So, a lot of you want government run health care? As in Medicare for all!?

[camdin90]

What it is is simple.. it takes no genius to figure it out.. If you have money because you worked you a-- off. they want you to pay for others, I see no difference in Communism except they pay for your education, But you are a product of the State! I saw this in those that supported the anti-movement against the Korean War.. we missed it. We had our colleges infiltrated and in the Vietnam War, they were already mostly in place. The released FBI files show these things! We were a free government! We did have some morals.. when in public, but we had a guidance. We have Obama now.. is he God or your moral commitment to a Creator? What does race have to do with our relationship to Jesus and the Word? Do the American African community see this is wrong.. they say Jesus is Lord.. but who did they vote for. What will we get from those that deny the most precious that we want to support,, no rights, whatever? They want health, are they interesting in money? Earl




1

[barnett]

"So, a lot of you want government run health care?"

Yes, please, thank you!

So, you're reason for not doing this is because the government would spend $1,500.00 dollars per year for every man woman and child in the country. You're suggesting it would be folly to use taxpayer's money on taxpayers, not on special interests, not on criminally overpriced government contractors, and not on pork barrel projects... Do I understand you correctly? I guess I'm not real clear on what you are crying about...

Hell son, thats only $500 billion dollars a year! Congress puts a trillion down the crapper every time they flush the toilet! You're saying every one could have access to quality health care for chump change.

Why didn't we do this years ago? We still got enough left to keep fighting the two or three wars we got ourselves into, and maybe even enough to spare for a nuke or two to drop on Iran or North Korea if we think we ought to!

Another thing, that old lady's expenses would be a hundred times more than what they were if she went through the insurance companies rather than medicare. And she'd be dead anyway, because insurance would encourage her to buy all the pharmaceutical companies' pills that she didn't need, but would have denied her the life saving procedure she really did need.

You're right about one thing- greed got us into this mess, but I think you need to look some different pie charts if you think malpractice suits are the driving force and not the scapegoat. Greed from insurance companies, greed from doctors, greed from testing laboratories... greed from the top to the bottom. You want reform? How about starting first with the insurance industry itself and second with all the test laboratories and all the other crooked operations that exist solely to suck money from the system. AND I think the doctors are giving piss poor returns for what they are taking from society- and they are the first to admit it!

I would gladly see the entire insurance industry disappear overnight to be replaced by the worst government run system of your nightmares. It would be a vast improvement. Actually your nightmare appears to be a dream come true. I'd love to hear more of your worst fears.

[vohkinne]

For clarity, no government-run health care system is on the table. What a shame. Still, what is proposed would be a quantum improvement over what we now have. This is especially true of the proposed "public option." The majority of the American people favor it, and so do doctors:

"According to a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-funded study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 63 percent of U.S. physicians support healthcare reform that includes both a public option and traditional private insurance, while only 27 percent support a private-only option that would provide subsidies for low-income individuals to purchase private insurance. "

The article goes on to point out that 62.9% of doctors who are members of the AMA also support the option. When a majority of professional providers (MDs) also favor the option, one should speak not of this option's being shoved down our throats, but of the minority opposed to it shoving the failed status quo down our throats. No one benefits from the current system more than the for-profit health-insurance companies that are once more pouring fortunes into lobbying and false propaganda opposing it.
Failure to reform health care in this country and to base its success and quality on outcomes rather than on profits will ensure that costs will continue to increase at a far more rapid pace than would the costs of reform, which will put a brake on the rate of the current, ballooning costs.

Certainly, people denied coverage by for-profit private insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions, due to the sudden, expensive costs of care for a disease like cancer, due to age, due to diabetes, etc., do not benefit from our for-profit system. The fact that health care costs at least almost twice as much per person in our country than it does in any other country, even those with better treatment outcomes and true universal coverage, is prima facie evidence of the continuing failure of the status quo.

Check up on medical malpractice. Its cost in relation to the total system is about 3%. Insurance companies keep about 30 cents of each premium dollar; Medicare keep 3 cents. Their greed and refusal to cover people who need health care render the cost of malpractice negligible. Further, as Newt Gingrich has pointed out, just the processing of claims comes to about 18% of the total cost. So why focus on malpractice?

Ethically and morally, access to quality heath care is a right. If you disagree, it is at least partically because you have not yet been dropped by your insurance company, or because you have not yet faced treatment costs ranging in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars that your insurance company refuses to pay.

Why is it not callously immoral to stand by and allow thousands to die every year simply because they cannot afford health care?

*** Edit. Most doctors in your area oppose it? Do you know that or do you assert it? I suspect the latter, but if you have the proof contrary to what I have provided, please cite it. Platitudes about "corrupt policiticians" should not be confused with discussion or thoughtful argument. (Could anyone be more corrupt that the executives of for-profit health-insurance companies?) Neither should labels be allowed to pass as arguments. If we are to have good government, whether it be in health or in defense, we need to deal with truth and facts, not prejudice, propaganda, and emotion.

We need to think, folks! Knee-jerk reactions make for the formulation of poor policy.

[blaisdell]

Some of the people in the UK have been watching the US Healthcare reforms with slight curiosity Here in the UK we pay tax. I don't know how much tax the average US citizen pays but I pay about 20% on my income. Some of this money goes to the NHS. I know that if I or a member of my family were to fall seriously ill or were involved in an accident, there would be no further costs to me or my family. I know that they would be looked after in a safe environment by professional staff. So whilst I agree that our healthcare is not totally free (we pay via taxation) I do not think it is as plagued by fraud as the current US system (This is only based on what I have read. I have no experience of the American health care.) What worries me about the current American health care (again absed on what I have been told) is that elderly patients still have to pay for medical treatment. In the UK, most elderly people are on reduced income and suffer increasing healthcare problems.

Whilst our benefit system is completely abused (only 1 in 6 people claiming disability benefit are genuine) Our healthcare is available to anyone who needs it, young, old, poor, rich, nationals and foreign. If you came to the UK and was involved in an accident you would be patched up completely free (it would't cost you a penny)

I think that your politicians have seen the UK's healthcare and possibly want to use what we have learned to improve the US healthcare. I think that the people who are against it have simply believed the propaganda instead of looking at it objectively