Why I Object to Government Health Care!

very nice thoughts. thanks for sharing.

And Carol Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

We invaded a soverign nation for what?

So then Carol I am assuming that you dont get social secrity since you are retired.  And if you do then give the money back to the government.

And you dont get medicare either right?  You did pay for your recent surgery with private insurance or cash from your own pocket right?

And you dont go to public libraries but buy your own books.

And if you have a fire do you have a private firm hired to extinguish it.  And do you have a private security firm instead of the police department right.

And I hope you dont drive on roads or over bridges that get repaired with government taxes.

I hope your daughter doesnt go to public school.

Carol, don't worry, everyone else knows that you and your employers paid into social security so you don't need to "give the money back"

Same for your medicare, you've paid into that all these years too.

Hmm, does that mean those who never have worked and paid the government "premiums"  should not get services? 

Now that's a thought.

Lori,

I have medicare, but my primary insurace is paid for .  Government handouts are no my thing.  Social Security, I receive but I could have made a lot more money saving that money, and I know this as I have savings besides the forced savings the government made me take,but thanks for asking.

Nice spin there Carol.  But I work in a clinic.  Medicare is your primary insurance and any private policy is secondary.

That is why it's called suppliment insurance.

But Nora, if national healthcare is bad for everyone, shouldn't one stick to their principles and refuse it? Otherwise, the word hypocrite sort of rolls off the tongue, when you oppose it for others, and take advantage of it, yourself, don't you think?

My same sentiments, but youi're likely to catch a lot of flac from those who want what we have no money for.

some people just can't keep their pathetic hands in their pockets.

Carol,

You are on Medicare, that means you have your hand in my pocket, as we speak. I have no insurance, myself, because no one will insure me (diabetic), but I am contributing to yours. Hmmm.....

great thoughts

The only legitimate function of government is in a protective or defensive role. So 90% of what is done now by gov't, can and should be done by free private citizens. Socialist medicine will just mean longer waiting lines, rationing, and gov't deciding who lives and dies. The free market is clearly the answer -- competition will make everything much better. Look how pharmacies are already providing health clinics. Why not just have some kind of tax credit to encourage that? And you could allow full deductibility of health care expenses from your taxes. Otherwise it's just going to benefit the big entities that are already eating us up -- the drug, insurance, and big medical corporations. We need to put patients back in charge with innovations like medical savings accounts. And end the AMA stranglehold so alternative / nutritional medicine plays a greater role. Otherwise the big global banksters will just keep ripping us off. Thanks for posting this!

Conservatives spend the bucks too, of course (I think we all saw enough of that the past eight years, and under Raygun and Bush I), they just resent it going to anyone that isn't rich. Much better it's used to invade a country with massive oil reserves for big oil, even though they didn't have chit to do with 911 or have active WMD programs like they sold the war on.

Now you're sounding intelligent, Ron.  Don't worry, it'll pass.

No president has ever spent as much as this president.  And it's not for stimulus.  All he has done is grab businesses and banks and start down the path of making everyone dependent on the government for everything.  That was always his agenda and he rushed into making it so withing the first 100 days.  And the blind still cannot see and want him in charge of their health care as well.

Ron, we don't have the money.  Period.

Well, it obviously did for you, Carol.

Marilyn, we never did, but that didn't bother you when a Republican was spending us to China (debtor prison). Get over yourself.

I object to government run health care, I don't care who packages it how, I'm not going to have the government tell me who to see when to see and where to see.....

Mooch

The single payer option would be just that, Mooch. You can keep what you've got, if that is what you want. The ignorance of what this program would be is overwhelming.

Ron, many have made up their minds and don't really care what is in the details. Whatever--they say no to healthcare for fear is might cost them a dime.

Yep better not to have the government running healthcare I am sure that some pimply faced BC/BS customer service representative can manage your healtcare choices just fine.  All the while managing to make a profit providing you with the cheapest alternatives.

Thats if youre lucky enough to have insurance. 

well said Lori !!

bravo !!!

thanks for sharing..

Carol, Nationalized Health Care is a direct violation of the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people." 

Since health care is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, it is a state or individual issue.  The Federal Government has NO BUSINESS messing with it.

King Obama wants change though.

That's right, Poliwonk and we should not let them get away with this!

Delusional.

I can not believe a "can do" country like ours wants to turn to socialized medicine! Senators and Congressmen need to realize the healthcare crisis was brought on by Medicare and Medicaid! 

The insurance industry ( I work for one of them) uses the governments own standardized pricing for the maximum amounts they will pay of the health care providers bills so the healthcare providers bill just a little more and then stick it to the ordinary consumer to make up the "difference" of what the providers charge to the government subsidized plans!

As far as I understand, the way the legislation is written it is way too expensive and may not pass the Senate anyway - I HOPE not!

I pray not.  We cannot afford to pay for everyone.  Health care fine, but then stop the damn bailouts.

I can't believe a "can do" country like ours is so antiquated in the way we look at health care that we need to add almost a third to it to pay for insurance industry administration (to deny customers the benefits they paid for, whenever possible), in comparison to the Medicare model. That's what we pay, just to fatten up the insurance companies of this country, and have them tell us what's cost effective for them, in our life and death health care decisions. You might be out of a job, Susan, but that's the cost of raising us up from our abysmal 37th health care rating in the world.

Yeah, that'll work, Sparky. All I have to do is take my whole disability check and bank it. Of course, if you have a life threatening illness like I had last year, it wouldn't amount to beans in relation to the hospital and doctor bills. Can I come eat at your house, then? You people just don't think about the folks in this country that are between a rock and a hard place, and frankly, your indifference reveals your own stingy selfishness.

Marie Antoinette Syndrome is alive and well...

As I already asked on "the other heathcare thread"....

Are Medicare and Medicaid going to remain in place when this "miracle" healthcare system goes into effect??

How about W.I.C.??

And V.A. health coverage??

Or are they all just going to be added to the system and the whole thing be lumped together??

Because if American taxpayers are paying out of their own pockets for Medicare, Medicaid, W.I.C., V.A. coverage, AND "universal healthcare for everyone," I wish someone would explain to me how the heck it is going to be less expensive rather than a whole lot more expensive......

There are administration related benefits to the medicare model that would save this country about one third, as opposed to insurance company administration (used primarily to deny benefits people have paid for, and boost the bottom line), as well as the benefit to business from getting them out of the insurance business, allowing them to be much more competitive abroad. The gains from a national health plan are many and well documented, but then, that's not what this is about. It's about providing an option for people that can't, or don't want to participate any longer in the plans they presently are in. I'm one of those that can't get insurance. You can keep what you have, if that is your wish, just allow me some option, besides dying, thank you very much.

We need to pass this legislation now!

Who's this "we," Michael??......

The federal government, acting by the direction of the people of this nation, is eminently right  and complies with the constitution.  All those powers  dedicated to the  people allow the people to direct their congressional delegation to implement a  national health care program and that is simple democracy at work!

To not permit this because a state objected would be the state trying to circumvent the constitutional deployment of the peoples rights.  Congress, acting on the will of the people, can implement many things.  When acting on the lobbying money of the insurance companies, congress has no constitutional mandate to implement anything, regardless of how much lobbying money is dished out

In addition, no one of which I am aware is proposing a government run medical system!   That verbiage was produced by the opponents of the government having a national health care plan and it has subsequently been drawn into most every discussion of health care we have.

What is desired by many is for the government to provide a plan of insurance which they would administer for those who wish to go that route.  A  single payer, non-profit system.  The government would have no more involvement with running health care than they do right now.  The administrators in the health care system would still be in the same place but the financing would probably become more standardized.

As far as the government deciding who gets what care, I'd just as soon have the government do it as some insurance bean counter who is currently doing the very same thing.  The insurance company is trying to serve two masters and it cannot be done.  They are obligated to make as large a profit for the stockholders as possible and they are trying to provide finances to policy holders needing medical care.  The only way to increase what the stockholders get is to take it from the policyholders.  This is a patent conflict of interest!

"What is desired by many is for the government to provide a plan of insurance which they would administer for those who wish to go that route"

What does "administer" mean, in this case, James??

Other Americans who think like me.

The only "other Americans who think like you" who can "pass this legislation now" work for Congress, Michael.....

And, unless you work for Congress, it is "they," not "we".....

Yeah, Berf, but poll after poll shows most Americans favor reform of the health care system, and a majority, last time I looked, support a single payer option. If that's changed, correct me. I know the insurance lobby has been working hard on the gloom and doom front of late, and with the cash they've spread around congress, the will of the people may yet be sublimated, again....

"What does "administer" mean, in this case, James??"

For a pretty good idea of what it means, just look at Medicare. You go to your own doctor, follow his advice about your healthcare... It's pretty user friendly.

An amazingly astute and truthful explanation, James, awash in a veritable sea of ego and nationalism... Good SHOW!

"I have medicare . . ."

Tells me all I need to hear.  Voluntarily forgo that and maybe you'll also have some credibility when you object to other people having access to affordable health care.  Personally, 9-11 notwithstanding, I'd rather pay to fix people than to blow them up.

The government has done an EXCELLENT job of managing Medicare, Medicaid, VA Health Care.... I see every reason to expand their role.  Outstanding management of a vital entity such as health care should be rewarded.  Trust the trustworthy and all will be well!!

"I see every reason to expand their role"

Well, I can think of one outstanding reason not to.....

I PAY ENOUGH TAXES ALREADY!!!!

First HEY BERF!

Second when you look at it like this.

You pay $200 a month in taxes at the present and $300 a month for insurance premium and thats not counting the co-pays and deductibles.

So we nationalize healthcare.

You add $200 to your taxes a month but you dont have to pay the $300 a month for premiums.

I am no economics major but.....

... and then you die because you had to wait 4 months for a referral to a doctor that, under private coverage, you'd have been able to see in 2 days.  In that case, the extra tax is definitely a moot point.

Sorry Carol, couldn't resist, even after I told myself I was going to stay out of this discussion.  :)

And yes, I know that no one is really talking about nationalizing the entire healthcare system *now*.  I'm merely looking down the road.

"... and then you die because you had to wait 4 months for a referral to a doctor that, under private coverage, you'd have been able to see in 2 days.  In that case, the extra tax is definitely a moot point."

In my experience with my mother's healthcare, under Medicare, this is just hogwash. Another insurance lobby scare tactic.

How about 60 million to ACORN and cutting our missile defense?

Christ! Someone is STILL batting this dead horse!?

Elephants have amazingly good memories, when it comes to conservative propaganda, Spartan. It fails them terribly, when it comes to the results of their regimes, though, I've found.

"Why you OBJECT to Government Health Care"?

ummm...probably because you have no desire to CATCH UP with the rest of western industrialized democracies who have HIGHLY successful National Health Care? Could that be it? Or, are you saying that America is too stupid to do what these other countries have already done with great success!

No country has a "highly successful" health care system.  All nations have significant problems in their systems; some of these problems are not as apparent as others.  There is no perfect model we can adopt.

The Swiss, the French and many others might argue that point with you, and I'd like to see the figures on how many, even in the ones that do have problems would like to see it ended and replaced with the rapacious system we employ right now. I think we all know the truth of that one. Even the critics, in those countries (the ones that aren't on lobbyist payrolls, pronounce that conservatives) don't want the system ended, just reformed. Many of those that have problems now, have them, because conservative governments, over the past few decades have undermined them whenever possible.

Christopher by significant problems with their healthcare system do you mean 40+ million without insurance and couldnt get in to see a doctor if their life depended on it.

Or the lucky ones with insurance that have a major illness and still get stuck with a 40k bill because of deductibles?

Lori....

40+ million is only a little over one-tenth of the U.S. population. Wouldn't it be easier, cheaper, and less intrusive for Uncle Sam to simply take care of the 40+ million and leave the other 80 to 90 percent of us alone??

Berf no.

How about those that are underinsured.

And how are we going to pay for the 40 million?

Could you imagine what the backlash would be if only a handful of people got healthcare coverage and they left the rest of us alone.

Plus how do you intend to cover those 40 million.  With medicaid? 

There is a significant difference between a "war" and "healthcare" - the former is always temporary and the later is forever.  (Even the one hundred year war wasn't fought for one hundred straight years.)  "Cold" wars can last "forever" (witness the current "cold war" between North and South Korea) but they aren't as costly as "hot" wars.  Spending for healthcare is something that we will be committed to not just this decade, but the next one, and the one after that, and so on and so forth.  Debt in this case is simply not an option, the problem will always remain the same; the costs will always remain proportionally the same.  (Our best efforts to reduce costs will probably at best keep up with the general tendency of any program to become bloated over time.)  Healthcare is a commitment for our generation and all future generations and must be considered in that light.

And yet Great Britain refers to their system of National Health Care as a "National Treasure"!  But, thanks for towing the corporate lie, Christopher!

I won't debate the fine point of a "national treasure" (but I will throw in the old yard sale quote of how "one man's trash is another man's treasure") but I will point out that the UK system is a combination of public and private systems. "Taken together, the World Health Organization, in 2000, ranked the provision of healthcare in the United Kingdom as fifteenth best in Europe and eighteenth in the world." 

But the UK model doesn't prove your point either.  There is no UK system, each region within the UK has its own system, "Healthcare in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter and England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each has its own system of publicly-funded health care together with private healthcare and a wide variety of alternative and complementary treatments."  If the UK model were to be applied to the US, the argument would be that the public "system" not be at the federal level but applied to the state level; perhaps coordinated but not run at the federal level.

P.S. I'm not into the corporate lie.  Just because I don't believe in the federal shell game of hide the costs and distribute the wealth does not mean I'm for the status quo.

Yeah, Chris, that's that conservative undermining I spoke of above. Still, the people of the United Kingdom highly value it. By the way, where is it exactly, you think the US, under it's present system is rated on healthcare?  37th Chris, 37th. Sort of says it all. World Health Organization ratings, by country

And for the record, I have seen many lament the change to the system they now have, compared to the old one.

Please bear in mind that Christopher is a happy camper as long as the "distribution of wealth" flows UPWARD!  I wonder what website good 'ol Christopher can quote from if one mentions France's National Health Care which is rated as #1 in the world.

The only people opposed to a National Health Care plan are people who have a vested interest via the Insurance companies, Pharmecutical companies, and our nation's village idiots!

I am not a "happy camper" as long as the distribution of wealth goes upwards.  Forced distribution of any kind makes me unhappy.

As for France, I really don't know any significant problems with their system.  I would, however, question whether the success of their system is the result of the system, or the French.  All that good food, (I'm talking about what the common people eat) the wine, the simple work week with plenty of vacation time and early retirement, as well as the general relaxed nature of the country has to be massively beneficial to ones health.

But none of that matters since it is clear that all who oppose the Supreme Leader's plan are, as you so elegantly put it "village idiots."  Sort of like ABC's definition of "debate."  (P.S. You forgot the A.M.A. - Doctors don't like it either.  Or are our doctors among the village idiots?)

No, among those with a vested interest in it's defeat, for monetary reasons. I would think that's obvious, Chris.

"As for France, I really don't know any significant problems with their system. I would, however, question whether the success of their system is the result of the system, or the French. All that good food, (I'm talking about what the common people eat) the wine, the simple work week with plenty of vacation time and early retirement, as well as the general relaxed nature of the country has to be massively beneficial to ones health."

Oh, no! You aren't endorsing the socialistic French government here, are you? Vacation time and early retirement, general relaxed nature... About all that good food, unless you're talking about the poor, are you crazy? High fat, high cholesterol, rich sauces, etc.

Could it be that the benefits of preventive medicine, available to all, is effective?

I'm always reminded of that great Woody Allen movie sleeper where in the future they discovered that everything that was supposed to be "good" for you really killed you and everything that was supposed to be "bad" for you really was good for you.  I'll take French food over frozen food any day.  (Then again, I probably one of the few Americans who actually likes English cooking, so take my comments with a pinch of sea salt (not the processed and iodine added stuff but the real McCoy).)

Our medicare and medicaid systems, if left alone by conservatives, would not be in the shape it's in today, either. The senior drug program, Bush's lie, was MEANT to break the bank. So much so that they threatened to fire one government worker if he revealed to congress the cost of the program before it was voted on. They were lied to by the Bush Admin. One of many. Conservatives, the world over, have been working to subvert the national healthcare agenda, because, surprise, there's a lot of money in it for the contributors to their political agenda. Don't be fooled, this effort is all about our money, going into insurance and pharmacutical company's coffers, not better healthcare.

These people need to see sicko.

Yeah, they didn't interview all those French fleeing there, either. We're not talking political systems, Sparky, we're talking healthcare. Pathetic.

Charles, my wonderfully charitable friend, I'm disabled, and I'd trade places with you in a heartbeat. I can't, unless you are the God you seem to think you are. In any event, I hope both you and Sparky, there, get to experience the plight of others through no fault of your own, at some point, too. You could both use a little humility, and the universe has a way of granting that to arrogant asses such as yourselves, at some point. I can only hope.

And Charles, I wore a helmet for over 30 years. Unfortunately, it didn't protect my neck and spinal column...

thanks!

hopefully i get a comment to appear here/.......

so......

presto chango

allakazzzzzammmmmmmmm.................

I agree.....where's the money going to come from......they could stop all of the stimulus moneys that haven't been spent and let the weak go under, like they will even with the governments help so it seems.....

and use that money......

A close friend is from Germany, where her sons still live. She is totally shocked that a country like the great United States does not cover healthcare for all. She highly praises both the German and French programs.

Our closest friends in Europe and Canada have universal healthcare, and we say we are right and all of them are wrong. Can't we study their programs and come up with a model for everyone? We are the only advanced nation without it.

I am reading about  the many suggestions for finding the money without raising taxes--except maybe raising takes on the super rich.

I would like to see Medicare for everyone. The large number of people I know who have Medicare are  basically satisfied, myself included.

Yeah, our massive military budget needs to be cut, and provide for our own, first. I agree.

Thanks  for  sharing this  with all of us.

I suppose that health care run by insurance companies is better.  :)

I don't mind that insurance companies make a profit.  What concerns me is that one excellent strategy for maximizing profit that all insurance companies use is to avoid paying claims whenever possible.  I don't blame them.  I'd do the same thing if I ran an insurance company.  I don't think it's the ideal approach for health care.

I was lucky enough to catch the health insurance companies CEO's testifying to Congress last week.  One of the questions involved documentation of the insurance companies giving bonuses to employees who were responsible for:

1)  increasing the number of denied claims;

2)  increasing the number of policies cancelled in the first year due to claims (not related to fraud, BTW).

Don't you just love a system that rewards NOT insuring legitimate medical claims?  And gives bonuses for doing so?

When will Americans stop looking at healthcare as something that only people who can afford it deserve?  When will they stop supporting insurance companies' profits and bonuses instead of using that same money to pool all citizens into a national plan that recognizes that everyone deserves some level of healthcare?  Pathetic.

Insurance companies don't want to cover people who are perceived to be higher than average risks.  A few years back in CA insurance companies routinely started cancelling homeowner's insurance policies for people who had made one claim.  I'm not talking about fraudulent claims.  I'm talking about things like a neighbor's tree falling on a house or a drunk driving through the living room window.

Since everyone's need for medical care is a certainty, it seems foolish to allow government sanctioned casinos to be the arbiters of who gets what treatment and who's allowed to place a bet.

"the simple work week with plenty of vacation time and early retirement, as well as the general relaxed nature of the country has to be massively beneficial to ones health."

These are things that were supposed to happen here according to futurist form the 1950s.  Instead people are working two or three jobs just to provide for their families.  the cost of healthcare is beyond the reach of many working people.  I don't care who makes healthcare better and more affordable, but I don't see any proposals coming from the conservative camp, all they do is attack the democratic plan.  The system is broke, if you can't offer a way to fix it then work with the other side to forge a workable plan both sides can agree on.

As far a the devaluation of the dollar, start buying American made products instead of foreign made products.  Conserve energy so American dollars don't go to Saudi Arabia (a questionable friend to our country) or Venezula (a government that isvery hostile to our nation)

It seems that you also objected to English class when you were in elementary school. I find it very difficult to take your "argument" seriously when you can't communicate any better than this, not to mention the fact that you're quite obviously repeating the talking points someone gave you.

Exactly Steve T. -- when health insurance is tied to jobs and jobs are tough to come by, the cost of health care is rising out of reach of many working people.  Under the Bush Administration and wages have stagnanted while health care costs continued to spiral up.  To remain competitive some small businesses have cut benefits.  When half of the work-force employed by small businesses, there is a real need for affordable quality health care plan for workers and gets employers out of managing health care plans.  A single payer plan would do just that.

I really have no opinion one way or the other on this subject. I just came by to support your post.

Christopher,

You wrote "No country has a "highly successful" health care system. All nations have significant problems in their systems; some of these problems are not as apparent as others. There is no perfect model we can adopt."

This gives the US the perfect opportunity to study the various systems and adopt the things that work best.  However, the other systems are all government and we are only talking about a single payer insurance system, not "health system" as is so often stated erroneously.

Steve T.,

I agree with you in general, but try to "buy American" and see what luck you have!  What can you buy that is made in America, Toyota vehicles?

Wow, Carol... you generate almost as much noise as I do.  Do me a favor and post this to ! Healthcare for EVERYBODY ! I'll even feature it.

You have some very valid thoughts here.  Unfortunately, we the people, aren't the ones in charge.  God help us all!!!

Government takeover of health care and "socialized medicine" are not what is being considered now. What is currently on the table is subsidies that will go to low income families so that they can buy insurance...any plan they CHOOSE to purchase, be it public or private. Unfortunately, congress refuses to even consider a public health care plan as an option.

thanks for your thoughts