Healthcare Bill Hit Parade!!

[Navy1960]

What I find as truley disturbing here is the willingness of so many to strip their fellow citizens of their rights for their own. So while you wish to have cheap healthcare I submit respectfully that anyone who supports this sort of effort contained in both these bills does so because they have a short sighted vision on healthcare and support those who really do not wish to solve the real issues that effect costs.

You are the one who is in the minority as far as your thinking. Although practically no one wants health care reform to reach trillions in cost, I have yet to see a poll anywhere which points to a majority of people not wanting and expecting to share some of the burden of health care costs for those who cannot afford more steady increases in costs offered by the free market.

While you may cherry pick obscure quotations, your own extreme ideological projections of "stripping people of their rights" is a mentality of 50-year old uber capitalistic Ayn Randism, hardly based on Jeffersonian people-first ideology.

frankly I don't consider Jefferson to be an obscure person to cherry pick from Maggie, you might but I don't. Your assertion that my thinking it in the minority I would only say this, prove it , and do me the favor of not citing a poll that was taken of 600 Obama voters out of 850 and then tell me 72% of the people want Govt. healthcare. First of all I have made it very clear that healthcare costs are very high and need to be brought under control and even have started threads proposing solutions from co-ops to state sponsored healthcare. So don't assume I am not for healthcare simply because unlike many on the other side , I'm not wiling to toss my right to choose into the grabage all in favor of a socially norming experiment that is blatently unconstitutional.

 

[MaggieMae]

What I find as truley disturbing here is the willingness of so many to strip their fellow citizens of their rights for their own. So while you wish to have cheap healthcare I submit respectfully that anyone who supports this sort of effort contained in both these bills does so because they have a short sighted vision on healthcare and support those who really do not wish to solve the real issues that effect costs.

You are the one who is in the minority as far as your thinking. Although practically no one wants health care reform to reach trillions in cost, I have yet to see a poll anywhere which points to a majority of people not wanting and expecting to share some of the burden of health care costs for those who cannot afford more steady increases in costs offered by the free market.

While you may cherry pick obscure quotations, your own extreme ideological projections of "stripping people of their rights" is a mentality of 50-year old uber capitalistic Ayn Randism, hardly based on Jeffersonian people-first ideology.

frankly I don't consider Jefferson to be an obscure person to cherry pick from Maggie, you might but I don't. Your assertion that my thinking it in the minority I would only say this, prove it , and do me the favor of not citing a poll that was taken of 600 Obama voters out of 850 and then tell me 72% of the people want Govt. healthcare. First of all I have made it very clear that healthcare costs are very high and need to be brought under control and even have started threads proposing solutions from co-ops to state sponsored healthcare. So don't assume I am not for healthcare simply because unlike many on the other side , I'm not wiling to toss my right to choose into the grabage all in favor of a socially norming experiment that is blatently unconstitutional.

Prove it? Here ya go. I've posted this link many times. It contains ALL THE POLLS which pollingreport.com amasses in one place, going back to the first of the year, and you can click on a link at the end to retrieve even older polls. Health Policy

Now, as to Jefferson, my history recollection is that he favored what was best for the people of the country as events may affect them, as his priority over the mandates of the 'health' of private enterprise. In other words, if private ventures potentially harmed the people, Jefferson would side with the people. In a speech to the Republican citizens of Washington County, MD, March 31, 1809, Jefferson said "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

 

[Navy1960]

*laughs* Maggie don't get frustrated we are debating an issue that is important to both you and I. I don't think we are far apart in wanting people to have access to good quality ,low cost healthcare. Speaking from a vast amount of experience with Govt. healthcare some of it is very good, and some of it is amazingly bad and a disgrace to those military men and women that gave their all for this nation. So allow that I do have a little experience in that area. As for healthcare in other nations I've seen a lot in my time Maggie and what it all boils down to me is this, a nameless , faceless entity is never as good at providing for the needs of people in a village than the people in that village. I just happen to feel that whats best for Maine let's say is not best for Arizona or Mi. or Tx. whatever. In fact, I feel that the Federal Govt. should act as the prime motivator to the states in order so that they may provide the proper environment for a good and available healhcare system locally. Further, if you or others even went about your desires for national healthcare within our form of Govt.you would have no bigger supporter than me. So no I don't think we are all that far apart in what we think as far as healhcare, it's just that I don't think that our Govt. is the best mechanism for that. One more thing to consider here too, as a result of my service to my nation I have the benefits I receive, they were not just randomly given to me they were earned.

 

[Navy1960]

Maggie those polls don't exactly put you in the vast majority of Americans as a matter of fact on some of those questions I could answer in the affirmative. Overall you have a 50 50 split, so I will happily count myself in 48% as of the last poll which according to your data is not exactly an overwhelming majority and I did not even take the time to look at the polling matrix to see exactly who they polled.

As for Jeffferson he was an anti-Federalist unlike Madison and Hamilton who were sound proponents of a strong Federal Government..

Arguably, the greatest proponent of freedom, Thomas Jefferson himself was an anti-federalist. Jefferson believed in the absolute minimum when it came to government. In fact, he stated that the best form of government was represented in the Native American tribes. However, he also saw this as impractical for a nation which was rapidly growing to the size and scope of America.

Those assembled at the Philadelphia Congress were originally given the responsibility of simply amending the Articles of Confederation which were not much more than agreements between the separate colonies. However, once convened, the congress closed the doors and began hashing out today's Constitution. No doubt if Hamilton had succeeded in his plan, the Constitution would have been more of an authoritarian document. However, the soft spoken Madison saw the dangers both of authoritarianism, and of a true democracy and established the different branches of government which act to balance one another out.

Many anti-federalists were not happy with a constitution that spelled out the responsibilities of the government, but did not mention the rights and protections of the people. Among these were Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and James Madison. Although some were opposed to spelling out the rights on paper and thus defining them (or limiting them), it was argued that the rights needed to be spelled out in order to ensure their protection. The Bill of Rights does not presume to provide these rights, rather it recognizes their inherent nature and protects their sanctity


So yes, I tend to believe in a smaller Federal Govt. with only those power(s) alloted to them and the rest alloted to the states. So I would proudly consider myself among those that would believe that Federal Govts. powers are limited in scope and those that are not worded in the constitution should be left to the individual states to decide.

 

[MaggieMae]

*laughs* Maggie don't get frustrated we are debating an issue that is important to both you and I. I don't think we are far apart in wanting people to have access to good quality ,low cost healthcare. Speaking from a vast amount of experience with Govt. healthcare some of it is very good, and some of it is amazingly bad and a disgrace to those military men and women that gave their all for this nation. So allow that I do have a little experience in that area. As for healthcare in other nations I've seen a lot in my time Maggie and what it all boils down to me is this, a nameless , faceless entity is never as good at providing for the needs of people in a village than the people in that village. I just happen to feel that whats best for Maine let's say is not best for Arizona or Mi. or Tx. whatever. In fact, I feel that the Federal Govt. should act as the prime motivator to the states in order so that they may provide the proper environment for a good and available healhcare system locally. Further, if you or others even went about your desires for national healthcare within our form of Govt.you would have no bigger supporter than me. So no I don't think we are all that far apart in what we think as far as healhcare, it's just that I don't think that our Govt. is the best mechanism for that. One more thing to consider here too, as a result of my service to my nation I have the benefits I receive, they were not just randomly given to me they were earned.

I never meant to imply your benefits were not earned, just that it would be difficult for someone who has always had the benefit of no-cost health care to really get inside the head of someone who must weigh the benefit of survival or not because of the prohibitive costs of their care. When you consider that two-thirds of all personal bankruptcies continue to be caused by astronomical medical bills, then there is something seriously wrong with the free market system (an oxymoron as it applies to health care, when you think about it).

 

[MaggieMae]

Maggie those polls don't exactly put you in the vast majority of Americans as a matter of fact on some of those questions I could answer in the affirmative. Overall you have a 50 50 split, so I will happily count myself in 48% as of the last poll which according to your data is not exactly an overwhelming majority and I did not even take the time to look at the polling matrix to see exactly who they polled.

As for Jeffferson he was an anti-Federalist unlike Madison and Hamilton who were sound proponents of a strong Federal Government..

Arguably, the greatest proponent of freedom, Thomas Jefferson himself was an anti-federalist. Jefferson believed in the absolute minimum when it came to government. In fact, he stated that the best form of government was represented in the Native American tribes. However, he also saw this as impractical for a nation which was rapidly growing to the size and scope of America.

Those assembled at the Philadelphia Congress were originally given the responsibility of simply amending the Articles of Confederation which were not much more than agreements between the separate colonies. However, once convened, the congress closed the doors and began hashing out today's Constitution. No doubt if Hamilton had succeeded in his plan, the Constitution would have been more of an authoritarian document. However, the soft spoken Madison saw the dangers both of authoritarianism, and of a true democracy and established the different branches of government which act to balance one another out.

Many anti-federalists were not happy with a constitution that spelled out the responsibilities of the government, but did not mention the rights and protections of the people. Among these were Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and James Madison. Although some were opposed to spelling out the rights on paper and thus defining them (or limiting them), it was argued that the rights needed to be spelled out in order to ensure their protection. The Bill of Rights does not presume to provide these rights, rather it recognizes their inherent nature and protects their sanctity


So yes, I tend to believe in a smaller Federal Govt. with only those power(s) alloted to them and the rest alloted to the states. So I would proudly consider myself among those that would believe that Federal Govts. powers are limited in scope and those that are not worded in the constitution should be left to the individual states to decide.

A point I consistently make whenever someone suggests that we need to return to the 'original' tenets of the Constitution. The framers obviously realized that time would not stand still and that the basic rules of law set forth would need to be transitioned along with the growth of the nation. I don't have the slightest doubt that Jefferson would have seen the need for government intervention in health care for the people IF the private sector failed to deliver to ALL in need.

 

[MaggieMae]

Maggie those polls don't exactly put you in the vast majority of Americans as a matter of fact on some of those questions I could answer in the affirmative. Overall you have a 50 50 split, so I will happily count myself in 48% as of the last poll which according to your data is not exactly an overwhelming majority and I did not even take the time to look at the polling matrix to see exactly who they polled.

The recent drop in popularity is because of the 24/7 news cycle trying to wrap its head around the myriad options that are on again/off again, which has created mass confusion. I talk to people who, even a week ago, could have told me one way or the other how they feel about the current status of the health care issue being debated in Washington, and over the weekend these same people are now just shrugging or throwing their arms in the air in exasperation. Look beyond the top four or five in that link, and you'll see a greater majority in favor of Obama's basic policy proposals. Since then, however, Congress has stepped in and created a monster.

 

[jreeves]

Your point? I get my information from a huge variety of sources, not the least of which is Congressional Daily, which is straight reporting. I watch/listen on average 15 hours per week of C-Span and also read THEIR links to sources. You will ever win an argument with me by just parroting opinions of others, so don't even try. On the other hand, if you're ever 'right' about something, I'll let you know.

In what way did you not parrot the blogger that has blogged for DailyKOS as well as other liberal websites?

I've never visited DailyKOS in my life. The only thing I've EVER read which was posted by them was that Patreaus-Betrayus stuff in 2007. I also don't read Huffington Post on a regular basis, but they are an excellent site for hyperlinking items in PDF form if one doesn't know the exact wording. You can take a guess and often Google will direct me to the HP, which then has a redirect. [Hope Navy sees this as well.]

My opinions are my own, based on analyzing a variety of publications, etc. As for health care, yes, I believe government intervention IS needed, but no, I don't believe that cost containment has been fully explored. So I'm right in the middle, just like two-thirds of the rest of Americans on this. Mine isn't a left or right position based on any one leftist website or talking head.

I have a real problem, however, with the continued yammering from the ideological point of view: SOCIALISM!!! EGADS!!! Done correctly, any government-sponsored health care program does NOT mean the beginning of an era of Stalin-esque Socialism/Communism, or even a carbon copy of the British system.

I was amused listening to C-Span's Washington Journal this morning, once again dealing with the health care issue, only this time the moderator asked a specific question of the callers: How do you currently pay for your health care? The hommina hommina hommina comments from some of the Republican callers preceded the fact that, um, I get mine through Medicare/Medicaid. Surprise surprise. Yet they're against coverage for those who don't qualify for either because it will lead to Socialism? Interesting.

If your opinions are your own, then that's fine, discuss the bill or bills based upon their merits. You may not have a problem with a commissioner determining what health care you receive but I would rather be able to shop in a free market what coverage I get. You may not have a problem paying taxes to cover non-Americans health care, I do.

 

[MaggieMae]

In what way did you not parrot the blogger that has blogged for DailyKOS as well as other liberal websites?

I've never visited DailyKOS in my life. The only thing I've EVER read which was posted by them was that Patreaus-Betrayus stuff in 2007. I also don't read Huffington Post on a regular basis, but they are an excellent site for hyperlinking items in PDF form if one doesn't know the exact wording. You can take a guess and often Google will direct me to the HP, which then has a redirect. [Hope Navy sees this as well.]

My opinions are my own, based on analyzing a variety of publications, etc. As for health care, yes, I believe government intervention IS needed, but no, I don't believe that cost containment has been fully explored. So I'm right in the middle, just like two-thirds of the rest of Americans on this. Mine isn't a left or right position based on any one leftist website or talking head.

I have a real problem, however, with the continued yammering from the ideological point of view: SOCIALISM!!! EGADS!!! Done correctly, any government-sponsored health care program does NOT mean the beginning of an era of Stalin-esque Socialism/Communism, or even a carbon copy of the British system.

I was amused listening to C-Span's Washington Journal this morning, once again dealing with the health care issue, only this time the moderator asked a specific question of the callers: How do you currently pay for your health care? The hommina hommina hommina comments from some of the Republican callers preceded the fact that, um, I get mine through Medicare/Medicaid. Surprise surprise. Yet they're against coverage for those who don't qualify for either because it will lead to Socialism? Interesting.

If your opinions are your own, then that's fine, discuss the bill or bills based upon their merits. You may not have a problem with a commissioner determining what health care you receive but I would rather be able to shop in a free market what coverage I get. You may not have a problem paying taxes to cover non-Americans health care, I do.

I don't think the final bill will allow for a government official to make any decisions on your health care, but those will be left up to the doctors and/or administrators of whatever pool of insurance coverage is chosen. It's that way now.

I don't blame you for not wanting to keep what you've got if you like it and can afford it. I'm sure you'll still be able to. Existing private insurers aren't going to go under (as the naysayers continue to project) because there are plenty of folks like you who won't change over to a government option. And that IS all it will be--an option.

Truce...

 

[Navy1960]

I do think Maggie we all want healthcare costs to come down for everyone, afterall who doesn't want prices to go down. What I think the debate is over is how do we get there. You will see that a more than just a few people , me among them see this as an even bigger issue and that is "what is our Govt. empowered to do" . Further, I believe that many of the issues that effect the costs of healthcare can be solved with reforms targeted at those areas and not this one size fits all solution.

 

[MaggieMae]

I do think Maggie we all want healthcare costs to come down for everyone, afterall who doesn't want prices to go down. What I think the debate is over is how do we get there. You will see that a more than just a few people , me among them see this as an even bigger issue and that is "what is our Govt. empowered to do" . Further, I believe that many of the issues that effect the costs of healthcare can be solved with reforms targeted at those areas and not this one size fits all solution.

The cost is the ONLY thing that concerns everyone, me included, but it isn't just the potential cost of government intervention, it's the existing cost for which there also is no end in sight.

 

[jreeves]

I've never visited DailyKOS in my life. The only thing I've EVER read which was posted by them was that Patreaus-Betrayus stuff in 2007. I also don't read Huffington Post on a regular basis, but they are an excellent site for hyperlinking items in PDF form if one doesn't know the exact wording. You can take a guess and often Google will direct me to the HP, which then has a redirect. [Hope Navy sees this as well.]

My opinions are my own, based on analyzing a variety of publications, etc. As for health care, yes, I believe government intervention IS needed, but no, I don't believe that cost containment has been fully explored. So I'm right in the middle, just like two-thirds of the rest of Americans on this. Mine isn't a left or right position based on any one leftist website or talking head.

I have a real problem, however, with the continued yammering from the ideological point of view: SOCIALISM!!! EGADS!!! Done correctly, any government-sponsored health care program does NOT mean the beginning of an era of Stalin-esque Socialism/Communism, or even a carbon copy of the British system.

I was amused listening to C-Span's Washington Journal this morning, once again dealing with the health care issue, only this time the moderator asked a specific question of the callers: How do you currently pay for your health care? The hommina hommina hommina comments from some of the Republican callers preceded the fact that, um, I get mine through Medicare/Medicaid. Surprise surprise. Yet they're against coverage for those who don't qualify for either because it will lead to Socialism? Interesting.

If your opinions are your own, then that's fine, discuss the bill or bills based upon their merits. You may not have a problem with a commissioner determining what health care you receive but I would rather be able to shop in a free market what coverage I get. You may not have a problem paying taxes to cover non-Americans health care, I do.

I don't think the final bill will allow for a government official to make any decisions on your health care, but those will be left up to the doctors and/or administrators of whatever pool of insurance coverage is chosen. It's that way now.

I don't blame you for not wanting to keep what you've got if you like it and can afford it. I'm sure you'll still be able to. Existing private insurers aren't going to go under (as the naysayers continue to project) because there are plenty of folks like you who won't change over to a government option. And that IS all it will be--an option.

Truce...

Under this particular bill, a government official would essentially be making your health care decisions. When the "commissioner" can tell private insurance "competitors" what they can and can't cover, then they are deciding how everyone's health care. I haven't seen, maybe there is, a bill that includes a public option that doesn't include some type of commissioner or government official dictating coverage. Maybe you have, if you have please post it, I would be interested in seeing it.

 

[MaggieMae]

If your opinions are your own, then that's fine, discuss the bill or bills based upon their merits. You may not have a problem with a commissioner determining what health care you receive but I would rather be able to shop in a free market what coverage I get. You may not have a problem paying taxes to cover non-Americans health care, I do.

I don't think the final bill will allow for a government official to make any decisions on your health care, but those will be left up to the doctors and/or administrators of whatever pool of insurance coverage is chosen. It's that way now.

I don't blame you for not wanting to keep what you've got if you like it and can afford it. I'm sure you'll still be able to. Existing private insurers aren't going to go under (as the naysayers continue to project) because there are plenty of folks like you who won't change over to a government option. And that IS all it will be--an option.

Truce...

Under this particular bill, a government official would essentially be making your health care decisions. When the "commissioner" can tell private insurance "competitors" what they can and can't cover, then they are deciding how everyone's health care. I haven't seen, maybe there is, a bill that includes a public option that doesn't include some type of commissioner or government official dictating coverage. Maybe you have, if you have please post it, I would be interested in seeing it.

Once again, the House bill is dead. There IS no "bill" yet and won't be for some time. The best that will come out of the current session before the August break is a consensus bill between the House and the Senate, and that one is what will be carved up during conference meetings between the two which won't happen until September. That particular provision will be heavily scrutinized as one that pops out as being too controversial not to look more closely at.

 

[Navy1960]

Once again Maggie as long as Nancy Pelosi keeps trotting out in front of the camera's and talks about this EXACT bill and democrat members of the house go to the floor and talk about this same bill then I will continue to point out it's terrible sections that apply to all Americans. As long as Pelosi continues to use SICK people to prop up her agenda she and others that support her unamerican agenda will find in me an opponent that is unrelenting. I will not give up on this issue because I wii NOT leave my daughter a 3rd world nation and will defend it against those that want too.

 

[MaggieMae]

Once again Maggie as long as Nancy Pelosi keeps trotting out in front of the camera's and talks about this EXACT bill and democrat members of the house go to the floor and talk about this same bill then I will continue to point out it's terrible sections that apply to all Americans. As long as Pelosi continues to use SICK people to prop up her agenda she and others that support her unamerican agenda will find in me an opponent that is unrelenting. I will not give up on this issue because I wii NOT leave my daughter a 3rd world nation and will defend it against those that want too.

Go for it. But the House of Representatives DOES NOT make law. Pelosi will soon be irrelevant.

 

[Navy1960]

Once again Maggie as long as Nancy Pelosi keeps trotting out in front of the camera's and talks about this EXACT bill and democrat members of the house go to the floor and talk about this same bill then I will continue to point out it's terrible sections that apply to all Americans. As long as Pelosi continues to use SICK people to prop up her agenda she and others that support her unamerican agenda will find in me an opponent that is unrelenting. I will not give up on this issue because I wii NOT leave my daughter a 3rd world nation and will defend it against those that want too.

Go for it. But the House of Representatives DOES NOT make law. Pelosi will soon be irrelevant.

Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by which he was empowered to selectively nullify certain provisions of a bill before signing it. The Constitution Article I, Section 8; says to give all the power to Congress. Congress has the exclusive power to legislate, to make laws and in addition to the enumerated powers it has all other powers vested in the government by the Constitution.

The President has the responsibility to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the Laws of the United States in much the same way as a vassal takes an oath of allegiance to his liege lord. He is delegated authority by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but the Congress can never give its power away.

Where Congress does not make so great and sweeping a delegation of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."

Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the President to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.
Separation of powers under the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd be interested in knowing who you think makes the laws then? The President by signing legislation presented to him or her by congress? or perhaps the courts that look at laws and rule upon them?

 

[sealybobo]

I do think Maggie we all want healthcare costs to come down for everyone, afterall who doesn't want prices to go down. What I think the debate is over is how do we get there. You will see that a more than just a few people , me among them see this as an even bigger issue and that is "what is our Govt. empowered to do" . Further, I believe that many of the issues that effect the costs of healthcare can be solved with reforms targeted at those areas and not this one size fits all solution.

What idea(s) do you have to bring costs down?

 

[johnrocks]

I do think Maggie we all want healthcare costs to come down for everyone, afterall who doesn't want prices to go down. What I think the debate is over is how do we get there. You will see that a more than just a few people , me among them see this as an even bigger issue and that is "what is our Govt. empowered to do" . Further, I believe that many of the issues that effect the costs of healthcare can be solved with reforms targeted at those areas and not this one size fits all solution.

What idea(s) do you have to bring costs down?

Not the guy you asked but....

1. Repeal the HMO Act of 1973 which requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses, but not individuals, to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the insane coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

2. Repeal the ERISA Act of 1974 which is a federal law that sets minimum standards for retirement and health benefit plans in private industry. This attracted special interests to insert things from wet nurses to maternity in group plans,these minimal standards have raised costs and took away our freedom to choose the coverage we want as individuals.

3. Introduce legislation that gives tax credits for individuals to buy their own insurance,be it comprehensive or high deductible catastrophic or Medical Savings Accounts.

4. Introduce legislation that gives tax credits for "negative outcomes" insurance that people can purchase prior to an operation that would remove costly litigation yet preserve trial by jury we hold so dear in this country,it could drive down liability costs and the consumer would be able to set the value they want on their property which is their body.

5. Introduce Tax Credits for people who take a large amount of prescription medicine,this could help those in need without creating bureaucracy such as Medicare Part "D". We could also do this for people who take care of their parents or children to relieve burdens.

6. Remove any limitations on Medical Savings type accounts. This would expand access,it's the fastest growing market there is and could grow faster without the constraints govt. places on them.

7. Allow insurance companies to sell nationally and allow all insurance companies to participate, Mutual Companies,non profits,Property and Casualty,you name it,open up the competition.

8. Give huge tax credits to companies wanting to open Doc in a Box type clinics in towns,in the Wal Marts,Wal Greens and Targets nation wide. This would releive pressure on ER rooms, a lot of times a child may get sick late at night and the only place to go is ER,this could alleviate that since these type places are open at night and on weekends.

How you like?

 

[jreeves]

I do think Maggie we all want healthcare costs to come down for everyone, afterall who doesn't want prices to go down. What I think the debate is over is how do we get there. You will see that a more than just a few people , me among them see this as an even bigger issue and that is "what is our Govt. empowered to do" . Further, I believe that many of the issues that effect the costs of healthcare can be solved with reforms targeted at those areas and not this one size fits all solution.

What idea(s) do you have to bring costs down?

Not the guy you asked but....

1. Repeal the HMO Act of 1973 which requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses, but not individuals, to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the insane coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

2. Repeal the ERISA Act of 1974 which is a federal law that sets minimum standards for retirement and health benefit plans in private industry. This attracted special interests to insert things from wet nurses to maternity in group plans,these minimal standards have raised costs and took away our freedom to choose the coverage we want as individuals.

3. Introduce legislation that gives tax credits for individuals to buy their own insurance,be it comprehensive or high deductible catastrophic or Medical Savings Accounts.

4. Introduce legislation that gives tax credits for "negative outcomes" insurance that people can purchase prior to an operation that would remove costly litigation yet preserve trial by jury we hold so dear in this country,it could drive down liability costs and the consumer would be able to set the value they want on their property which is their body.

5. Introduce Tax Credits for people who take a large amount of prescription medicine,this could help those in need without creating bureaucracy such as Medicare Part "D". We could also do this for people who take care of their parents or children to relieve burdens.

6. Remove any limitations on Medical Savings type accounts. This would expand access,it's the fastest growing market there is and could grow faster without the constraints govt. places on them.

7. Allow insurance companies to sell nationally and allow all insurance companies to participate, Mutual Companies,non profits,Property and Casualty,you name it,open up the competition.

8. Give huge tax credits to companies wanting to open Doc in a Box type clinics in towns,in the Wal Marts,Wal Greens and Targets nation wide. This would releive pressure on ER rooms, a lot of times a child may get sick late at night and the only place to go is ER,this could alleviate that since these type places are open at night and on weekends.

How you like?

Good ideas, I would like to piggyback and add one thing. I believe a lot of costs we are incurring as a nation are due to obesity rates in America. I don't believe its a coincidence that obesity rates have been exploding here in America and medical costs have been following suit. A fatter America means a sicker America. Obesity leads to disease, its an established medical fact. In order to help promote healthier living we should expand Physical Education programs in schools. As well we should provide tax breaks for weight loss programs.

 

[jreeves]

I don't think the final bill will allow for a government official to make any decisions on your health care, but those will be left up to the doctors and/or administrators of whatever pool of insurance coverage is chosen. It's that way now.

I don't blame you for not wanting to keep what you've got if you like it and can afford it. I'm sure you'll still be able to. Existing private insurers aren't going to go under (as the naysayers continue to project) because there are plenty of folks like you who won't change over to a government option. And that IS all it will be--an option.

Truce...

Under this particular bill, a government official would essentially be making your health care decisions. When the "commissioner" can tell private insurance "competitors" what they can and can't cover, then they are deciding how everyone's health care. I haven't seen, maybe there is, a bill that includes a public option that doesn't include some type of commissioner or government official dictating coverage. Maybe you have, if you have please post it, I would be interested in seeing it.

Once again, the House bill is dead. There IS no "bill" yet and won't be for some time. The best that will come out of the current session before the August break is a consensus bill between the House and the Senate, and that one is what will be carved up during conference meetings between the two which won't happen until September. That particular provision will be heavily scrutinized as one that pops out as being too controversial not to look more closely at.

I guess the answer is no, you haven't seen any bills or proposals that includes a public option that doesn't let a government official to dictate coverage?