HillaryCare just gets scarier and scarier

I get the feeling she is doing all she can to LOOSE. Her extreme Socialist agenda is even too far left for Liberal Democrats.

I didn't realize that American children had the "right and freedom" to go wothout basic healthcare. Any society that doesn't take care of all their children's health, education and nutrition needs when they have the resoiurces to do so is being very shortsighted. I have personally worked with kids that have never been to a doctor or dentist because their parents are so poor, mentally ill, addicted, or a combination of all of the above, that the subject isn't even considered unless it's an emergency.

Someone once said you can judge a society by how it treats all, not just some, of it's women, children and animals.

Duane-

I understand where you are coming from and respect it. We already have an insurance program for poor children run by the states with some funding help from the Federal Government called SCHIP. Obama has a plan to require children to have helath insurance and you will not see me hitting that plan.

This is not even close to an extreme socialist agenda, it is good use of government. Soon, we'll be able to tell Republicans, "If you don't like democracy, go visit one of those dictators you love so much." However, we hope you'll stay, because we won't really mean it- just a little payback for being called unpatriotic so many times (when history proved me right).

This kind of plan is what the country wants, as is Obama's. There may be some differences in the plans and some changes along the way before they are implemented, but they both are motivated by the fact that US health care is a disgrace. Nothing that either democratic candidate will do will make health care worse for anybody who is poor or middle class, in any state, and the rich can always do what they want anyway.

James-

The thing about democracy is that it exists only under a constitution and universal health care is a violation of that document. States are free to provide what they want but the federal government does not have that power. Second, I believe that health care can be improved. It should be done in the free market. When we move away from the free market we just harm our nation. Just look a price and wage controls for further evidence.

Well this is the very type of thing that those without healthcare will be complaining about when/if such governemnt interference comes into play. If they can't afford healthcare now, wait and see how they'll like it when wage garnishment doesn't leave them enough to pay their rent or mortgage, when they can't afford groceries or gas. Maybe Hillary will have a government plan for that too!

I want to go back to what MDP said in his article because I think the problem has nothing to do with health insurance. "She thinks it is appropriate for the government to tell everyone what they should do." She does not or does not want to understand that true social change comes not from on high from the nation's capitol but from the people. After enforced mandatory health insurance what would be next; mandatory life insurance; mandatory fully funded retirement accounts; mandatory memberships in fitness centers? Most people do not have health insurance because they cannot afford it so her idea is to make them pay for it anyway? They might have insurance but they will loose their homes and be malnourished because they don't have any left over money to buy groceries.

Health insurance is like Gaul, it has many parts and each must be attacked separately. Forcing a one size fits all approach is not only overkill; it doesn't work. We need to make insurance affordable for those who want it and possible for those who can afford it. We need to assist those who can't afford it. We need to encourage a shift in the industry to encourage prevention where that encouragement is cost effective. Over ten years ago I was told that I should get a colonoscopy when I was 40. When I was 40 I was told that the insurance companies won't pay for one until I was 45. When I was 45 I was told that the insurance companies won't pay for one until I am 50.

Hilary doesn't want to encourage, she wants to ram her ideas down the nation's throat.

Oh of course she will Sue. She is big government tax and spend liberal that actually border on a socialist. She wont be happy until we all give her our paychecks and she will provide us what we need.

Well said Christopher

I wonder how many programs Obama is going to cut for his health care, besides our Military,..seems every Dem goes after our armed forces......,..here in Indiana we have Medicaid for low income family's,..that right not just for the children but the whole family,..now Mitch Daniels has put another program in called HIP,...it takes care of those who make to much to qualify for Medicaid...it's not mandatory. Mitch Daniels (R)

"The thing about democracy is that it exists only under a constitution and universal health care is a violation of that document."

Some may view it this way. Others do not. Some rely upon the first paragraph in the document for validation.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This pertains to ALL citizens in ALL states. Not just SOME citizens in SOME states.




"States are free to provide what they want but the federal government does not have that power."

Again, there is not mutual agreement on this. Those who believe that the constitution applies to all states and all citizens believe that the government's role is to do exactly what the preamble states, for all.




"Second, I believe that health care can be improved. It should be done in the free market. When we move away from the free market we just harm our nation. Just look a price and wage controls for further evidence. "

Actually, it's the "free market" that has given us the mess we've currently got.

Luckily, we also have versions of "socialized medicine" (VA treatment, though post-treatment has been partially privatized, much to the detriment of the vets at Walter Reed), and a "single payer system" (medicare), so we can make apples to apples comparisons.

Our privatized system will bankrupt us. It costs between 20-30% to administer, due to lavishly outrageous CEO compensation, billions of dollars in advertisting costs, and expensive junkets, among other thing. In comparison, medicare costs about 3% to administer.




"She is big government tax and spend liberal that actually border on a socialist. "

As opposed to big government borrow and spend republicans that border on fascists.




"She wont be happy until we all give her our paychecks and she will provide us what we need. "

As republicans won't be happy until we all give them our paychecks and we get nothing.




"I wonder how many programs Obama is going to cut for his health care, besides our Military"

Moving to a rational healthcare system for all will save us money, not cost us. Every other nation in the industrialized world pays FAR less than we do for healthcare, and most of them get better health care for their money.

As for the military, it's currently devouring nearly 50% of our entire budget. Enough, for Christ's sake. This for a system that admits "losing" trillions of dollars in funding. I say cut military spending entirely. Let them figure out how to make things work with what they've already got, and once they've cut the massive waste and fraud from the "free market" portion of national defense, we can revisit what their PROPER funding level should be.




"here in Indiana we have Medicaid for low income family's,..that right not just for the children but the whole family"

I guess adult poor people never get sick, right? Just an FYI...having 47 million people uncovered is one huge reason why our current health care costs so damn much, compared to the rest of the world. Not only do people with no insurance tend to get far worse before they visit a Dr., but they also go to urgent care, which is THE most costly treatment.

Modern, we have to "ruin" our economy in order to fix health care. The whole thing is broken. No corporation is as top heavy as medical care. I refer to medical specialists, not insurance CEO's.

In the listing of the top paying jobs for an employee, 14 out of 15 are medical specialists.

Clark--"As for the military, it's currently devouring nearly 50% of our entire budget"...Protecting the lives of my children has no price....todays world is not about
who can play nice,..the sad fact.
"
Iran Opens Space Center, Launches Rocket

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran launched a research rocket and unveiled its first major space center, state television reported Monday, the latest steps in a program many fear may be cover for further development of its military ballistic missiles.

State television showed live images of the event, with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issuing the launch order.

Iran has long declared a goal of developing a space program, but the same technology used to put satellites in space can also be used to deliver warheads. The country's space program, like its nuclear power program, has provoked unease abroad.

"It is just another troubling development," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. "And, of course, the U.N. Security Council and other members of the international system have expressed their deep concern about Iran's continuing development of medium- and long-range ballistic missiles."

Iranian officials have said they are developing a Shahab-4 missile to launch a satellite. Iran's powerful ballistic missile, the Shahab-3, is believed to have a range of at least 800 miles, putting Israel and much of the Middle East in range. In November, Iran said it had manufactured a new missile, the Ashoura, with a range of 1,200 miles. .....

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UJN86O5&show_article=1ℑ=large

"I guess adult poor people never get sick, right? Just an FYI...having 47 million people uncovered is?"...unless your illegal.

"As republicans won't be happy until we all give them our paychecks and we get nothing." ....Hows that Tax rebate?.....did we forget the Clinton years?....TAX,TAX,TAX....I wonder if Bill Gates will vote for Hillary?

" Let them figure out how to make things work with what they've already got, "....They have,....hate to keep going with the horrible flashbacks buttttt,.....Clinton cut our Military by 68%...we still have not recovered fully,.....Military over sight to commerce department, the super computer to Russia gotta love the ss-x-27

Clark-

"Actually, it's the "free market" that has given us the mess we've currently got. "

Actually not have you seen the level of regulation that is put on it. That is why it costs so much

"Some may view it this way. Others do not. Some rely upon the first paragraph in the document for validation"

Thats nice, but if you understand law. The preamble is an introduction there is a whole special section that lays out exactly what congress has the power to do it.

If everyone was required to carry health insurance - the costs would go significantly down. There would be no more checkups done in emergency rooms. The insurance industry would have to charge an affordable premium. Hillary's plan is the only plan that keeps insurance companies in the mix. That should please conservatives. Instead, they turn her into the demon out of hatred for her. She is the only one who wants the market to keep the business of health care in their purview.

My plan for fixing Health Care is quite simple.

You do not get on the approve pescription list for medicare, medicaid, or VA programs if you advertise on TV.

Refuse to pay higher prices on prescriptions for R&D as long as the companies ship their prescription to price control contries. Other countries should not a free ride while we pay the research.

Reduce federal regualtion on inurance companies just to make sure they have the necssary financial ability to pay for their client load

Have states offer at least temporary subsidized plans to get people who can not afford it insured

Eliminate the policy of giving free health care to those who claim they cannot afford it (see above)

There are some other important steps, but I think I will turn it into another article. I think you get the point. The solution is not a government takeover can you imagine that nightmare. We would have rationed health care that has caused all the doctors offices to spring up on the canadian border

Joe T-

I agree with most of what you say except a mandate is not required have the states help people at least temporiarly get into policies while still allowing those who want to self-insure the right to do so such as it is with Freedom.

Just like every automobile ought to be insured - so should people. Different people have different needs, but there should be insurance to cover one's expenses in the event of a serious illness or accident. As it stands today, insurance companies do everything they can not to pay. It is important to change that. If that means some sort of regulation then so be it. But, the regulations should not favor the companies (as they do now). That is why our health care is so expensive.

Joe T,..." If everyone was required to carry health insurance - the costs would go significantly down".....who would pay for this?.....for the illegals?.

"The insurance industry would have to charge an affordable premium. Hillary's plan is the only plan that keeps insurance companies in the mix."...Would "have" to?....no insurance company can be forced to do anything,...that leaves Hillary or Obama to come up with a new form of health care,....I can say this for Hillary at least she has a plan with words (at a huge cost to tax payers)..Obama has nothing .

The market would drive the prices down, Christene. And, the insurance companies should "have to" do some things about their current policies. They are not serving the public well.

What will Obama or Hillary do about this?

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/3026297/detail.html

"No corporation is as top heavy as medical care. I refer to medical specialists, not insurance CEO's."

I'd like to see your documentation to support this claim. I've not heard of a medical specialist yet that earns anywhere near what the piggish corporate CEO's rake in.

As for breaking our economy, our "wonderful," "free market" system is doing a really fine job of that as is. 17% of our economy is directed towards health care costs, and the dollars rise by double digit percentages every single year.

"Protecting the lives of my children has no price....todays world is not about
who can play nice,..the sad fact. "

For simplistic. First of all, perhaps if we hadn't allowed the military industrial complex to overtake our government, we wouldn't have policies in place around the world that antagonize other nations and cultures to the point where they would wish us harm. Secondly, it's nothing short of ridiculous to pretend that the government REQUIRES $1 trillion annually to "protect your children."

Finally, your children are far more at risk playing in your backyard or riding in your minivan than they are from outside threats from other nations. Get a grip. They've got more chance of being killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack. You want to spend $1 trillion per year to protect you from lightning as well?

Seriously, you people need to start thinking rationally for a change. Your warmongering, fearmongering rhetoric does NOTHING to advance humankind, and is bankrupting our nation, morally, ethically, and financially. I guarantee you that it is entirely impossible to bomb and murder our way free from threat.

Btw, Iran is doing precisely what we've told them that they have to do, in order to prevent us from attacking them. They're making advances that we can deem as worrisome, they're being secretive about nuclear capabilities and intentions, and they're at the same time being careful to avoid provocative posturing. If there's one thing that the world's developing nations learned from our illegal invasion of Iraq, it is that if they don't have nuclear capability, they'd better hurry up and get it, lest they be next to be attacked.

If you'll recall, North Korea was actively and openly pursuing nuclear weapons technology at the very moment that we were threatening to strike Iraq for alleged WMD. We turned away from a nation that was actively pursuing WMD, in order to invade and occupy a nation that had none. The message to the world was crystal clear: The US will not attack if you have nuclear WMD. Brilliant plan.

" Actually not have you seen the level of regulation that is put on it. That is why it costs so much"

Ridiculous. No other industrialized nation has the health care costs that we do, and no other industrialized nation has privatized insurance. It's not a coincidence. The facts simply do not support your opinion in this matter.




"Thats nice, but if you understand law. The preamble is an introduction there is a whole special section that lays out exactly what congress has the power to do it. "

That's nice, but if you understand law. The preamble fully emcompasses the entire ideal of the entire constitution. What meaning does the document have, if the preamble is meaningless?

I understand the philosphy that holds this belief, but I reject it wholly.





"You do not get on the approve pescription list for medicare, medicaid, or VA programs if you advertise on TV."

I thought you were a "free markets" guy? Now, you're going to hand down a federal mandate to heavily regulate MORE of this industry? Seems a tad confused.



"Refuse to pay higher prices on prescriptions for R&D as long as the companies ship their prescription to price control contries. Other countries should not a free ride while we pay the research."

Again, more federal mandates for heavily regulatory oversight and government control. Seems like the anti-free market approach. It might have potential.



"Reduce federal regualtion on inurance companies just to make sure they have the necssary financial ability to pay for their client load"

What exactly do you mean by this? Specifically what federal regulations over insurance would you strip away, and how would this benefit the situation?



"Have states offer at least temporary subsidized plans to get people who can not afford it insured"

Socialized medicine.



"Eliminate the policy of giving free health care to those who claim they cannot afford it (see above)"

Ok, now I'm very confused. In one line, you offer subsidized healthcare for those who cannot afford. In the next, you eliminate it. I must be missing something...



"The solution is not a government takeover can you imagine that nightmare."

And yet, you seem to be advocating just that, with sweeping federal mandates and heavily regulation, along with subsidies.



"We would have rationed health care that has caused all the doctors offices to spring up on the canadian border"

Actually, there's little to support your claim. In fact, 36 other industrialized nations have higher ranked healthcare systems than us. True, there ARE some visits that require additional scheduling time in Canada, BUT there are substantial waits here as well. In Canada, if you want elective surgery, you wait longer than you would here. However, if you need URGENT care, for an immediate medical emergency, you wait longer HERE. Personally, I'd take the trade off that Canada offers.

"I can say this for Hillary at least she has a plan with words (at a huge cost to tax payers).."

Do you honestly think that your healthcare coverage is free right now? Do you not realize that every other industrialized nation in the world offers FREE medical care to EVERY CITIZEN for FAR less than what we pay to leave 47 million uninsured?

I pay $12k per year for insurance for my family. What do you think I could do with an extra $12k per year in my wallet? Do you think I wouldn't GLADLY exhange $2k of it in order to keep $10k? I think everybody would, frankly.

If you think that $1,000/month insurance premiums aren't a form of taxation, you're sorely mistaken. And, if you think that a universal care solution would cost MORE than this, you're sorely mistaken as well. Again, the facts simply do not support your belief.

"What will Obama or Hillary do about this?

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/3026297/detail.html"

What does this have to do with national healthcare, and what does it have to do with the democratic candidates?

I personally find this hilarious. After decades of trying to cram religion down the public's collective throats, some Christians are finally having it thrust back at them. Karma lives. They'd better hurry up and stop hating the ACLU, it would appear.

Clark, the salary ratios in an insurance company is normal, it works everywhere. The top dog makes a ton, the next level has a small group making less, etc.

The salary structure for medical care has a 2 x 4 balanced on top. It's abnormal.

Maybe if there weren't so many items that we're forced to buy when we buy our insurance. Everyone doen't need maternity leave, or mental health coverage or many other things. How about letting people go in choose what areas they want covered. Have a menu and only have to pay for the things they want covered? Maybe allow insurance cost to be tax deductable. How about being able to buy insurance from another state. Actually allow people a choice in their coverage not forcing them to purchase itens they are probably never going to use.

"Ridiculous. No other industrialized nation has the health care costs that we do, and no other industrialized nation has privatized insurance. It's not a coincidence. The facts simply do not support your opinion in this matter. "

That is because they have price controls and we are paying for all the research and development all great new medical advancment are paid for by Americans. If we put on price controls health care would not advance near as fast. Now that is not a coincidence. I believe in a role of government involvment, but through the states. Some states such as Hawaii have already had sucess on getting coverage for their citizens. Oh almost forgot. The burdomsome regualtion now has to do with reporting everything to the government including claims and rate making policies. It creates a reporting nightmare with hundreds of people pushing paperwork to the federal government and getting more back. All they should have to prove is to show the fiscal capability to cover their client base. Then get out of the way.

"I understand the philosphy that holds this belief, but I reject it wholly."

Why would you list the powers that congress has if they can just do whatever they want?


Now what I told was not socialized medicine. Should the government help people at first get private insurance probabbly because it is a shock and first and then we would scale that back over time. The government today controls what medicines go on the approved list. In order to save the money the government should just not buy the ones that advertise because it would save them money (Doctors should prescripe not patients). The one confusing part I did not describe enough is that if you go to the hospital and claim you cant afford it you should not get it free, it should be treated like any other debt. We offered to help get you insurace remember.

It's not rocket science that the insurance industry in this country has been killing patients, and denying coverage to help their bottom line. Publicless, you are not a rocket scientist, either. In your efforts to put forth a system, I get the mental picture of a chimpanzee trying to build a Saturn five. You just aren't up to it. We pay the most of any modern nation. We're around thirty sixth in quality of care. Wonder why? Watch Sicko.

Oh yeah Ron I'm sure Sicko is entirely accurate

"Clark, the salary ratios in an insurance company is normal, it works everywhere. The top dog makes a ton, the next level has a small group making less, etc."

This isn't "normal." This didn't happen until the past 20 years or so. It used to be that CEO's made more than their workers, but not tens of millions of dollars more. This is a perversion of capitalism that is destroying the middle class, and capitalism itself.



"The salary structure for medical care has a 2 x 4 balanced on top. It's abnormal. "

You've still failed to produce documentation, and you've failed to make a point. Are you insinuating that a surgical tech that mops the operating room floor should make as much as the neurosurgeon, or visa versa? I don't get your point. You seem to be suggesting that those that actually deliver the care don't deserve to make more than those who file the paperwork.

You've also failed to provide any evidence that paying doctors more than janitors is what is causing our massive, double-digit annual increases in costs.

"That is because they have price controls and we are paying for all the research and development all great new medical advancment are paid for by Americans."

Much of the R&D in this country is financed either by private charitable or research funding groups or public funds.




"If we put on price controls health care would not advance near as fast."

I have never seen any evidence to support this claim. Nor have I seen any evidence that the reason that US R&D results in significant (though absolutely not ALL) medical advances is a direct result of insurance company CEO's bringing home tens of millions of dollars in annual salary, and spending billions on advertising and lobbying.




"The burdomsome regualtion now has to do with reporting everything to the government including claims and rate making policies."

Further proof that a sensible, single-payer universal system is needed.




"Why would you list the powers that congress has if they can just do whatever they want?"

The powers granted to congress are within the framework of that preamble. The founders recognized that the whole nation succeeds when all citizens are granted equal access to the tools of democracy, so that each and every person has the opportunity to become as great as they can possibly be. When you parcel out 50 different levels of education, health care, access to transportation, etc., you automatically disenfranchise large segments of the population. Those states with lesser ability to fund would suffer and fall dramatically behind.



"Should the government help people at first get private insurance probabbly because it is a shock and first and then we would scale that back over time. "

So, what difference would this make? You'd still have close to 50 million people uninsured, but, for a period of time, they'd be covered, then dropped. What purpose would that serve?



"The government today controls what medicines go on the approved list. In order to save the money the government should just not buy the ones that advertise because it would save them money (Doctors should prescripe not patients)."

You've never actually been covered by a health insurance policy, especially as part of an HMO, have you? You're apparently unaware of how they work.




" The one confusing part I did not describe enough is that if you go to the hospital and claim you cant afford it you should not get it free, it should be treated like any other debt. "

Most of the nation's bankruptcies are already the direct result of medical debt. What purpose does it serve to keep dumping this onto the shoulders of the health care system, which in turn, dumps it back onto our shoulders, in the form of higher premiums and higher care costs?

Wouldn't it make more sense to cover everyone, so that the system that provides the care gets paid, so millions don't have to fall into bankruptcy, leaving both the patient and the system screwed?

Doesn't America deserve better than what the privatized system has brought us? Don't we, as the greatest nation on the earth, deserve to have a system that covers everyone, and that doesn't cost more than every other system on the planet?

Here's part of the problem with arguments against nationalized healthcare...you seem to forget that our premiums and care costs are taxes. The cash isn't going into a public trough, but it's being drawn out of our wallets just the same. We're paying, but we're not getting. Why? Because the current system is designed FOR PROFIT, not for care. As a result, we treat symptoms, and have thus mastered the art of keeping people sick, but alive. That's not a good plan for society.

Another point that you folks fail to understand is that healthcare is no different than any of our other public infrastructure. It is a critical need of our society. We can't NOT have a healthcare system, any more than we could get by without highways, power grids, laws, police and fire protection, or education.

Because of this fact, we all, as members of this society, have an obligation to provide for that public infrastructure. Without the infrastructure, our democratic way of life would collapse, and we would become a third world nation enveloped in agonizing poverty, civil war, and anarchy.

This, we all can recognize. Therefore, since we can all recognize that we have an obligation to maintain the system of society that was created for us, and that we wish to strive to build upon, it is required that we contribute to the success of this society. If one way of conducting the care of this infrastructure is resulting in serious harm to millions, and threatens to even collapse the entire system eventually, it is imperitive that we remove that element, just as a physician would remove a cancerous growth that threatens the life of a patient.

My point is multi-fold, of course, but in a nutshell:

1. We're paying anyway, but not receiving.
2. Our current system is a failure, and will eventually bankrupt us.
3. We deserve to have the BEST, not #37.
4. We can NOT leave 47 million uninsured.
5. It is for the collective good of this nation to have nationalized healthcare, just as communications systems, power grids, and highways are for the collective good of the nation, and must be maintained as part of the public commons.




"Oh yeah Ron I'm sure Sicko is entirely accurate "

What specifically did you find inaccurate about it, and what can you present to substantiate your claim? I've yet to see the film, but have heard the arguments both for and against, and am convinced that Mr. Moore has presented the stark truth about healthcare, both in this nation and abroad.

We have more specialists than any nation on earth, as a percentage. One medical organization opined that if 30% of our specialists were sent to Africa, both medical success rates would improve markedly. I can't find the link, it was last July or thereabouts. This wry sense of humor is based on experience with primary care doctors, who make one quarter to one third as much as specialists. They found that people who did almost all of their health care with primary care doctors, and no referals, did as well as the population in Europe, who do the same thing.

We have a glut of specialists, I don't have to document that, and everyone can lower costs by doing what the people of Europe do.

Charles M.,
Have you even seen it? You might want to reserve judgment. I know what you've been told, but there is another view. Talking to those that are actually using another system would seem to me to provide some better insight on it, than the insurance lobby or the AMA.

I do have a problem with Hillary's health plan. She and Obama are both relying on the very companies that have gotten us into this mess to provide the solutions they have been reluctant to provide. If the system stops the cherry picking of insured clients as is currently being done that would be an improvement.

However, until there is a non-profit, single payer insurance plan we still are underwriting the wealth of the insurance corporations and much will be at taxpayer expense. This is the problem with the new Medicare Advantage plans. They are costing the taxpayers about a thousand dollars a year more than traditional Medicare simply to subsidize the corporate insurance.

Taking that insurance profit out of insurance would insure a 27% cut in the cost to the taxpayers or end users. We have systems in place that are much more efficient and consistent than any insurance company. They are underfunded but aside from that they are excellent programs and have been long recognized as such.

And the drug part should be done with the government negotiating the best possible price on drugs as they do in most other countries. I agree with Publius that the advertising should be banned. It costs more than research and development! Besides that, how much of your drug dollars is going into the pockets of lobbyists? There are over a thousand of those working capital hill! And the messed up Part D of the Medicare plan is a perfect example of how these companies can screw things up royal!

Last year it cost I and my wife over $4,700 for drugs under the Part D plan, not including the cost of the plan. This year it will be more as no policy at any price covers insulin under their plan after costs hit $2500. Then one must get ot $4,100 out of pocket costs before the insurance kicks back in. How would our congressmen like a policy with a $4,100 deductible? And I can assure you that they make more than I!

There is no need to adopt Canada's or another system. Look at them all and select the best, thn make refinements to eliminate flaws in it. But look hard at our Medicare program and expanding it for the entire population.

A plan needs to be all inclusive because the young and healthy need to be included as well as the aged and infirm. Medicare does a great job and remember that all their clients are either elderly or disabled. Were the rest of the population included the actual cost to each would be greatly reduced.

ModernDay: We have the semblance of a free market now with health care and it doesn't work.

Universal health may be unconstitutional now, which is up for debate (though given the the current supreme court, you are probably right), but it won't necessarily be unconstitutional in the future.

To many: No Democrat is going to be taking money from poor people who can't afford to pay for health care. The Democrats are the party that sticks up for poor people! If you want to invent things in order to be negative, fine, just don't expect that they are connected to reality.

Also to many: Universal health care can take many forms, but one issue is the huge and disproportionate expense caused by people who are not insured, and who therefore cannot go to the doctor for preventative care. These people end up being treated in emergency rooms, often when it is too late (read about the death rate of uninsured women who have cervical cancer in the US- it is about 199%). These are the poor people who will be helped by Universal Health care, and by doing so, the cost of healthcare for everyone else will go down because hospitals won't be writing off emergency room bills that can't be paid, etc.

Another related issue is prenatal health care: large numbers of children with learning disabilities or worse are born because of inadequate prenatal healthcare among the poor. This children may require lots of resources their whole lives. It is a disgrace that happens in no other industrialized nation.

So, forget any ideas that poor people will be hurt by universal healthcare. Ain't gonna happen. It is a myth.

As for the middle class, well, speaking from personal experience, my health insurance is incredibly expensive, and incredibly lousy. I routinely deny myself care that I would have had before I was self-employed, simply because I can't afford it. My wife does the same thing. We are also subject to far more bureaucracy than ever before (I need to get 4 prescriptions a month for some medication when I used to get one prescription for three months. That isn't done to be efficient, it is done to wear me down so I don't use my insurance the way I should.

I know many people in similar situations. I am fed up with it. So are they. We are all voting, and we'll see what happens. (Yes, I am a small business owner who is a Democrat.)

The current "free market" is free like the oil and gas markets are free: in name only.

I know all about pharmaceutical pricing- I work in a related field. I'm not worried in the least.

So, if you don't want to be told what to do by the Federal government, I guess you'd skip out on the draft (like many I won't bother to name)?

We are in a war with disease and malnutrition, unlike any other industrialized nation. If we all get drafted to save the country, it sounds fine to me.

But I do agree that drug advertising should be banned. It DOES use up more money than R&D, which is also a disgrace.

That death rate cited above was supposed to be 100%, just like they have in the poorest countries in the world. Sorry for the typo.

Ron and Clark I haven't seen it I'll admit that but he has used partial interviews to promote his point in at least one film. In Fahrenheit 911 he asked one of the politicians how about sending your family to Iraq and then cut it off and the guy who's name I can't recall right now has said he told Moore about the members of his family who were or will be serving in Iraq and it was left out of the film. On a personal level I can't stand him I think he's a loud mouthed opportunist and I can't listen to him without wanting to hurl.
JMHO

Clark one point because I dont have time to go into them all but will tommarow. Yes I have had insurance and know how it works. What I am saying is that many pharmacy companies make a lot of their profit off of being on the medicare, medicaid, and VA approved lists. These approved lists are what prison systems use also. That is why they are powerful bargaining positions.

Second,

Single payer systems are a horrible idea because they will hurt doctors. Apparently you have never met a doctor that has treated medicare or medicaid patients they lose money.

"There is no need to adopt Canada's or another system. Look at them all and select the best, thn make refinements to eliminate flaws in it. But look hard at our Medicare program and expanding it for the entire population."

Amen!


"But I do agree that drug advertising should be banned. It DOES use up more money than R&D, which is also a disgrace. "

Amen again!




"On a personal level I can't stand him I think he's a loud mouthed opportunist and I can't listen to him without wanting to hurl."

He's a propagandist, but that doesn't mean that nothing he says is relevant and worth paying attention to. The crux of everything he's ever said in his films is 100% accurate, even with the mild distortions that he applies to miniscule phrases scattered throughout. The point is, he makes people dig for information and TALK, and when they do that, we ALL benefit. There's simply no denying that his premise that our current healthcare system is diseased is 100% correct, nor can you deny that it's diseased that the events leading up to, and after 9/11 were entirely diseased. He nailed it on both counts. He also made some brilliant, very worthy points in Bowling.

Yes, he's opportunistic. So what? Who are we to deny him his chance to gather wealth from the glorious "free market?" Isn't that what the rightwing ideologues have done for decades, while spewing outright lies? At least the basic crux of Moore's biscuit is entirely factual, and at least it gets the nation moving in a positive direction, unlike those rightwing ideologues, who do nothing but spew hatred and lies.




"Single payer systems are a horrible idea because they will hurt doctors. Apparently you have never met a doctor that has treated medicare or medicaid patients they lose money. "

I've heard quite the opposite. I've heard that doctors PREFER to work with medicare patients, because they KNOW the paperwork, and they ALWAYS get paid.

Modern,

At least one doctor, who is a personal friend as well as one of my doctors, believes that Medicare for the entire nation is the way to go. He has interviewed many other doctors and people in Canada and he tells me that the only ones who are complaining about the Canadian system are Americans!

Most don't like the claim processing process of Medicare, that is true. But they know they are going to get their money without question!

I don't know what you are basing your dislike for single payer insurance on but it is probably the Republican party line.

"At least one doctor, who is a personal friend as well as one of my doctors, believes that Medicare for the entire nation is the way to go. "

I believe it was Thom Hartmann that said a while back that, by and large, most doctors would far prefer to work under a medicare system. Also, it wasn't doctors that shut down Hillary's plan in the early 90's. It was insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Gee...I wonder why?



"He has interviewed many other doctors and people in Canada and he tells me that the only ones who are complaining about the Canadian system are Americans!"

I believe that. A former manager of mine said that while she and her husband were vacationing in Canada once, she had to have a minor surgical procedure done. She checked in, got looked at, got admitted to a hospital, got the surgery almost immediatley, and went on her merry way. She had absolutely no trouble whatsoever.




"Most don't like the claim processing process of Medicare, that is true. "

I don't think any payer claim processing process is exactly fun.




"I don't know what you are basing your dislike for single payer insurance on but it is probably the Republican party line. "

That's exactly it. The talking heads have issued the marching orders to hate anything that has to do with nationalized healthcare, and the faithful legions have followed the marching orders to a tee, even going so far as to parrot off false talking points to muddy up the water.

I think Moore's movie really made a significant impact on this discussion, because suddenly, for the first time, those false rightwing talking points were shattered and dissolved. Now, the discussion is finally turning to "Ok, our current system is broken...now what?" Before, they refused to even admit that there was a problem.

Same with so many other important issues, such as global warming, for instance. On issue after issue after issue, the left is being proven right, and the right is being forced to cave into that reality. That's why we're seeing this massive shift in the collective populace. The truth has finally begun to break through, and the lies that the right has relied so heavily upon for so many years, are being exposed for what they are.

MDP,

I do not understand your insistence that the "free market" model is automatically appropriate for health-care. Certainly you feel some "services" are best provided through a "socialist" model, such as police services, for instance. I don't believe you would argue that such a service ought to be provided based on a persons ability to pay for it, and that goes for other services as well, no doubt. Is it not possible that we have "missed the boat" on health-care, and that because it is so directly related to that "right to life" the Preamble speaks so strongly of, it too would be better handled as a societal responsibility, and not a commodity?

I understand the potential value of what you call "free market" forces, but do not think this particular realm ought to be just assumed to be best handled with that approach. Is it not at least questionable to you?

A wonderful debate here. Sorry I miss it. I am with MDP this time.