The debate on health care does not need to be this complicated

[Maple]

Nice job! I agree with most of what you posted. More Government oversight when dealing with insurance companies would be ok with me. I think that's a fair compromise. There needs to be much more competition in health care. Monopolies never work out well for the consumer. We cant turn everything over to the Government either though. Just trading one monopoly for another isn't a realistic solution either. Are people really going to be happy with being put on never-ending waiting lists for their Government health care? Despite what Leftist loons like Michael Moore say,extremely long waiting lists are quite common in countries who have Socialized Medicine. So total Government control in a non-starter for me.

I also don't believe that businesses large or small should be required to provide health care for their employees. Why is your health care their responsibility? They provide you with an income to support your family and that should be enough. Your health care really is your own responsibility. I think this has been a major flaw in the whole health care issue. If you can't afford health care than there are many Government welfare programs that you can apply for. If you do truly meet the requirements then you can be provided with temporary Government health care. A massive Government takeover really isn't necessary. Competition really is the key in the end as far as i'm concerned. Competition just doesn't exist in heath care currently. So more Capitalism not less is the answer in the end. Compromises have to be made by both sides though and i think that will happen. Thanks for your great post.

It has been my opportunity to talk to alot of people who come from a nationalized system, primarily from Canada. I have yet to hear one tell me that they like their system, and often, without my even asking them, will tell me that we should never go that direction. One person I talked to from Italy told me his father fell and broke a hip, they kept him on pain killers and antibiotics for 3 months while he waited for an operation. A socialized or nationalized system is just not the answer.

In the U.K, they have stopped screening men for prostate cancer because it's too expensive and running up the budget. Prostate cancer kills alot of men every year, but if it is caught early, the chances of survival are dramtically increased as it is with any cancer. It's just a simple PSA test and exam but it is too expensive for them and they dropped it. We don't need that happening in the U.S.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Nice job! I agree with most of what you posted. More Government oversight when dealing with insurance companies would be ok with me. I think that's a fair compromise. There needs to be much more competition in health care. Monopolies never work out well for the consumer. We cant turn everything over to the Government either though. Just trading one monopoly for another isn't a realistic solution either. Are people really going to be happy with being put on never-ending waiting lists for their Government health care? Despite what Leftist loons like Michael Moore say,extremely long waiting lists are quite common in countries who have Socialized Medicine. So total Government control in a non-starter for me.

I also don't believe that businesses large or small should be required to provide health care for their employees. Why is your health care their responsibility? They provide you with an income to support your family and that should be enough. Your health care really is your own responsibility. I think this has been a major flaw in the whole health care issue. If you can't afford health care than there are many Government welfare programs that you can apply for. If you do truly meet the requirements then you can be provided with temporary Government health care. A massive Government takeover really isn't necessary. Competition really is the key in the end as far as i'm concerned. Competition just doesn't exist in heath care currently. So more Capitalism not less is the answer in the end. Compromises have to be made by both sides though and i think that will happen. Thanks for your great post.

It has been my opportunity to talk to alot of people who come from a nationalized system, primarily from Canada. I have yet to hear one tell me that they like their system, and often, without my even asking them, will tell me that we should never go that direction. One person I talked to from Italy told me his father fell and broke a hip, they just kept him on pain killers and antibiotics for 3 months while he waited for an operation. A socialized or nationalized system is just not the answer.

In the U.K, they have stopped screening men for prostate cancer because it's too expensive and running up the budget. Prostate cancer kills alot of men every year, but if it is caught early, the chances of survival are dramtically increased as it is with any cancer. It's just a simple PSA test and exam but it is too expensive for them and they dropped it. We don't need that happening in the U.S.

It's interesting that you should say that, because NHS (British "socialized" medicine) has around a 70% approval rating from British citizens - including a 92% approval rating by people over the age of 65.

BBC News | HEALTH | Public 'fear for NHS'

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea i think the American People have already spoken on the whole Socialized Medicine issue. They are overwhelmingly strongly against it. So that's a dead issue as far as i'm concerned. The people just don't want it. Like all things there has to be compromise. There is clearly a lack of competition out there as far as health care goes and this needs to change immediately. The people just don't have enough choices at this point. I think it's every American's responsibility to provide for their own health care. If they can't afford it then they must simply apply for temporary Government health care. If they do truly meet the requirements they will receive assistance. We already have this type of system in place for other similar issues. So a total Government takeover of health care just isn't necessary. Everyone agrees that the costs are out of control and there are many issues that contribute to these high costs. Costs for doctors is one of the biggest problems. So some kind of tort reform is definitely necessary. That would bring costs down quite a bit. There also needs to be more options for Americans. Right now we are in a Monopoly situation. So more competition would bring costs down as well. There just needs to be compromise and i'm sure we can get it right on health care. Thanks again for your post Maple.

 

[rightwinger]

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

I actually agree with you Maple. To your list add

7. Public OPTION- Not a takeover, not a free ride but an OPTIONAL plan managed by the government on a pay as you go basis. If you don't like what they offer, you have the OPTION of not using it. But you don't have the OPTION of denying it to those who would like this plan

8. Subsidies/Vouchers to those who cannot afford to pay for insurance. We are the richest country on earth, nobody should have to do without coverage

9. Denial of coverage to illegals. Provide POSITIVE proof of coverage with photo ID containing biometrics

10. Increase competition in drugs. Allow international imports, reduce the number of patent extensions, allow nationwide advertisement of drug prices

11. Let doctors and medical centers advertise their prices of medical procedures. Also provide open ratings of doctors and hospitals so the public can choose inteligently

 

[Dr.Traveler]

What the problem is with defensive medicine, is that doctors who are 98% sure of their diagnosis will run the same very expensive test on the same person to make sure they have covered all their bases and have all the documentation there to prove it, should they be sued. This runs the health care costs of medicare through the roof.

Let me try to get the point across another way. My Grandfather was a country minister and a carpenter, my Dad was a carpenter. The big lesson I heard repeatedly was: "Measure twice, cut once." If you've never heard this, you've never worked with wood.

The idea is that mistakes can be costly and time consuming, so be sure you're right before you do something you can't undo easily. If that's a good rule for woodworking, why isn't it a good rule when people's lives are literally on the line. I understand that 90% of the time the defensive medicine is just going to back up the original diagnosis, but that remaining 10% of the time could make the difference between life and death.

I am sorry about your dad. There are bad doctors out there and good ones, no one is immune from making a mistake. All I am saying is that the compensation for these lawsuits drives up the costs of medical mal practice insurance, which is passed back onto us in the form of higher fees for service, that combined with the defensive medicine practice contributes to app 380 billion dollars of our health care costs. Until we get these costs under control there won't be any control on costs. Tort reform entails a limit on compensation on personal injury suits. In other words, instead of getting 50 million for pain and suffering you might just get 2 million. Again, I am sorry about your dad, that's a difficult loss and it sounds like one that could have been prevented.

Thanks for the kind words. One of the debates going through the family now is whether or not to sue over it. I think that the final opinion is heading towards not suing. Dad had enough life insurance and health insurance that he didn't leave bills, and Mom is doing as well as can be expected on her own... at least she doesn't have much in the way of financial concerns, and what she does have, my brothers and I will pick up. It just isn't worth suing for pain and suffering when it means reliving the past.

I agree that some form of Tort reform should happen, but setting the caps is tricky. Most Con's seem to want the cap to be literally peanuts, most libs seem to want no cap at all. I imagine that the cap ought to be somewhere in the neighborhood of the unnecessary medical expenses (emphasis on the unnecessary part) plus some sort of compensation for expected life income for any dependents.

Will that happen? Probably not.

 

[Maple]

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

I actually agree with you Maple. To your list add

7. Public OPTION- Not a takeover, not a free ride but an OPTIONAL plan managed by the government on a pay as you go basis. If you don't like what they offer, you have the OPTION of not using it. But you don't have the OPTION of denying it to those who would like this plan

8. Subsidies/Vouchers to those who cannot afford to pay for insurance. We are the richest country on earth, nobody should have to do without coverage

9. Denial of coverage to illegals. Provide POSITIVE proof of coverage with photo ID containing biometrics

10. Increase competition in drugs. Allow international imports, reduce the number of patent extensions, allow nationwide advertisement of drug prices

11. Let doctors and medical centers advertise their prices of medical procedures. Also provide open ratings of doctors and hospitals so the public can choose inteligently

I just don't trust a public option that would managed by the government, their record of managing anything, especially funding, is dismal at best. They are just not good with numbers when it involves tax payer dollars.

 

[Maple]

I understand your statement about fraud and beleive that most Americans are flat sick and tired of seeing it continue to go on. There needs to be some teeth in the laws and real prison time for these criminals who cheat everyone or we will never see an end to these practices.

 

[Maple]

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

The bottom line, until cost savings measures are first put in place the government will not be able to reform our health care insurance industry. Today the bi-partisan commitee came out with a proposal that would tax a family of 4 up to 13% of income should they not purchase their own health care. For instance a family making a joint income of $80,000 would be out $10,400 per year. That's outrageous and I can't beleive that anyone from either party would vote for that, especially in this economy.

That's why tort reform, and opening up competition are so very vital to any health care proposal being submitted. They are cost reducers and until the government figures out that none of us can afford this, or the public option, stay ready for many rounds of in-fighting especially among the democrats.

 

[rightwinger]

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

I actually agree with you Maple. To your list add

7. Public OPTION- Not a takeover, not a free ride but an OPTIONAL plan managed by the government on a pay as you go basis. If you don't like what they offer, you have the OPTION of not using it. But you don't have the OPTION of denying it to those who would like this plan

8. Subsidies/Vouchers to those who cannot afford to pay for insurance. We are the richest country on earth, nobody should have to do without coverage

9. Denial of coverage to illegals. Provide POSITIVE proof of coverage with photo ID containing biometrics

10. Increase competition in drugs. Allow international imports, reduce the number of patent extensions, allow nationwide advertisement of drug prices

11. Let doctors and medical centers advertise their prices of medical procedures. Also provide open ratings of doctors and hospitals so the public can choose inteligently

I just don't trust a public option that would managed by the government, their record of managing anything, especially funding, is dismal at best. They are just not good with numbers when it involves tax payer dollars.

And thats why having it as an OPTION is such a great plan. You do not have to take the Government Option, but why does your mistrust carry over to people who want the chance to put their healthcare money into the Govt Plan? Why should you deny the OPTION to others?

 

[logical4u]

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

Do you have any idea how many state laws or mandates would have to be stricken in order for this to happen? These same state mandates do nothing but escalate health insurance costs. However, last I checked, a piece of Federal legislation does not override state legislation.

Do you have any idea of how many rights WILL be sticken if the feds get control of health care? There is nothing in these bills preventing: forced organ donation, forced egg donation (for embryonic stem cell research), forced medical experimentation, forced sterilization, national database of citizens' bloodtypes and health status...etc, etc, etc. While this seems unthinkable today, what about when gov money is tight or when someone truly diabolical (like one of the czars that think animals should have the same rights as humans) is in control? The congress should work "with" the states to fix this, instead of pretending they have authority over the states' business.

 

[Contumacious]

I actually agree with you Maple. To your list add

7. Public OPTION- Not a takeover, not a free ride but an OPTIONAL plan managed by the government on a pay as you go basis. If you don't like what they offer, you have the OPTION of not using it. But you don't have the OPTION of denying it to those who would like this plan

8. Subsidies/Vouchers to those who cannot afford to pay for insurance. We are the richest country on earth, nobody should have to do without coverage

9. Denial of coverage to illegals. Provide POSITIVE proof of coverage with photo ID containing biometrics

10. Increase competition in drugs. Allow international imports, reduce the number of patent extensions, allow nationwide advertisement of drug prices

11. Let doctors and medical centers advertise their prices of medical procedures. Also provide open ratings of doctors and hospitals so the public can choose inteligently

I just don't trust a public option that would managed by the government, their record of managing anything, especially funding, is dismal at best. They are just not good with numbers when it involves tax payer dollars.

And thats why having it as an OPTION is such a great plan. You do not have to take the Government Option, but why does your mistrust carry over to people who want the chance to put their healthcare money into the Govt Plan? Why should you deny the OPTION to others?

(1) There isn't supposed to be a government plan - NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for fedgov to be involved in healthcare;

(2) The Congressional Budget Office has analyzed all of the bills and said that none of them eliminate more than $219 in projected increased costs, less than a quarter of the total. The CBO analysis of the House bill (H.R. 3200) says that the bill would add $239 billion to the deficit over and above the status quo, even with a massive $583 billion tax increase. Ted Kennedy's bill would add more than a trillion dollars directly to the deficit, according to the CBO. And as far as your remark about the Republicans "don't dispute it," talking to Chuck Grassley and ignoring just about every other Republican in the country doesn't count.

(3) Millions Would Lose Private Insurance Under Health Reform Bill, Study Shows

WASHINGTON, JULY 21, 2009-- More than 88 million Americans could lose their private, employer-based coverage, according a new analysis of The American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 released this week by The Heritage Foundation.

Heritage commissioned The Lewin Group, a highly respected health care policy and management consulting firm, to examine the impact the House health reform bill would have on private insurance when a government-run health plan is introduced in the marketplace.

The study found that 88.1 million Americans could be transitioned out of their current plan as employers opt out of continuing their existing coverage. These Americans would lose the employer coverage they now have. The study also found that nationwide 103.9 million Americans would end up on the new government-run public plan.


.

 

[Maple]

Thank you for your post, it's absolutely correct. The new senate version would put a tax on the cadillac coverage that unions enjoy and tax it at 38% a family of 4 non-union with an income of 77,000 would pay 10,000 per year.

Whether it is the public option or public cooperatives, none of them make any sense, they just can't find the money to pay for this overhaul. What they have not come to realize, yet, is that 85% of Americans who have insurance, like what they have. Until they stop attempting to overhaul the entire system fix the 15% .


Bottom line WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS MONSTROSITY- either one of them. To hell with talking about rationing or death panels, WE SIMPLY CAN'T AFFORD IT.

 

[namvet]

[youtube]BnLa1BvtaxM[/youtube]

 

[rightwinger]

I just don't trust a public option that would managed by the government, their record of managing anything, especially funding, is dismal at best. They are just not good with numbers when it involves tax payer dollars.

And thats why having it as an OPTION is such a great plan. You do not have to take the Government Option, but why does your mistrust carry over to people who want the chance to put their healthcare money into the Govt Plan? Why should you deny the OPTION to others?

(1) There isn't supposed to be a government plan - NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for fedgov to be involved in healthcare;

(2) The Congressional Budget Office has analyzed all of the bills and said that none of them eliminate more than $219 in projected increased costs, less than a quarter of the total. The CBO analysis of the House bill (H.R. 3200) says that the bill would add $239 billion to the deficit over and above the status quo, even with a massive $583 billion tax increase. Ted Kennedy's bill would add more than a trillion dollars directly to the deficit, according to the CBO. And as far as your remark about the Republicans "don't dispute it," talking to Chuck Grassley and ignoring just about every other Republican in the country doesn't count.

(3) Millions Would Lose Private Insurance Under Health Reform Bill, Study Shows

WASHINGTON, JULY 21, 2009-- More than 88 million Americans could lose their private, employer-based coverage, according a new analysis of The American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 released this week by The Heritage Foundation.

Heritage commissioned The Lewin Group, a highly respected health care policy and management consulting firm, to examine the impact the House health reform bill would have on private insurance when a government-run health plan is introduced in the marketplace.

The study found that 88.1 million Americans could be transitioned out of their current plan as employers opt out of continuing their existing coverage. These Americans would lose the employer coverage they now have. The study also found that nationwide 103.9 million Americans would end up on the new government-run public plan.


.

1. BS. Social Security, Medicare, VA benifits....none are specifically allowed by the Constitution. Your argument has never been successfully challenged in court

2. NONE of you arguments pertain to a public OPTION. If people and employers find it superior to private plans it is great for the American People. Who gives a crap if the insurance companies don't make their profit?

If you don't like it, don't take it. You have no right to deny it to others

 

[Maple]

The senate is running up against a wall with the Baucus proposal, the public option is dead with 55% of Americans opposed to the plan.

Are you curious why we don't see a round table of physicians, insurance people, business people, preferrably accountants, trying to come to a sound solution for health insurance reform. Are you curious when Obama states that the AMA is behind the public option, yet we see no physicians up there on stage touting the plan? I am, instead we get a bunch of congressmen and senators that have never worked in the industry trying to shove a couple of bills down out throats with something that they absolutely know nothing about. Any wonder why 55% of Americans are against it? I don't.

 

[Contumacious]

And thats why having it as an OPTION is such a great plan. You do not have to take the Government Option, but why does your mistrust carry over to people who want the chance to put their healthcare money into the Govt Plan? Why should you deny the OPTION to others?

(1) There isn't supposed to be a government plan - NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for fedgov to be involved in healthcare;

(2) The Congressional Budget Office has analyzed all of the bills and said that none of them eliminate more than $219 in projected increased costs, less than a quarter of the total. The CBO analysis of the House bill (H.R. 3200) says that the bill would add $239 billion to the deficit over and above the status quo, even with a massive $583 billion tax increase. Ted Kennedy's bill would add more than a trillion dollars directly to the deficit, according to the CBO. And as far as your remark about the Republicans "don't dispute it," talking to Chuck Grassley and ignoring just about every other Republican in the country doesn't count.

(3) Millions Would Lose Private Insurance Under Health Reform Bill, Study Shows

WASHINGTON, JULY 21, 2009-- More than 88 million Americans could lose their private, employer-based coverage, according a new analysis of The American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 released this week by The Heritage Foundation.

Heritage commissioned The Lewin Group, a highly respected health care policy and management consulting firm, to examine the impact the House health reform bill would have on private insurance when a government-run health plan is introduced in the marketplace.

The study found that 88.1 million Americans could be transitioned out of their current plan as employers opt out of continuing their existing coverage. These Americans would lose the employer coverage they now have. The study also found that nationwide 103.9 million Americans would end up on the new government-run public plan.


.

1. BS. Social Security, Medicare, VA benifits....none are specifically allowed by the Constitution. Your argument has never been successfully challenged in court

A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another"


U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

2. NONE of you arguments pertain to a public OPTION. If people and employers find it superior to private plans it is great for the American People. Who gives a crap if the insurance companies don't make their profit?

That is true provided that Congress did not mandate it via the Baucus, or any other similar fascist bill.

If you don't like it, don't take it. You have no right to deny it to others

Yes I do if the law forces me to act or if the enabling act is unconstitutional.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you have any idea how many state laws or mandates would have to be stricken in order for this to happen? These same state mandates do nothing but escalate health insurance costs. However, last I checked, a piece of Federal legislation does not override state legislation.

You need to check more.
In fact there is this Commerce Clause that seems tailor made for the situation. Allow cross state sales and Congress has the power to regulate it. The Supreme Court has struck down interstate liquor sales as anti competitive. This should be no different.

The sad thing is the solution to the problem is well known and well documented. But it would piss off the trial lawyers and the unions and the SEIU and therefore they will look everywhere else for a solution.

 

[Maple]

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

Congress and the senate just don't seem to get it. I attended a tea party this past weekend in my state and the speaker stated that congress the senate and the President are totally out of touch with mainstream Americans. How true, they don't have a clue as to what we need or want and ignore us totally when we tell them what we need or want. All of these health care proposals will bankrupt this country. The Baucus bill will still leave 25 million uninsured and it will fine people who do not purchase a health care plan. We now have over 15 million unemployed people who can't afford to purchase a health care plan yet our government is going to fine them. The people who are running this country are raving lunitics without one cent of common sense.