Romney plan provides health care coverage while respecting the Consitution

"A common sense approach of limited government can help us to improve the health care system of the United States"---agree.

I don't know if Hillary has modified her plan, but seems doesn't have to be government run, the well run, but not greedy insurance companies could do a whole package, like Geico, NJ Manufacturers they could do a whole health, dental, life, auto and home owners package and better than the government. I would not trust this to Allstate, Prudential or any other greed corporation.

Hummmm - It seems to me I posted just such a plan a while back. Is Mitt Romney reading Gather?

No one agreed with me! I'm insulted.

LOL Colonel.

Sparky is actually right, The whole idea of insurance is flawed. But the fact is that something has to change and Romney seems to be the only person with a plan that has worked in his state.

Until people can get a plan tailored to them specifically, the idea of modern day health insurance will always be ridiculous. for instance. The government mandates that insurance companies give coverage to things most people don't need coverage on.

I won't get into specifics but a good analogy would be if a new law forced auto insurance to cover motorcycles as well. Costs would go up for everybody who don't even have a motorcycle but it is required by law to have it. That exact type of thing goes on in the health insurance industry in every state. Its one of the reasons why costs are so out of control.

Are all of you members of "Elect Romney in 2008", a Gather group I chair? Please access the group of me, and let's get you all aboard!!

> common sense changes like reducing regulation on the
> insurance industry, capping malpractice damages, and
> helping everyone to be insured.

MDP, your common sense ain't so common, this is mostly why
we are in the spot we're in today, and the capping damages
merely keeps people from recovering damages and modifying
the behavior of these companies.

Romney is a disastrous idea in a way too slick package.

All the Republican cadidates talk about solving the health care crisis by involving the "private sector", but perhaps they forget that private companies need to make a profit. If I were running a health care insurance firm I would not sell policies to anyone who had a chronic disease or a history or serious illness or injury, had a poor credit history or earned too little to pay the premiums. While is it possible to provide subsidized health insurance to a greater number of persons, there will still be many that need direct assistamce or be enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid. Let's wait and see how Romney's plan for Mass. really works.

Bruce,

Indiana has made great gains in Insurance by deregualting the Insurance Industry. Capping damages does not prevent people from collecting true damages, it caps punative damages meant to punish because these cases have turned more into a lottery than a true relection of damages incurred.

I agree with you on Romney. I am not a huge Romne supporter and fear that he tells people what is convient at the time. I like this plan because socialized medicine by of Federal Government in Unconstitutional and will not work. States should run health care by bringing everyone to the table no taking over.

Duane,

The rule of insurance is if everyone has to have insurance though it allows them to cover those people because the risk pool becomes larger. Those who are health cost very little and thus allow them to serve those that need more. You will still need a level of medicaid but it should be run by states not the federal government.

> Capping damages does not prevent people from collecting true damages,

Whatever MDP ... I guess you define "true" damages ... and you ignore the punitive aspect of a jury award. You sound more like a ModernDay Mouthpiece For The Insurance Industry.

In recent years the punative damages have explded higher. A resonable punative award should be a part of a lawsuit. But it should not be a lottery. Many people now sue just to see what kind of award they might get. That is a perversion of the jury system.

what would you do then Bruce

I have heard this one before....saying something like this and accomplishing it are two different things.

Punitive damages do explode higher when the defendent is hugely rich and does not amend their ways.

If you limit punitive damages it becomes merely a cost of doing business.

If you think it is easy to sue someone for malpractice you are again igorant of the issue.

You are wrong on virtually every fact and solution you have mentioned here.

Bruce,

You are wrong on virtually every fact and solution you have mentioned here.

I can understand your opinion, but those are not the facts. Malpractice cost have balloned as more and more people are suing in get rich quick schemes. I know that threatens your trial lawyer friends.

Look at some on the punative damage cases and you will see how out of hand they are.

America has become to sue happy. Just look at the pants lawsuit in NJ, the coffee at mcdonalds incident, and the guy suing mcdonalds over cheese on his hamburger. If you can see the forest for the trees, you must be a trial lawyer

what would you do bruce??

Could you explain how a system of universal healthcare "ignores the Constitution"?

it is not one of the delgated powers of the federal government therefore given to the states or the people.

MPD, you get more inane as you try harder to defend yourself.
How many times are people going to reference the McD-coffee
incident ... do you even know what year it happened, or anything
about the case? Or the outcome?

First, it is not my problem to give you a solution here, you are the
one who without any facts to back you up posted a Romney ad
about health care which I critiqued. If you are so wrong about
the facts of health care, you are also more wrong about Romney.

So ... I will say this on the matter of health care, that for starters
go to the Michael Moore web page, the plan that he suggests
we adopt that has been written into a bill and submitted is what
I think will help the country most. More private enterprise ripoff
is not the answer, unless the question is how to take down the
country and the rest of us who have managed to work hard, save,
and are tired of hearing the same old give the rich more money and
power when it is plain they are not producing anything but more
laws for their own gain.

MDP if you are such a stickler for the Constitution why don't you talk about how it is being ignored by the current administration. There was nothing in the Constitutaiotn about the Interstate highway system either, but it was the right thing to do, as is social security, and single-payer helath care ... times change and it makes no sense to stay with old ideas when they do not work.

Sorry -- I don't agree with your strict constructionist view of the Constitution and neither do the majority of lawmakers, jurisprudentialists, or the American people.

I see bruce you believe government healthcare works. I would actually like to survive cancer if I get it. We have a 20% higher survival rate than other countries our size with socialized medicine. You call my logic strained when you refer to Michael Moore, he is always loose with his facts. The fact is the punative damages are important but should not be out of hand. Punishment is also handled by taking doctor's licenses away. In case you were not away the Interstate system is a cooperation with the states. Social Security was supposed to be temporary when it got there, but now it is an entitlement. Socialized Medicine will not benefit the the American People it will only allow less freedom and provide rationed care

Elizabeth we have tried it there way and it has resulted in bloated government that has become ineffective. How about we try to give local governments more control because they can be better run and held accountable

Oh and Bruce it is hardly a Romney Ad because he is not my choice for the Republican Nomination. Just looking at an issue I think he is right on

MDP .... do you ever get tired of parroting back the same stuff that the right wing has said for decades about government ... even as our private sector is failing in providing health care for all Americans.

Go see Michael Moore's "Sicko". It's not perfect but it does frame the questions well.

Of there was the comment of John Edwards at one of the Democratic debates about a man 51 who finally got his cleft pallette surgically fixed. It is a penny-wise pound foolish decision to blindly support one private sector implementation of a healt care system that does not work ... and is failing more and more.

The Republican answer ... give them even more money but forcing people to buy health care from the same companies that have gotten us into this mess. What a joke.

We are so far from a free and efficient market in this country that most of you who make these kinds of statements about how bad you think government is are simply not looking around at what is going on.

I have seen "sicko" I am not parroting anything back to you. We are not a free market because we regulate everything to death. Government is not supposed to do everything for us. The mess was created by a lot of factors. Including not standing up to the Europeans who have put price controls on medicine. So we pay for all the R&D. We should never have allowed pharmacuticals to advertise on TV. Now they charge us more for putting stupid ads on TV that make everyone a "medical expert" rather than letting doctors work for us.

I see you like to attack me for talking about the market, while you cannot counter claims that our cancer rate is better than those with socialized medicine.

I do not disagree changes should be made, but the answer to everything is not big government. If big government was so good we would still let the King run everything.

I live in Massachusetts and I do not take anything Mitt Romney says seriously or worse believe his promises. He is only focused in his career and he will say anything he thinks will get him votes. Yes, he is the biggest FLIP-FLOP politician in the race. He did set up a health care plan in Mass., but is woefully underfunded and he could not have done it without legislative leaders. Beware of reducing regulations, or we will have a health care system that resemblea the airline industry. That won't matter to those that can afford private jets and private physicians.

Excuse me...you keep parroting that 20% statistic but you never say where you got it from. What is the source? Who has a 20% higher survival rate? What portion of the population? As far as I'm concerned it is completely meaningless -- it reflects only those people who get healthcare in this country. Most people who die of untreated cancer die of other illnesses.

Study by the National Cancer Institute in Milan. USA had the highest Cancer survival rate. over 20% higher than England. There are a few other studies. I will find them they are in a pile around here somewhere.

The cancer specialist blame the problem on late diagnosis and long waiting lists. Also it dosent matter why they die the survival is based on being alive 5 years after the cancer being discovered.

Having looked at both, I like the one in the United States National Health Insurance Act better than the Romney Plan.

The devil is in details and if one of the details is forcing everyone to purchase health insurance this doesn't seem as if it is a way to achieve lower rates. It seems more like a way to guarantee insurance company profits.

They claim you can spread the risk out but it won't be long until someone argues that town down the road with the chicken processing plant has a higher incidence of sliced off fingers and should pay more or the inner city has more shootings and pay more than the suburbs. With less government regulation, who will be there to stop them? Maybe the consumer will via the "free market", but then again I am sure consumer would like to stop buying all the poison laced crap from China.

All in all this is a masterful plan to lock you into a corporatized system via government mandate. This corporatized system will not be accountable to you, it will be accountable to the same boards of directors, CEO's, and stockholders that the current system is accountable to, and they have their minds on their money and not on saving your life. You would have to be better off with socialized care because at least in theory someone in the government is accountable to you via your vote. In the corporate system unless you own stock, and most likely a lot of it your choices are shut up and keep paying.

Will B-

It may sound better but government run will never be better, not to mention a huge unconsitutional power grab

I haven't read Romney's plan, but just from what you've stated about it in this article I can already see that the only people who would benefit are the insurance companies who already post millions of dollars in annual profits each year. By deregulating the Health Insurance Industry you are giving those insurance companies a blank check
Health Insurance costs are already too high and the Insurance companies will continue to deny insurance and thus health care to anybody who actually need health care. I suspect the only reason our Cancer survival rate looks so good is because it only refers to those who are actually able to get treatment for their cancer. Too many have no insurance therefor no treatment options!
If you happen to be employed and making more than X amount of money you don't qualify for medicaid yet the actual costs of treatment will bankrupt you... if you can find a provider willing to treat you without money up front.
These days even people with health insurance end up bankrupting themselves to meet their exorbitant deductibles or the massive cost of drugs that are not covered by their drug plans.
Before you get after me about your so called facts I will tell you that I am an RN who has worked both inn Canada and in the US and while the Canadian system is not perfect it at least provides health-care coverage to all of it's citizens. In Canada people actually go to their family doctor instead of the ER when they first get ill. In the US more often than not when people get sick they wait until the last possible minute before seeking treatment and like as not they end up in the emergency room.
Most Canadians get regular routine check ups which, in the long run help prevent major illnesses with their high treatment costs. In the U.S., unless you have a good health insurance plan that covers an annual physical, most people only seek out a Doctor when it becomes absolutely necessary...usually several days to weeks after they first started to experience symptoms, then they only seek help when the symptoms are no longer bearable. The cost of treating illness is much higher than the cost of preventing it would have been!
This country is highly litigious yet in reality the only ones who make any money out of lawsuits against health care providers are the lawyers, who get paid regardless of who wins the lawsuit. Capping punitive damages might help reduce the costs of Malpractise insurance... but I somehow doubt the Insurers really want to lose all the money they make out of those premiums!

"It may sound better but government run will never be better, not to mention a huge unconsitutional power grab"

I'm not sure why the United States National Health Insurance Act would be unconstitutional but if it becomes law and the Supreme Court says it violates the constitution, hopefully something can be done to sort out whatever problems there may be.

Just more election time fluff.

Wil B.,

It is my belief as well as that of Romney that the National Health Insurance Act is unconsitutional because it takes a state power and moves it to the federal government. Regradless a government run and rationed system will not benefit the people. It is socialization at its best. Some people dont have insurance so instead of getting it for them. We must degrade the quality care of some to bring up those at the bottom. The real losers those that have catatrophic events. Government will then decide if it is worth time or money treating them. Cancer survival rates go down because doctors cant do everything possible. Like it or not Profit drives effeciancy. It is much easier to waste money when at the end of the day instead of going out of buisness you just raise taxes.

What state power does it take away and give to the federal government? I've read both plans, and they do similar things. They both regulate the insurance industry. And they both provide money so that people can afford medical treatment if they need it. Romney's plan gives that money to the insurance companies, the NHIA skips the middlemen and gives the money to the health care providers.

You say it's a bad idea to let the government decide if its worth the time and money to treat people who need medical care, but isn't it just as bad to let for-profit insurance companies and health care providers make those decisions? Isn't that how things ended up as bad as they are now?

Each state is a little different so they should be allowed to come up with individual plans. Government takeovers are never good. That is why there are problems with other socialized medicine countries. Insurance companies have been regulated to death. Competition between the companies will keep things competative with a little government help making sure everyone gets insurnance. A similar plan has worked well in Hawaii. Indiania has gotten better health care by less regualtion. I believe we should look at the Constitution that says this is a state function and encourage the states to come up with good plans. A large federal government is what we should all be afraid of. Or one day they will demand all our earnings and will give us "what we need"

"Government takeovers are never good. That is why there are problems with other socialized medicine countries."

And there aren't problems with countries with private, for-profit health care systems? I've lived in countries with both kinds of systems, and I can tell you I prefer a public health system over a private one.

I don't have a problem with paying taxes that ensure I get medical treatment when I need it, just like I don't have a problem with paying taxes to fund police and fire departments, public parks and libraries, etc.

"Insurance companies have been regulated to death."

Really? Some of them seem to be doing quite well.

Aetna -- $1.4 billion in profits; $44 billion in assets
United Health Group -- $3.3 billion in profits; $41 billion in assets
Wellpoint -- $2.5 billion in profits; $51.4 billion in assets
Cigna -- $1.6 billion in profits; $44.8 billion in assets

"Instead of ingnoring the Constiution to create a massive government takeover of insurance he provides a system that allows the states to control requirements. " Where on Earth did you get the idea that the Constitution would favor State control of this issue? The Commerce Clause would suggest otherwise. Romney is talking out of his .... the bigger the pool, the cheaper the coverage for everybody. It is already been investigated and reported that private insurance companies are actually less efficient than the government when it comes to handling health coverage. Medicare spends about 15% on administrating their plans, the private insurance companies spend about 35% -- then you add profit on top of that. Why should we spend taxdollars to pay for less efficient private companies to make a profit. That kind of thinking comes from only one source -- insurance company lobbyists, end of discussion. This comment ranks right up there with his response as to what to do with Guantanamo -- which he said "double it size".

The 35% figure largely comes from government regulation. I will tell you this there was a reason fought for freedom. It always seems easier to give liberties over to the federal government. Whats next why dont they provide our food and shelter.

George I beg your pardon about the commerece clause The commerce clause provides that the federal legislative branch of the United States has the power to regulate only matters specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court backed this up with United States v. Lopez

National Health Care is not delegated to it so it is reserved for the states.

Sam S-

In all fairness how much more responsive is our central government form a board of Directors. At least I know that the shareholders will revolt if the company wastes tons of money. We all know voters dont do that

"The commerce clause provides that the federal legislative branch of the United States has the power to regulate only matters specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court backed this up with United States v. Lopez

National Health Care is not delegated to it so it is reserved for the states."

Then I guess we should all acknowledge that any "national health care" legislation that becomes law will be struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Does that mean it would then require some sort of "National Health Care" Amendment to the Constitution to make it possible?

That is what I believe, Wil B.

HR 676 - United States National Health Insurance Act (or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act) (Introduced in House)

HR 676- UNCONSITUTIONAL

HR 676- Federal Power Grab

MDP:
> Government is not supposed to do everything for us.

Hohum ... this absurd statement is really the basis of your
whole argument. Don't you realize that just concentrating
on one thing that is broken and needs reform does not
fix the other more dangerous things that need reform.
You argue about how private enterprise is so great, and
government is so bad, it makes me really wonder that you
do not understand that private enterprise, its lobbying and
its contributions, and in most cases its own people run
the government and make government so dysfuctional.

> The mess was created by a lot of factors. Including not
> standing up to the Europeans who have put price
> controls on medicine.

No, mostly this mess is because Medical Care is
private and allowed to be run to screw the consumer
for the most amount of money is at the root of what
is wrong with our healthcare.

> So we pay for all the R&D. We should never have
> allowed pharmacuticals to advertise on TV.

I really do not understand how you can say this
is anything but a very minor point.

> Now they charge us more for putting stupid ads on TV
> that make everyone a "medical expert" rather than
> letting doctors work for us.

This kind of proves my point. The idiotic and misleading
commercials on TV come about as these companies have
to increase sales by any means possible so their bottom
lines and stock prices can inflate. Now we have snake
oil sold just to raise profits. You cannot serve 2 masters
with health care. Either you take care of people, or you
let a small group make huge profits.

> I see you like to attack me for talking about the market,
> while you cannot

Only when your arguments are poor.

> counter claims that our cancer rate is better than
> those with socialized medicine.

I don't have any information to that effect. It might
be true, and it might not. The health care industry has
been caught multiple times now cooking numerical
results for money. Glad you trust that kind of behavior
when it has been proven, but you just blindly attack
government 100%.

> I do not disagree changes should be made, but the
> answer to everything is not big government.

The answer to health care is socialized medicine. It
will do the most good for the most people and help
the regular people in this country to be healthy to
learn and work and be citizens. It is the best investment
we can make in the country's infrastructure there is.

> If big government was so good we would still let
> the King run everything.

Aside from the fact that King George does seem to want
to run everything ... and badly ... I just get tired of the
same old circular arguments from you MDP.

Sorry I stand by principle bruce.

What your special socialized bill will do is basicly unfair taking of others property to put in under the control of the federal government. This is exactly what our founding fathers were afraid of. The Federal Government wants to take away freedom of choice and give you inferior treatment and you bite hook line and sinker. People come from all over the world to get treatment here because it is better than their socialized system. You think Pharmacuticals are a minor point they are the largest portion of cost. If you are tired of my arguments and true solutions I am tired of your apathy of our Constitution.

MDP:

All you have to say about HR676 is

> HR 676- UNCONSITUTIONAL
> HR 676- Federal Power Grab

If you gave a damn about this country and the
Constitution you would be lambasting the Bush
administration for trampling the Constitution.

There is a saying that "Patriotism is the first
refuge of a scoundrel" and your wrappping
yourself with a little patriotic icon and mentioning
the Constitution every 2 lines does not make
what you say patriotic or intelligent.

There is a job to do and the private sector,
particularly the way it is arrayed today cannot
do it without extreme abuses and then leaving
out masses of people in the country. Since
we did not even have a health care system
and doctors were still bleeding people in 1776
it is no wonder that you resort to the unConstitional
crutch for your argument.

Bottom line is the problem has to be solved, and
every time in every context we ask the slow moving
greedy private enterprise system of today to solve
it, they come up with new loose framework of laws
with multiple lookholes that just does the same
thing for another 10 years while they suck us dry
even more ... wel the US is about tapped out MPD,
and I have no trust anymore in the largescale private
sector in health care, energy, weapons design ... it
is all the same people trying to manipulate the
country into making more money, and making the
country ever more dysfuctional.

MDP you are delusional.
> What your special socialized bill will do is basicly
> unfair taking of others property to put in under
> the control of the federal government.

No, what we have now is the government supporting
laws that back the corporations that take money from
people and give it to private enterprise that only has
the motivation to suck more and more cash out of us
by manipulating government.

You refuse to the see the big picture, most likely
because are a puppet, or beholden to the same
interests that direct the government.

You are a shameless whore for an inefficient, corrupt,
unpatriotic and antagonistic to the people plutocracy
that you are mischaracterizing as private enterprise
when they are really fascists taking over the government
for their own means.

Your posts have all shown this for some time now, and
it is obvious to anyone who has been exposed to any
news of what is happening in the country anymore.

I give a damn about this country. I do not see a disadvantage to using a system like Romney proposes that has worked in Hawaii. The problem needs to be solved yes and that solution is working with people not turning it over to the government. That is turning freedom in at the door. Maybe you are ok with lower cancer survival rates and waiting lines for surgury. I am not. The free market system can work with sensible regualtion and requirements. You jumped all over capping punative damages to a common sense figure Why? You would rather let a legal lottery tun up malpractice insurance costs driving doctors from practice. Of course you want that so that they will all become employees of the government. I stand up for the Constitution on these threads everyday. I exahusted with people who do not care about limits of government or state power. They just want to turn their freedom in at the door with the promise of "better care" look around the world it is not so good. What is next let the government feed us and provide us shelter. Why not just do away with all free enterprise and let the government give us a weekly allowance. This is just the first step to socialism, but most americans are too ill-informed and have an apathy for the constitution that they dont see it.

Bruce you are the unpatriotic one, you are a socialist and thus a traitor to the principles of our Country

"You refuse to the see the big picture, most likely
because are a puppet, or beholden to the same
interests that direct the government."

No I see the big picture. Unconsitutional and step toward socialism. Why is it so wrong to allow states to provide universial coverage?

> Why is it so wrong to allow states to provide universial coverage?

Haha ... I love it, you go on a rant about socialism and the
Constitution and then you ask me the answer. Good.

The answer is, it is not so wrong, but the states are not
doing it, also in health care the bigger group you have the
more the risk is spread around and in general the less
it costs. It is an financial question. To me the financial
point overrides the fact that it is federal, federalism just
provides uniformity, and it would be unfair to discriminate
on the basis of what state someone lives in.

Finally, the reason to do this is scientific ... or psychological,
whatever ... rational ... we need to have a country that
incents people to care about health. We move farther
and farther away from doing that with companies that
seek to sell things to people that appeal to their worst
natures.

We would not have as big of a health care problem
here if we did not manipulate people to be obese and
stupid. We need to start moving towards the right
direction and instead of making our people more
anxious and fearful start reducing the everyday
burdens from them and enabling them to be
productive.

We have done about everything we can do to
help corporations to the point where we are just
enabling them to be ineffecient and incompetant.
It is about time we start to care about our people.

The alternative is that we run this everlasting
lie to people that we are instead of investing
in Americans investing overseas to help all the
other people who need help .. by giving them
substandard wages and living conditions ... and
that maybe in about 2000 years the American
people will begin to benefit from this. Haha,
what a joke.

"We would not have as big of a health care problem
here if we did not manipulate people to be obese and
stupid."

That seems like personal responsibility to me. People always look for someone to bail them out for their stupid choices. You think that corporations are to blame for everything. I believe people made bad choices.

I dont think we should have corporate welfare, but the free market fixes competition problems. We have regulated and required to the point where insurance companies quit providing coverage to some.

> That seems like personal responsibility to me.

That seems like neurological programming to me. What does
that Constitution say about that?

I think even the Founding Fathers would recognice the world
is a far different place that they could not have conceived of.
You just prefer to deny it.

The whole government is corporate welfare, the corporations
could not exist globally without it, but the people must have
representation as well.

God you are just hopeless MDP, of course the insurance companies
are going to refuse to cover "some" ... that some being sick people.
Their whole reason to exist is to make money which is at odds
with providing good health care. Some things cannot be done
well privately or for profit, that is whay 96% of the modern world
has socialized medicine and they also have a longer lifespan than
we do and less anxiety.

I think capitalism is important too, and private property and
enterprise, but where it cannot or will not do a critical job an
alternative needs to be used. It is time that the corporations
also go the message loud and clear that aside from making
money they also have responsibilities to this country.

One thing that has not changed since the founding fathers is that the Needs of New York are much different then those in Montana. I think that states should address these needs by bringing people to the table. It worked in Hawaii. Everyone now just wants to federalize every issue. I dont think government dong the job is going to work. Look at the long waiting lines and poor survival rates of cancer in the other countries, the way to make it work is to get people insurnace. I see government as a poor choice to run a good program.

"This is just the first step to socialism"

Why would the health-care system be the first step to socialism? The government provides a whole lot of other services that could be provided by private enterprise. Why draw the line at health care and say no, we can't do that or it's socialism.

I am in favor of sending most of the "other services" you refer to back to the people too. But the argument of Insurance is a little different too. It was a private enterprise that everyone now must have for free. Housing everyone needs why shouldnt it be free, so the government can provide that too. Food is of course important so lets give that free and the government will run that too. I just see it as the start of more Socialism.

Wil,
This is a tactic of the right. Call it socialism. It isn't and they know it.

Joe it is, Period. It is a tatic of those American. The federal Government does not have this right.
Here is the def.

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation.

Health care has nothing to do with control. It has to do with services that all people need. The current system doesn't work. Something needs to change, Modern.

I dont disagre with changin joe. Federalization is not the answer

> Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political
> movements that envisage a socio-economic system in
> which property and the distribution of wealth are subject
> to control by the community for the purposes of increasing
> social and economic equality and cooperation.

What you are describing is confiscatory communism, not even
communism, more like fascism, as the state confiscates wealth
to make itself and its supporters stronger to perpetuate itself.

You are deeply disturbed and brainwashed MDP, you do not
even bother to listen of think before you pop off with the
robotic right-wing finger pointing.

First no one is confiscating anyone's wealth. Health care costs
"X" dollars for everyone. To cut out the insurance companies
that have the incentive to withhold and play games with
people's premiums and hide their computations behind claims
of propreitary formulas is the only way to stop the disintegration
of the system.

All insurance companies are interested in is getting more money.
They would love to have laws that says everyone should be
insured because then they have the right to raise rates on the
whole country, or state ... sounds like tax to me, but you'll never
admit it, because you are a flat out liar.

Second, cutting out the insurance industry and taking the
profit out of health care distribution will conservatively
take %30 .... 1/3 .... of the price off the top, without sacrificing
any quality ... so whoops, there goes your cancer argument.

If you take what everyone is paying, distributing it progressively
among the people of the country has huge benefits .. the only
downside is that it will make you mad because you think it is
socialist ... which you cannot even define in way that proves
your point.

Instead of arguing how to solve the problem, right wing propgandists
just call something socialist, or unpatriotic, or immoral ...

and yet today we got another example of Republican morality as a
Republican senator was arrested for reaching under a public bathroom
stall and trying to molest the person in the next stall.

Yep, you Republicans take hypocrisy to news heights on an almost daily basis!

Bruce you are just wrong

so whoops, there goes your cancer argument

Look at the data, we have the best. England is 20% lower than us because they have socialized medicine

"Instead of arguing how to solve the problem, right wing propgandists
just call something socialist, or unpatriotic, or immoral ... "

I showed you a plan and instead of evaluating it you just want full socialism. You insist on attacking me which I am not doing you. I am a believer in the Constitution and federalism a far cry from a right wing nut. You do not know me or how I vote.


"and yet today we got another example of Republican morality as a
Republican senator was arrested for reaching under a public bathroom
stall and trying to molest the person in the next stall.

Yep, you Republicans take hypocrisy to news heights on an almost daily basis!"

Has nothing to do with health care or me. But dont let that get in the way because you have socialism to push

Doesnt even work in Canada

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813

MDP - if we expand Medicare to cover everyone, how is that going to vaporize the infrastructure we now have? You are focusing on political points, you are not listening to either doctors or patients. You do not get the argument.

Are you wealthy enough to handle a catastrophic illness? How about those who aren't? How about for your wife or kids? How about for your parents? I'll wager you have contempt for the idea of a country because you have no connections to other people, and you use a know-it-all attitude about the Constitution and the right wing-media as a substitute.

You said you saw "Sicko". Did you just do a brain dump after you walked out or you just don't like to be affected by any emotional argument?

It will stop the development of futre infastructure Bruce. I am connected to other people and Many in my family have saved money in order to ensure insurance and for care beyond what the companies cover. It is part of planning. Expanding Medicare wont work because we will replace our current medical coverage with waiting lines and rationing. I dont understand. You cant deny that those occur in other countries with sociolized medicine. I also focus on political points because I refuse to ignore the Consititution when it is convient. I am principled in this.

Bruce is correct. As long as health care is a for profit enterprise we will continue to receive very little for our money.

I think I'll stick with supporting the passage of the National Health Insurance Act. If there are legitimate constitutional issues, then I'm interested in hearing what the Supreme Court has to say about it.

Joe, and as soon as it is socialized we will recieve very little, period

"At least I know that the shareholders will revolt if the company wastes tons of money."

Isn't one of the problems with for-profit health care that sometimes keeping people alive costs more than letting them die?

I read through Romney's Powerpoint presentation, but I didn't really see anything that explained how people who can't get insurance now because insurance companies won't insure them will get insurance once his plan is in place.

Anybody know how that works in Massachusetts?

> Joe, and as soon as it is socialized we will recieve very little, period

If there is a problem if it is universal there is a universal incentive to fix it.
MDP I think you are brainwashed to think that 24/25 developed countries
chose a system which is inferior.

The benefit that the country will get from, not having to budget pay and
worry about the possibly ruinous costs of health care. You talk about long
lines but the paperwork is almost non-existent, the overhead and management
is lower, there is 30% saved right off the top.

The only potention problem is that the Republicans will sabotage it to prove it
doesn't work as they have done by borrowing and shorting Social Security.
Funny it is mostly Republican administrations when this happens - they want
it to fail, like the schools, like health care.

If you think that has anything to do with the Constitution or the founding
Fathers you are wrong.

Actually Bruce Dems have done as much damage to SS as anyone else. It is a bipartisan effort.

The data shows the socialized systems are not working, Sorry it is just the case.

We are in America and we hold our selves to a different standard than the rest of the world. We have a Constitution that must be protected.

Sorry, not brainwashed I just have an opinion on this matter. I notice you dont dispute the fact the socialized systems dont work you just think because the Eurpoeans do it it cant be bad. Look they formed the EU and gave away national authority. Are you in favor of that too.

> The data shows the socialized systems are not working,

Another line Republicans are taught to parrot. I'm surprised
if you are so smart why it doesn't occur to you that the other
countries in the world have these programs are seem to be
doing as well as the US, if not better. You just prefer a bloated
and inefficent military.

Your spruious and irrational rant about nation sovereignty
makes me laugh too. Worry about NAFTA and GATT. The
EU is moving very slowly on these questions, and currently
backwards. Given enough time this will happen, no doubt
it is just a question of how and what system will be used.

Ha ha ha ha...

I am from Boston, and Mitt Romney is ostensibly reviled here. We can trust the word of a Mormon who gets elected in Massachusetts and changes every major position he had to try to get elected president. He's a joke. A joke.

And a major government takeover of insurance is exactly what happened today.

If you are a strict constitutionalist, Publius, then what about the right to the pursuit of happiness? Hard to do that with chemotherapy you can't afford, methinks.

The profit that is demanded as a function of a capitalistic private health insurance system is diametrically opposed to the general concept of getting better when you get sick. The less treatment authorized = more money. How can this problem be fixed without government regulation, oversight or control. Otherwise it's a fucking pyramid scam.

I await your response.