LEFT OF THE RIGHT: Republicans Health Care Reform Proposal Full Of Ambiguity

I would tell you, but then I'd have to kill you... comrade!

Keith,

Please check out my "program" at www.nopom.info

With my program there is no tax money involved at all and no government controls of anything.  (Of course my plan also solves lots of other problems as well but you'll just have to put up with having little to complain about.)

I'm learning there are going to be numerous 'hidden' tax hikes, like 'sin tax' on alchohol--and on sugar products, like soda, etc.  I'm into a research project to learn more abut it.

Why won't the politicos look into the 'fair tax'?

I HAVE a HSA it SUCKS.  I have to do 3 times more paperwork then before, then I have to wait for a check, THEN, I have to figure out how much goes to each doctor out of it, THEN I have to send out MY own checks, THEN I have to wait for the doctors to CASH them.  IT REALLY SUCKS.

OF COURSE Rita, if they don't do THAT something MIGHT get done!

Good for them.  Much better ideas than any Obama's administration has had.

That study you mentioned?  Perhaps litigation costs don't contribute to high health care costs, but malpractice insurance surely does.  Have you asked your doc what he/she pays?  It's insane and the reason why some doctors are quitting.

The ones whose malpractice rates have gone up by the same percentage as the rates they charge SHOULD quit -- they're endangering their patients by remaining in practice!

No, rates have gone up for all docs and many never have any claims against them.

By the way, all along, the Republicans have been offering alternatives to the insane spending of the liberal Democrats.  The lamestream media just refuses to report that.

Just because it's a Democratic idea doesn't mean it's not a good idea.  And just because it's floated by the GOP doesn't mean it's not a bad idea.

Just once, Marilyn, I'd like to see you give credit where credit is due.

Just once--something positive

Leo, I mentioned below what I've seen reported on the proposed plan.  I cannot say anything positive about what I've heard...not when it's going to cost tax payers $500,000 per family!!!

Actually, depends on your pov .. What I have read from Marilyn always seems positive to me.  Then again, I agree with her on much of what she says. 

So even the 'negatives' seem positive to me because at least she is talking about them --- that's a positive since the mainstream news media (and, in that context, I use the term news media loosely) isn't talking about them.

Someone has to take up the slack for mainstream media since they seem to have some difficulty with that particular essential component of their jobs.  Marilyn is one of those someones.

Marilyn M. Jun 18, 2009, 4:46pm EDT
Leo, I mentioned below what I've seen reported on the proposed plan. I cannot say anything positive about what I've heard...not when it's going to cost tax payers $500,000 per family!!!

Leo L. Jun 18, 2009, 4:37pm EDT
Just once--something positive

Jeannie B. Jun 18, 2009, 4:16pm EDT
Just because it's a Democratic idea doesn't mean it's not a good idea. And just because it's floated by the GOP doesn't mean it's not a bad idea.

Just once, Marilyn, I'd like to see you give credit where credit is due.

Does the Repub plan come across any more ambiguous than the Kennedy plan being pushed?  Is it anymore costly?  I don't think so though I doubt either plan is worth the paper its written on.  Kennedy's plan falls far short of claims and is incredibly low balling anticipating costs.  From what I've seen of the Repub plan it calls for no major expansion of Federal control of the sector but like the Dem plan, fails to address major issues like tort reform, major failings of CURRENT government plans, no reform of imposed mandates that drive up costs considerably, and finally funding.

Malpractice does not contribute significantly to higher medical costs?  Your featured Hopkins report says it does though claims that even without it, our costs are still too high.  Slight difference there.  To make this claim of course, Hopkins soft steps the actual cost of defense of lawsuits and focuses on the actual settlements (if any).  That is a major factor leaving out ALL the defeated lawsuits.  There is no major refutation of the legal cost theory in this study, but a partial one at best that deliberately leaves out obvious costs.

And the authors of the study work for scholastic departments that are not what one calls non partisan (Schools for the study of Public health) There is also an opinion that defensive (to protect against lawsuits) medicine is less 9% of total medical outlays is arguable at best with no supporting evidence for that low ball opinion.

Finally, these are people who are complaining that we are paying more to secure less quality care.  Again opinion and added to the fact they have done an earlier study with similar results does not give one any assurances this was not more of a study to buttress an earlier study.

As much to the end point, which I don't find overly damning but it is worth noting.  The Commonwealth Fund which paid for this study is an organization pushing for more government involvement in the medical sector.

Easy solution to the cost of litigation would be the same as the one for the rising cost of medical care -- prevention.  If MD's would take more than 5 minutes with a patient, and if hospitals and clinics would make and enforce procedures to reduce errors, legal fees would go down.  And, so could the fees providers charge.

I think if they'd stop giving out millions and millions of dollars for small mistakes that would help as well.

That is a much cheaper answer to that then some great new plan it I think.  That is the problem if you read the report linked here by Devon, they don't think it's much of a factor.

Neither party is capable of untangling the myriad of factors involved in the pandora's box of providing medical insurance for all.

Throwing trillions of dollars at the health industry will simply "raise the price" even more. The money tree died.

But I have no answer either soo.....

The answer is the one no one wants to entertain. And that is a Single Payer Universal Health Care system. Over 75% want some form of public option and nearly 65% want it to be universal.

WHY IS THIS SO FRICKEN HARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geeze, Devin, it it were THAT easy, the point would be mute.

Why would anyone want the control of all their health needs mishandled, controlled, manipulated, and worse... by the federal govt.????

The Single Payer Universal Health Care System is a fraud on society and cannot believe it must be explained.

Will the single-payer be a Rep or Dem supporter?  Just imagine the back door deals already going on.

Instead Linda we now have them mishandled, controlled, manipulated and denied by Insurance bureaucrats.

Points aren't mute, Linda, points are moot.

Kevin, they're not even mishandled by bureacrats, they're being decided by clerks who are trained to deny healthcare.

Very true

Ali - Could be both mute and moot - if  you think about it.  Some people won't listen and others don't care.

AND, I think you meant bureaucrats, NOT bureacrats.  See, two can play your stupid game.

The bureaucrats started the current healthcare system.  I get so very tired of explaining this.  Do your own homework, I am up to my neck in supplying links and info yet people CHOOSE to be uninformed and then try to pretend they are knowledgable on the subject.

For most people on Gather, it's more about winning a point than becoming more informed.

Govt. caused the problem that YOU want them to fix?  They started the HMO/PPO's for control of the system, payments to the doctors, treatments  we can receive, and tracking of claims for medical data.  Many times the co-pay if MORE than what their fee schedule pays the providers.  Not true in hospital stays or costly radiology tests, that's why they are monitored and require pre-auth.  Give us a break.

AND where does the money come from?

And who decides the medical procedures to be covered?

 And where do we get the doctors to work for government pay?

And who will pay for the medical research and innovations?

And who decides  whether you're health is too poor to spend money to alleviate your problem?

Everyone would pay into a general fund.

What should or should not be covered would be determined by medical neccesity, not "the bottom line."

Doctors would remain private contractors, How much they earn will be determined by how hard they want to work. The day of the golf course doctor will be over.

We the people have been all will continue to pay for medical research and innovations.

And for your last question... No such decision would be allowed!

AND where does the money come from?  There would still have to be (means-tested) premiums and co-pays, I think.  Where would the $$ come from in the Republican plan?  They don't say.

And who decides the medical procedures to be covered?  This would have to be done by a board staffed by medical professionals and patient advocates, with possible review for new and/or untested procedures.

 And where do we get the doctors to work for government pay?  It's doubtful that their income would go down by much, since they wouldn't have to foot the bill to open and maintain an office or pay staff.

And who will pay for the medical research and innovations?  The same ones who do now -- the companies and the US government.

And who decides  whether you're health is too poor to spend money to alleviate your problem?  Your doctor has the first and most input in this area.  But right now, this decision is not based on the poorness or the person's health, but on the poorness of the person.

Oh Devin, you live in a dream world.

How is Medicare working?  Isn't it mandatory that everyone pay for it whether they want it or not?  Do they control all the treatments decisions?  Don't they have a "donut" hole where meds are not covered?

Aren't they talking about reducing Medicare treatments and funding?

The outcome and reality of it all is in plain view if anyone cares to look.

Linda, who does not want Medicare? Everyone I know appreciates it and praises it. 

Leo, you're kidding, right?  Medicare is being praised by whom?  I have not met one single senior citizen in the past few years who thinks it's a good program.  Not anymore.

There are a whole lot of seniors praising medicare and no it is not madatory. I recently worked with a family whose insurance became too high for their ailing father who was in his eighties. The only health issue he had was an arthritic knee but his insurance continued to increase in cost till he could not afford it.

He went to medicare which he could afford.

Spencer - I'm on it (ss) I'm in it (meicare) IT'S MANDATORY.  I carry another policy to cover what Mecicare does not.

Medicare is not mandatory but is advised to get because it covers 80% of your medical for about $97 a month.

Spencer, you're right on the roughly $97/mo. But not all doctors/hospitals agree to medicare. You have to sign a paper to "pay the difference". 

My husband had an in office cancer treatment, the bill was $1,400. Medicare paid $700. 

There are scores of negativ stories by seniors, get out and talk to them. Ask them how they like the majority of docs that accept Medicare only?.

I have no idea why you and so many others seem to want to vilify Medicare. Those who use medicare are at least 65 or older or have disabilities. There's not one complaint about Medicare that I couldn't bring dozens like it from those who pay insurance which is not Medicare.

If you have market rate insurance and the insurance only pays 80% or less you sign the same paper work agreeing to pay the difference. Most doctors I am aware of accept both medicare and other insurances for their fees. Of course all doctors and hospitals don't take Medicare as they all do not take all insurances. Like I've said I remain befuddled as to why the deliberate attempt to vilify Medicare. There are many many people who have lost their homes and savings as a result of insurance companies failing to pay what they promised to pay and bankrupted  a mass of people as a result of medical cost.

As a federal employee, my insurance is one of the best policies you can get. I have had to deal with many additional medical costs not covered by insurance policies. The only time I did not get hit by unexpected medical bills was when my family was on medicaid before I became a federal employee.

On day to day office visits, PT, etc, the co-pay is often more than the payment allotted by the fee schedule.  Now Medicare has a zero payment for PCP (Primary Care Physicians) and $40 co-pay for specialists.  Guess which one costs Medicare the most?  Our visits to the SCP (Specialy Care Physicians) of course.  And now, our PCP's are being shafted.

"Bottom line is that the Republican Health Care Reform Plan isn't a plan at all. It's just more empty rhetoric from a Party empty of ideas or honor."

Despite the flaws in the Republican plan, it is far better than the Democrats Socialist takeover of the Health Care system.  Haven't the left-wing loons learned from Canada and Britain???  Do you really want their type of healthcare here?

Yes damnit... yes! I do want a system like Canada and Great Britain have. Go ahead and believe all the lies and BS about their health care you want. They have a system that is BETTER than ours and costs less than half. Why you on the Right DON'T want this is what freaks me out. Even if it WERE worse, just the fact it's so much cheaper would make you GOPs want it.

Concern with the welfare of a society (and its citizens) does not equal socialism.  When are you conservatives going to admit that?

//Despite the flaws in the Republican plan, it is far better than the Democrats Socialist takeover of the Health Care system.//  Why is it that Democrat = Socialist?  There isn't anything in the GOP plan above that the Dems haven't been talking about for years.  But, suddenly because the Reps have put their imprimatur on it, it's a good plan.

British and Candians are healthier and get better health care than most Americans, and no one goes without, and no one goes bankrupt.

That's certainly your opinion, wonk.

It's got as much relevance as the vague, general, no dollar amount, ass kissing to insurance companies Republican health plan.

Why does everyone in the US trash Canada & Britain's health-care system when their systems are ranked higher than the US?

Devin, you need to talk to my friends. One is from Panama, the another is from Scotland and the third is from Canada.

I will continue to believe these individuals who have told me 1st hand what goes on in their socialist medicine countries.

You're drinking too much of the Democrat Kool Aid.  I guess you will see the truth only when it happens, and unforntunatley it looks like we're headed that way.

If you are working, are you prepared to pay 60% of your enrnigs in income tax?

DemocratIC, not Democrat.  And when it comes to drinking the Koolaid, you Republicans and Republican apologists are positively drowning in the stuff!  (Or should I call you the Republic party?)

I'm with you, Nora.  I lived in FL for years, and I never heard one Canadian snow bird say anything good about their health care.  My hubby has two pen pals in England that he's had for years.  Neither has anything good to say about their health care either.  It's expensive - 50% or more in taxes for anyone working. 

Problem is that here in the US, people don't think they'll be affected.  They think they'll get free care...since they don't pay taxes now anyway.  So many people get tax refuns over and above what they paid in.  That means they paid no taxes at all.  Of course they don't care if they're raised...on someone else!

Taxes have already been raised, which is something Obama said would not happen - he was addressing the Income Tax.  What about all the other taxes?

Tobacco is just the beginning.  They want to tax the methane "gas" released by dairy cows: they want to tax the obese (huge money there), they want to double tax the gas coming from the ground - from the well and then added to the volume - then it will be taxed again by the consumer.

Those who are still working will be required to pay for all those who have just lost their jobs (because of the govt. fiascoes), they will withhold from unemployment benefits, they will withhold from welfare payments; they will steal from everywhere - no one will get off with "free".  It will be the MOST expensive "free" healthcare you'll ever see.

Linda Taxes have already been raised Bullshit my taxes went down. I don't smoke. So I don't care if taxes go to 10 dollars a pack.

And that is exactly the problem of this country today.  People don't care if other guy has to pay more, especially if he's "rich".  When did that happen?  When did we stop caring about our neighbor and care only about ourselves?

We all need to step back and decide what's best for the entire country, not just for one person or one group.

So you are making so much that you got a tax increase? Well good for you... It has been a very long time since I made 250K. I lost my business early in Bush 43 presidency. That is when my income dipped way below $250. I doubt I will every see that salary again.

Kevin - what do you mean your taxes went down?  What tax?  Was it part of the illegal stimulus?  Thanks.

My withholding went down. I take home more money in my paycheck.

I just heard an analysis of what the Dems are proposing. 

1) It would not cover all of the people they keep compaining about who are not covered now.

2) Of those it would cover, it would cost us - tax payers - $500,000 per family under their plan. 

I doubt many people, knowing this, will want the plan.  I know I don't.  It doesn't cost that much to insure my family.

Just add that to our trillions in national debt (depending on which books they look at - it close to 65 trillion when you look at them all) and the cost to every man, woman, and child in the U.S.

Oh, you didn't know they keep at least four sets of books?  Sounds like fraud to me except for this - the lawbreakers are now the lawmakers.

Those numbers are such bullshit. You need to stop listening to Rush Limpdick.

Kevin, I listen to Rush about 2-3 times per year, probably as much as you do.  Usually after he's been accused or attacked.  Sometimes I'll see him interviewed by someone else, but so can you. 

Numbers are numbers.  If you take the entire cost of this program they're proposing, and the number of people it will cover (and "assume" 2-3 persons per family), that's how the $500,000 per family comes about. 

What the Dems are proposing right now DOES NOT cover everyone who is uninsured today.  It leaves out 37 million of them!!! 

Still bullshit. Where did you get the number I want a reference.

Now Marilyn, you know it's not nice to confuse people with the facts. : )

Show me that facts. Near as I can tell you are pulling statements out of your butt. Like I said show me a reference. Simple right? For instance: Reference - A note in a publication referring the reader to another passage or source.

As someone, nearly 70 yrs old I am under no illusion that I could write a better plan to re-vamp our health care system than all of congress. With 35 years as a medical professional, I like what I see developing in congress with Health care--a Public option is mandatory, regulations and oversight is imperative for the Insurance companies for the sake of honesty and non-exclusionary practices. 

I am not debating one plan or another as I am invested in watching the Mark up hearings on C-SPAN3 which Sen. Dodd D-Connecticut (acting Chair in Sen. Kennedy’s absence) has just announced that the committee will remain in DC through-out the weekend to make progress on the bi-partisan work which must be done to develop this healthcare bill.

They began this morning with some 59 amendments to debate and include. The committee has agreed, and adopted 20+ before breaking to vote on the floor on other matters. Sen. Orin Hatch Utah-R and several other Rebub’s have added substance to the Bill by way of amendments and debates.

Thanks so much. Finally some sanity in speaking about the health care issue.

Thank you Spencer--I do what I can. :+}

No offense, Johnice  From what you noted, how can you make any sense of it all.  None of it is good for our health freedom.

The staists here are not realistic.

Linda, I possess an open mind and good listening skills, which allowed me to survive 35 years as a health professional and tempered me to avoid getting stuff on my shoe after dealing with bureaucrats in insurance companies. The other talent I posses is watching and listening to C-SPAN--NOT pundits and critics who print and yell what they think they know. First hand, knowledge is the best judge of how hot the bathwater is. 

I was a bit hysterical in the early 70’s when Medicare began taking a bite out of my paycheck yet, here I am today reaping the benefits of Medicare healthcare coverage. It is not the best I have ever had yet, nothing regulated against actual need is good at my age or any age. The reform will negate the most ridiculed parts of health insurance, which is pre-existing conditions. Life is a pre-existing condition and then you get sick before you die. I guess your question is best answered with--I make sense of it because I have a deep history in Healthcare.
Remember, healthcare is relative today to whose health requires care and if they can pay, that is where change--I believe, will alter healthcare in this country in the direction of fairness and effectiveness. The government oversight of Insurance companies will stop the price gouging and pharmaceutical companies will re-group their business practices as well. Governmental regs will prohibit billing for a $25.oo Tylenol tablet (not a bottle) dispensed from the hospital pharmacy. There are so many issues, which will be resolved, and there is no doubt that the changes will not satisfy 100% of the population in every health issue. What is and has been is not good for those under 65 years after retirement life expectancy improves due to the availability and access to Healthcare

WHEN are the powers-that-be (including both political parties) going to "get" that healthcare reform does not equal insurance accessibility?  Some of the reasons that the cost of healthcare is so high are: mass inefficiency, overlapping, capricious and conflicting insurance coverage, and (of course) greed.  No one has died because they didn't have insurance; they died because their insurance (or lack thereof) was considered a major factor in their care.

Also - if a person is too poor to afford even the most basic health insurance, they probably don't pay taxes.  How are tax credits going to solve that problem?  And don't tell me there would be some mechanism by which they would somehow magically get the money to pay for whatever cobbled-together and over-compromised plan is available to them.  No conservative will give up the stranglehold they have on their wallet to pay for any plan that does not directly benefit them.

Perhaps the first thing we need to do is teach young people that THEY are responsible for their own care.  That's the way it used to be.  My folks taught me to save at least 10% of every check for savings, and 10% for contingencies or emergencies.

When I was a kid, the only insurance anyone had was for hospitalization.  Doc visits and medications were something everyone had to pay for themselves.  And they did.  But they didn't have to have the latest STUFF or buy a new car every few years either.  They saved and they planned for emergencies.

And Drs. made house calls, and there were more GPs than specialists, and GPs didn't make a lot more than our parents, and the only drugs available were Sulfanamide and Penicillin.  Marilyn, it's a very different world.  I know people who've been out of work for months, even years.  They have NO insurance, and no way to get any.  Ten percent of nuthin' isn't much, and it doesn't take much of a "contingency" to wipe it out.

Your sanctimony and lack of compassion is appalling, but not unexpected.  We need to recognize that the changes in medical capability, availability and delivery over the past 40 years make the ten percent solution pretty useless for a lot of folks.  You can be as responsible as you like, but if you have a family, a mortgage and a car loan, based on your long-time job, and someone sends that job to Korea, you're screwed... totally.  Within eighteen months the house is gone, the car is gone, insurance is gone, and you're hoping that Mom and Dad still have that basement apartment.  You can't save enough to cover what that does to a family.  You just can't.

I don't have the stats for this, but I, personally, know SEVERYAL people who have gotten married JUST for health care benefits.  When you're a single parent, with a deadbeat ex, who pays most of your check to daycare, food, and rent, there ain't much left over for medical expenses.  What IS left over, isn't enough to pay for an ER visit, much less an extended stay.

But what I'm suggesting is that we teach our young that it's their responsibility to pay.  Until they can do that, they should live at home to help and they should definitely not get married or have kids.  It's high time that people learned to care for themselves.  It can still be done.  It's done all the time.

Yeaah Marilyn!

Marcus Welby died a long time ago, Marilyn.  You live in a fantasy world if you truly think that anyone can just magically come up with the funds to pay for medical care, especially with the costs escalating so much and so quickly.  A doctor's office visit cost me $35 in 1989.  Now that's the copay.  Only someone earning 6 figures or more could keep up with that.

Your'e talking to a brick wall. Don't waste your breath.

It truly boggles the mind. You opponents of Single Payer Universal Health Care don't know what you are talking about. This is simple math folks... Of all the industrialized countries of the world nearly all of them with the glaring exception of the U.S. have some form of SPUHC. 36 of those countries are rated higher than we are in overall health care. On average the U.S. pays 140% more per person than those other 36 countries do.

You can go on all you want with anecdotal stories and regurgitated lies about these countries health care systems, but denying studies conducted by the United Nations and other international study groups just proves how blind you truly are. These studies are real and provable. So all your yammering away about how it's going to cost a half million dollars a year per family and how catastrophic our health care will be is nothing but a lot of hogwash from people who aren't about anything but being against the Left. I swear if the Left came up with a cure for cancer, you idiots would be against it.

Well, DUH!  We're just all a bunch of stoners sitting around eating bon bons waiting for someone to come and tell us it's time to eat. 

The lack of knowledge on this subject is AMAZING.  I'm just stunned at what people actually THINK a Single Payer system IS!  I don't know if it's true ignorance or willful ignorance, but they don't seem able, or willing to understand the difference between a single-payer and socialized/government run system.  It's quite sad.

There's also A LOT of Marie Antoinette Syndrome (I've got mine, let everyone else eat sh*t) going around, and it makes me equally angry and sad.  What happened to caring about our neighbors, our friends, and just other Americans?

I care, Elizabeth.  But what they've proposed is not the answer.  Have you seen the analysis today?  That it would actually cost $500,000 per family?  I'm sorry, our country cannot afford that.

Steve Bachman  Jun 13, 2009, 9:43pm EDT

I'd bet a majority of Americans would also like to eat for free, have free housing, and lifetime supply of free gasoline as well.

Does that mean that anyone has a right using force to compel others to provide gratis food, housing, and gas for them?

There are only two ways that this "free universal healthcare" thing can be actuated: (1) Enslaving all doctors and others in healthcare-related professions, so that they are made to work for the rest of us for free (of course, it will cost money to feed and sustain them, but I guess that can be arranged through the magic of government, no?), or (2) one part of the population must be coercively compelled to foot the healthcare expense bill for the remainder of the population (but then this is not really *universal free* healthcare then, is it?).

Both ways are not only repugnant to every conceivable tenet of justice and equal individual rights, but both are a road to eventual disaster as well.

If ever there was a time when so many people were so badly in need of reading Professor Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," it has to right here, right now.

What gets me is that I have yet to hear any person who wants this to way, "Yes, I will GLADLY pay 50-60% of my pay in taxes so I can have insurance" or "Yes, I understand that although I have been getting a tax refund for years, far larger than anything I paid in, I understand that starting today, I will now pay 50% of my income in taxes and get no more refunds, and I'm happy to do that!"

Until I hear those who want this saying that, I'm convinced that they want someone else to pay for their health care, as if it's something owed to them.   

The bottom line is that the health care system needs to be fixed. It costs too much for private individuals and keeps going up; too many people are uninsured; and insurance companies deny coverage to too many people. Why don't we all agree that it needs to be fixed and fix it? Or is the problem that too many Republican's can't get over their preference for corporate interests over individual needs, which I believe is a very anti-democratic way of thinking. I wish they would finally get it that not everyone has the luck, talent, or wherewithall to make enough money to live comfortably and pay for necessities like health care in this very expensive American society we have built.

...for corporate interests over individual needs...

W/o the corporations you would have no products, no jobs, no...  That's the progressive thinking that got us in this mess.

What many fail to see is the root of all evil is NOT money, it's the LOVE of money; it appears that everyone is in love with everyone else's money.

If they let us keep our own money, instead of stealing it at the point of a gun (taxes) we could buy our own healthcare and have money left over.  And those who cannot, for physical reasons, earn money, we would be free to assist with charity.

Charity at a point of a gun (taxes) and deciding where it goes, is not charity - it's theft.

Nothing is EVER free - nothing; there will always be a hidden price tag.

Boy that is so true, Linda.  Everyone is so in love with other people's (tax) money.  :)

On the other hand, you two are in love with your own (tax) money, and want to keep it all. 

You seem to think that the government can run without funds of any kind.  Fine; just "opt out" and pay for your own road construction and maintenance, airports, water treatment, police and fire protection, etc. etc. etc.  All without any income, for the corporations will all have "outsourced" all the jobs to India.

Jeannie - The govt. did just fine before the income tax.  Their burocracy has continued to rise, and now it THEIR greed.

If you read the Constitution, you will under stand all the things you speak of are the responsibility of the STATES.  The feds should keep their nose out of the business of the States.

Jeannie, if only our tax money went just for "road construction and maintenance, airports, water treatment, police and fire protection"

The problem that the social welfare balloon has exploded.

We do not owe other people everything!

try this view on for size from a legislator and physician

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foXQbmZxWYY

(I told everyone the govt. caused the problem... where the heck are your brains?)

If you don't get or understand this, you have my sympathy.

Why don't you work on something that you're capable of understanding, like the differences between mute and moot?

//How is Medicare working?  Isn't it mandatory that everyone pay for it whether they want it or not?//  No, it's not.  One can "opt out".  Do they control all the treatments decisions?// No, they just decide how much of the costs of those treatments they will cover, just like any other insurance.  //Don't they have a "donut" hole where meds are not covered?//  Yes they do, thanks to the Republicans' "we hate entitlements" mentality.

//Aren't they talking about reducing Medicare treatments and funding?//  If, by "they", you mean the GOP, yes they are.  All in the interest of "keep taxes low -- I don't want to pay for anything labeled GI".

Ali - did you watch the video?  Of course not, that would expand your education.

For those where everything is free, there is no limit to their demands.  I've heard it again and again from provider's whom I services when in the health care industry. "I want the drugs I want and no generics".  "I want a pill to fix everything w/o making any lifestyle changes."

I want to see a doctor for more than 5 minutes.  I want a hospital that doesn't charge me $5 for an aspirin.  I want to know that, should my cancer recur, I will be able to be treated without losing everything I own.

I guess you're right, Linda.  There's just no limit to my demands.

So you think that the average doc who makes $150,000 is making too much, Sandy?  Wow.

Marilyn, if you will explain the logic behind your question as a response to my question, I'll stop thinking you are just trying to avoid answering my question. Okay?

Sandy, I daresay that you DO NOT have experience in EVERYthing about which you have an opinion.  :)  Have I been a doctor and paid malpractice insurance?  You know I have not.  However, I do know a few doctors personall/socially and I know what they have shared.  I have no reason to believe that they lie about the amount of money they pay in malpractice insurance, especially not when that information is available on the internet. 

And, yes, Sandy, I do think it's outrageous compared to their salaries.  Because, as you well know (or would if you researched) the average doc makes only $150,000.

Ah. We get to use "daresay"? Yippee. I daresay, Marilyn, that you know as much about me as you seem to know about the other topics you write about - very little. I do have personal and learned experience in many areas and am always willing to tell which experiences and what knowledge I've brought into my opinions. I have lived an extremely full life, with an open mind and many contacts.

I believe a person learns most by walking the streets and mixing with people. Your comments (e.g. We need to teach young people that they are responsible for their health care) lead me to believe you have done very little in the way of communicating with people, and your posts lead me to believe that your reading is limited and your comprehension even more so, because you lack the personal experience needed to see the full picture. So, I always try to question you and find out on what you base your opinions. That's only fair. And I never receive a satisfactory response.

I did Google the average salary of a physician, and a family practicioner makes between $115k and $175k a year.  Of course, specialists would make more (depending on the specialty).  I think your estimated average of $150k is a trifle low, don't you?

I wonder if the figures you found, Jeannine, and Marilyn's "guesstimate", include the profit sharing in their PSCs, or the benefits the PSCs allow (like covering malpractice premiums, continuing education, medical expenses not covered by insurance, 6 weeks of vacation, wireless phone coverage, home computers, equipment, office expenses, etc. I'm guessing not.

I know young doctors who have millions in their profit sharing.

*Please don't confuse this as a statement that I think doctors are overpaid. I think most good doctors earn what they make, I think they make far more than Marilyn suggests, and I don't think their salaries are a big part of the problem. I just think saying that the average salary for a physician is $150,000 might be like saying the average salaries of those CEO's who receive multi-million dollar bonuses are $150,000.

I'm  not sure how the health care problem needs to be solved, I just know it needs to be done.  So everybody who does nothing but shoot down ideas will be the first to loose access to all medical care when I'm in charge of the world.  (I'm just kidding about that).  But I do think that Americans  need to decide what we value and we need to decide it soon.  Do we want a society where individuals live long active lives or do we want a society where old age is difficult. 

It's hard to believe that some of us give a rat's rump WHAT length or quality the rest of us have -- only prenatal life is sacrosanct to them; the remaining 99.9% is irrelevant.

Very true Jeannie. As soon as they are out of the womb they can starve to death.

Four pages long and no numbers?  Tax cuts for the top 2%!!!  That should solve all problems! ROTFLMAO at the dumbasses who actually believe in the republican party! It's a dead elephant!

Everyone had tax cuts under Bush, Spartan.  You choose to forget that.  But when they expire under Obama, you'll remember.  Each family will be paying $3500 just for the expired tax breaks.  Then, when Obama starts taxing everything else, and having to raise taxes to do everything he plans and provide all the "free" health care everyone thinks they want, we'll all be paying through the nose.

I get it.  You like 1100 page bills that no one reads or understands better, right?

I didn't like the three-foot bill that the Republican slid in in the middle of the night, so I'm happy to see that we are at least getting better. We still have a long way to go, but let's give credit for the progress this administration has made.

I'm sure you are, Sandy.  I'm sure you are.  It matters not to you that we're spending money we don't have, as long as you get yours, right?

If this article were flagged for adult conversation, Marilyn, you would not belong and I would say something here that you would cry about. You didn't mind spending trillions of dollars on an illegal war, but you don't want to spend money keeping people healthy and alive. ___________Fill in the blank.

Sandy thinks two wrongs make a right - as long as Obama, the Saviour, has a hand in it.

Marilyn, these people are statists.  The govt. is their religion.  If you remember that, when they post, it will help you understand where they are coming from.

Marilyn, what really happened is that Bush refunded money taken in as taxes, or planned to be taken in as taxes that would not even have covered the deficit that we already had.

That is not really a tax cut, because the money was brought in under current tax law.  It was a give-away, and since the tax is progressive, the so-called tax cut was regressive, ie. favoring those with lots of money, - it was like welfare for the very rich, at a time when the country had a huge debt/deficit already.

How smart is that, and how smart was it to more than double that debt?

This is not about taxes, it is about control, and keeping the boot on the necks of Americans citizens so we never get a taste of the liberty and freedom we have lost since the Kennedy assassination times.

The giant financial bailout is roughly doing the same thing - taking money from the government and putting out of commission for the people, and in the hands of the people who have controlled things incompetently.

"Of course the corner stone of the proposal is putting restrictions on malpractice liability. This is of course based on the false claim that costs related to malpractice claims are a major factor causing higher medical costs."

Ok I will not read further.  Of course medical malpractice insurance is a reason for higher costs.  It is driving general practitioners out of medicine.  You show you ignorance by ignoring that.

And when fewer and fewer of the bright go into medicine, and the rest have left out of frustration with government pay and lawsuits. Then the few doctors left will give up trying to treat an overwhelming patient load.

Then each of you get to wait in an office for over 30 hours trying to get someone to tend to your medical problem. Sounds like heaven to me. not

MD,

Did you not see the report I linked from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Medicine in the second paragraph? So, you are showing your ignorance by assuming I pulled this out of my ass like Linda and Marilynn do thier claims.

Nora,

Yeah, that's what happenned in the other 36 countries that HAVE SPUHC and rank higher than we do in health care... NOT!!!

Why don't you folks on the Right try looking at a little thing called facts instead of blindly listening to morons like Rush Limbaugh.

They're all waiting in long medical lines.

Nora, are you talking about pediactric gastrointestinal patients? I had the same experience here, and I live in a medical community. It's a shame, huh? I'm sure, though, that things will improve when we have a government system. My experience, and I DID work for a federal medicare program, is that the government system is more efficient.

Also, will you tell me where you found this information: "And when fewer and fewer of the bright go into medicine, and the rest have left out of frustration with government pay and lawsuits." I've known more inteligent people who stayed out because they couldn't afford the schooling than people who stayed out because they didn't like the salary. Is your experience different? Do you have a source for this information?

Sandy they have no sources.. The have no references.. I have already provided a definition for a refernce: A note in a publication referring the reader to another passage or source.

Read the book Overtreated in America. I checked it out from the library so I don't have it handy to give you the page numbers. This was written by a medical professional.

Stay informed. READ BOOKS!

Devin, you sight ONE resource and take it as gospel?

Your claim about the 36 other countries is a sham.  The info you read is skewed to the benefit of the author's agenda.

I've been coming by from time to time comment stalking Sandy, and while I don't have enough of an education on this subject to say much one way or the other, I did go read the article you linked to in the second paragraph. It's interesting that the conclusion was that the higher health care costs were merely that we're just paying more. They didn't however, answer my questions: why and who is getting that money? Do you know? (I'm not being facetious or baiting you, by the way.)

I have friends who routinely have awful things happen to them due to lack of health care. These people work but cannot afford health care (not offered by job). One woman has had a perforated ear drum twice and now has pneumonia. She's at work because if she doesn't go, she won't be able to pay her bills. I feel almost embarrassed to be able to go to the doctor's when she's suffering like that. The premiums for health insurance would take between 50%-75% of her salary (I forget which).

The people getting the money we pay to health insurance companies are the same scrillionaires who are fighting tooth and nail to keep thier money tree.

I rather thought that might be the case, but are there studies and proof of that, too? If not, there should be. This whole recession with cascading unemployment and company closures has me asking where the money has gone.

The money has gone to the top 1% income bracket, just as it has always done.  Getting it back where it came from is called "re-distributing the wealth" and, of course, is anathema to the GOP.  Re-distributing the wealth UP is "good for the economy", re-distributing it DOWN is "bad for everyone".

Where do people keep getting the notion that the public thinks they are going to get free health care?

It's empty rhetoric Spencer, Thay don't have anything to say, so they say... anything.