by its clear nature interstate. Health-care fits neither of those categories. I think there's a strong argument that it is economic activity, and its interstate nature strikes me as equally clear. Which of these components would you describe as faulty?

     Posted by Thrawn at 03/08/2009 @ 11:57pm

     I brought it out to show how the courts completely ignored the historical reading of the constitution and invented out of nothing the broad scope that liberals apply to the commerce clause.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/09/2009 @ 01:10am

198. Posted by pyeatte at 03/08/2009 @ 10:58pm

     So it's okay when it's YOUR definition of "crises"?

     Posted by Mask at 03/09/2009 @ 06:25am

199. I brought it out to show how the courts completely ignored the historical reading of the constitution and invented out of nothing the broad scope that liberals apply to the commerce clause.------Posted by antisocialist at 03/09/2009 @ 01:10am

     Kind of like how Congress invented the War Powers Act.

     Posted by Mask at 03/09/2009 @ 07:49am

200. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me, Medicaid already has answered all the questions about legality. But if we can have healthcare, for all the people, for less, why not? Why spend 17% of our GDP like we are doing now, and still prevent or limit millions from healthcare? Around the world this is already being done, of course, Insurance Company propaganda tells you all these horror stories, but we have our own horror stories too. But snce this new system is proven, as it has been all over this Earth, do you think we are not smart enough to do it, to improve it? If we'd spend 12% of our GDP, it seems to me we'd have a really great program, with dental, nursing home, and mental health care taken care of. Yes, for less than we are spending now, much less.

     W Horter 15074

     Posted by willhort at 03/09/2009 @ 10:14am

201. The UK recently reduced their VAT tax rate from 17.5% to 15%, much of which is used to finance their single-payer health system.

     I pay anually $7200 in health insurance premiums, which are matched by my employer to the tune of $14,400 per year to our "insurer". For an 80-20 split on medical costs above $5000. Where I live in Iowa, we typically pay 5% - 6% sales tax. So to reach par with the UK tax, add 10% to the Iowa tax for a theoretical total sales tax rate of 15%.

     This means I would have to dispose of an additional $72,000 of taxable income per year before I start moving into the red compared to the current for-profit-scam. This is leaving out the additional $72,000 worth of taxable income my employer needs to spend before they would begin to lose money under a single-payer system.

     Dealing with the nightmare of watching my father slowly die of Parkinson's over the span of 18 years was tough enough. Having to cope with the parasites in the for-profit health insurance industry during that period vastly compounded the misery.

     Posted by lumenpro at 03/09/2009 @ 12:24pm