The Democrats want to fast-track as much of this garbage as quickly as possible. The last thing they want is careful consideration.

• reply

Health care should be a fundamental right. When are you cold hearted Republicans going to wake up to the fact that this is not such a bad thing? Geeesh!

• reply

Anyone over 65 or anyone with a serious illness better run for the hills if the Democrats get their way and pass Government run Health Care
Reform. Euthanasia, End of Human Life, fits right in with Obama’s desire to cut BILLIONS  of dollars from Medicare in order to help pay for his Government run Health care.

Moreover, do the Democrats have a death wish for the economy? The higher taxes on small businesses the plan calls for will force businesses to lay off even more people. The higher spending will raise the deficit even higher causing the economy to spiral downward even further. And for what? So 80% of the people who like their private insurance are ultimately FORCED into the government run public plan? ( and the Democrats are not be truthful if they say otherwise) and so  people  who are young and/or can afford it, are FORCED into a Public Plan they don’t even want or need? This is pure insanity.

 If Senator Dodd and the rest of the Democrats thinks the public option is so great, they should mandate that Senator Kennedy and all the other politicians and bureaucrats in Washington are forced into being covered under the plan like everyone else


 

• reply

As Mises said, “Tu ne cede malis.” Do not give in to evil.
It is wrong for the government to cut heath care services for the poor and elderly, force the uninsured to pay for health care insurance against their will and force small businesses to pay higher taxes for the purpose of covering the uninsured. An WSJ article, Obama’s Voodoo Health Economics documents that contrary to what President Obama is saying, his plan will cause health care costs and deficits to sky rocket, unemployment will rise, taxes will go up and health care will have to be rationed. The people most hurt will be the poor and elderly as their services will be cut. This big irony is that while everyone may be "covered" under a government run plan only those considered of "worth" to the political elite in DC will be provided with any care, everyone else might as well start putting a down payment on their coffins.

• reply

Government programs are always the most expensive and the most corrupt with fraud and little monetary oversight, so any government option should be every person's last choice!  And, who wants to give ultimate decisions regarding your body to the federal government? 

Deana, Health Care is not a right!  Where do you see that in any of our coutnry's founding documents? If you are so concerned about someone's health care, I suggest you offer to foot the bill for him/her!  That would be the charitable thing to do!

Yours and my rights are the one's given by God, the unalienable ones mentioned!  None of those are guarantees of anything!

• reply

Many people who can't afford health care insurance but who don't qualify for Medicaid don't pay enough in taxes in the first place to make tax deductions and credits sufficient to fund the cost of health insurance.  I know, my brother is one of them.  He has a pre-existing condition that was caused by a negligent motorist and is automatically disqualified from purchasing private individual health insurance and must rely on the increasingly expensive state health insurance pool. 

What about people like him? 

• reply

Pokano, I would urge you to join others who are trying to get the government to actually do something constructive instead of destructive like clean up Medicare/Medicaid.  If those programs ran correctly, people like your brother could access them!  The feds give lots of "lip service" to people like your brother but don't actually do anything to fix the problem.  He could also self insure which is what many self employed people do and that is set up a health savings account.  There is a point at which each of us has to be responsible for ourselves and to not expect others to "foot the bill!"  That is what true liberty and freedom are all about!

• reply

If the Government can't screw it up,it can't be screwed up.

• reply

Does anyone out there realize that our Federal Government has no

Constitutional right to even discuss healthcare?

We do have problems in this country, that is for certain; however, tort

reform would do more for the reduction of healthcare costs than almost

anything else that has been proposed. People DO NOT have a "right" to

healthcare. Where did you people come up with that? We need the

government to completely get OUT of medicine and let people get their

own insurance privately. Also, employers should not have to provide it.

People need to be independent and self-reliant. The poor and illegal

already have FREE care. What our government proposes will ruin the 

level of care that we now receive in this country. It is going down, as it

is; however, once the government gets into medicine, you can forget

about it. What has the government EVER run that is effective or efficient?

Nothing! Tell your representatives that they need to concentrate on the

issues for which the Constitution gives them authority and leave our

healthcare alone OR get ambulance-chasing attorneys under control

and limit malpractice suits and damages. That would help.

• reply

Being from Canada, I can tell you, you want no part of Universal healthcare...

Call me cruel if you want, but that type of medical care is not all it is cracked up to be, my relatives are living with it as I type this.

CT machines that spend more time not working, nurses strikes because universal healthcare is an unionized service, the system works like a giant triage and is ripe with hypocondriacs who go into emergency rooms if they stub their toe or have a bruise.

People WILL abuse it to the fullest extent.

It also creates medical classes, if you're not in the right age bracket then you're SOL!

• reply

hahaha, oh my, what fun this all is.

My favorite part has to be the baseless speculation and wild statements of what will and will not happen. If someone wants to present some real, unbiased, information go for it.

D Man, not sure where you were going with the illegal aliens thing, but I'm pretty sure the 47 million figure does not count illegal aliens but, oh I don't know, maybe the millions of people without jobs.

Mary, the funny thing about your "Congress should put intself under a public plan" comment is that Congress already IS under a public plan, they have been for years, and they get some of the best healthcare coverage in the United States.

If people really want to get into a cost argument then tell me why the United States has a massive uninsured population while simultaneously paying more per capita (ie per person) on healthcare than any other country in the world, including the UK, Germany, Canada, etc.

It seems to me that you can't claim universal healthcare is more expensive when every other county in the world with a universal healthcare program pays less per person the we do (if you want to check this take a look at any piece of scholarly work comparing the costs of various systems).

• reply

Anonymous, (Catchy online name!)  Per the U.S. Census Bureau, of the 45.6 million "uninsured," 10 million are illegals (not entitled to U.S. benefits of any kind!), 9 million are young people 19 - 24 who are typically in school, are job hopping and being young think they are invincible, so don't carry health care (would rather have a new i-phone), 9 million earn over 75,000/year who choose no health insurance even though they may qualify for Medicare benefits and some number 5 - 7 million between 50,000 and 75,000 who also for one reason or another do not choose to buy health insurance.  So the chronically uninsured is somewhere between 8 and 10 million people out of a population of some 307 +/- million which is about 3 percent or less.   We hardly need federal legilsation affecting all citizen/residents when the so called "problem" is around 3%.  Maybe if Congress could find the 50 - 60 billion per year that Medicare loses through fraud, mismanagement, etc., that would be more than enough to cover the "chronically uninsured."

Also, the public plan offered to Congress people is so luxiousious and expensive, it would never be available to you the peon citizen!  It is also the reason why Congress doesn't really want to be covered under any "new" government plan either!  How you can be so naive that you believe any Congressperson speaking today is beyond me, since all they have done is lie, cheat and steal to their heart's content at our expense!

You need to wake up and smell the "garbage!"

• reply

Cathpax, the flaw in your logic is evident in your own post

The idea that people, for some reason, just decide to not carry health insurance because they don't want it. It, of course, cannot be because they can't afford it. The same is true with 19-24 year olds, who you have apparently decided all don't want healthcare, rather than being unable to afford it. Now if the Census Bureau actually asked all 9 million of that group and they all said "we dont want health insurance, we want an i-phone" that might mean something, as is you just generalized away a problem and demonstrated a complete lack of connection, understanding, or apparently concern for those 19-24 who have no health insurance.

With just those two cases the number of insured American citizens has gone up dramatically, and it does not at all include those struggling to make insurance payments and those who are underinsured. Why is covering all people with healthcare something Republicans are so opposed to, isn't having a healthy population something we should strive for?

• reply

Conservatives are not against having people insured.  Don't know where you get that!  Conservatives don't think the government can do the job considering they have created most of the problem!  First, my "logic" is not flawed.  My husband and I self insure and we pay outright for all visits to doctors, annual exams, dental work, etc., etc.  We use a health savings account which many of these people may use - no way to know.  You wrongly assume that everyone wants to pay for health care so they have it.  Well, if that's true, why do I have to carry "uninsured motorist" insurance in order to pay for an accident caused by what? an "uninsured motorist!"  Many people just don't buy insurance of any kind.  And, Anonymous, you don't know if they can or cannot afford it!  Health Savings accounts don't cost anything to set up and people can purchase major medical insurance for a modest monthly fee, so it's all about priorities, isn't it?!  Wa State spent 191 million dollars of federal money (does not include state, county, city, or private monies) on treating illegals for medical care.  Now, why didn't the state just go and insure all the uninsured in this state with the same money?  That way everyone in this state would be insured!  Second, and maybe a little known fact, prescription prices are driven way up by gov't regulation!  When a drug goes through FDA trials, it is in a specific dosage.  So, if physicians/researchers find that a different dosage would be more effective of the exact same drug, the drug company has to start all over and pay for FDA trials for the same drug in a different dosage.  That is true for every drug and every dosage!  What kind of moronic sense does that make?  Well, if you are gov't bureacracy, you get to stay in business forever doing the same work over and over and getting paid more than you are worth with benefits which far exceed anything in the private sector.  If you are the company, you get to pass along that cost to your customers because you can't just go tax or regulate and bill or print more money to make up the loss you experience everytime you want to bring a different dosage to the markeplace!  Finally, medicare loses $50 - $60 billion per year in fraud, waste and corruption.  That is a government program which if private would have gone belly up a long time ago, but nobody is cleaning up the Medicare mess, so until Congress can deal with what is already a money losing proposition (even though that doesn't affect their 'long term employment") actually shows some ability toward accountability to the American tax payer, they should be given nothing else to wreck!   You must believe that someone (other people's money) owes you certain things!  Well, they don't owe you anything and neither does gov't if is was constitutionally controlled.  They never had any business in medling in people's lives at all like education, health care, welfare, etc.  Those things were to be done by states, if at all, or even more locally by communities, etc.  I suggest you really try to understand what liberty really means!

• reply

Ah, and my favorite defense comes out, liberty, its all about liberty, not ensuring all people have access to healthcare, not treating the poor with respect, no its all about limited government intervention, unless of course its on "moral" issues. The courts have ruled that welfare programs are constitutional, so whatever argument you are going for it appears to be one that the country moved past decades ago.

While I'm sure that having a health savings account works for you cathpax you seem to assume that all people are able to actually afford to put away enough money to cover hospital bills. And what if something horrible happened to you, I hope it does not, but how would you pay for it, with your health savings account? Are you really able to afford a huge accident. Or what about a family with a chronic illness, or what about the family making $40,000 a year, is a health savings accont going to help them. I'm glad it works for you, but it doesn't seem like you understand not everyone can make that work for you. As for why you carry uninsured motorist insurance, its because some people do not obey Washington State law which says that you have to have car insurance to drive in the state, you dont have to get uninsured motorist coverage, but you want to just in case someone else isn't obeying the law. Of course, as with health insurance, its not likely that people just decide not to buy car insurance to spite the system, but likely becuase they can't afford it. But thats a seperate issue which is only tenuously related to health insurance, and that relation is, of course, that they are both insurance.

As for the money WA state spent on insuring non-citizens, are you really naive enough to believe that it is enough money to cover everyone in the state? And actually wouldn't most of that money be spent on emergency room visits for people, in this case non-citizens, who don't have healthcare. And if that is alreayd being paid for don't you think we should try to save money be covering them with insurance and make use of preventative medicine which is dramatically cheaper than emergency room bills.

As for perscription drugs, why not get them from Canada? I recall the Democrats proposed that a few years ago, to the chagrin of Republicans and drug companies who said that the drugs would not have been properly tested by the FDA. I mean really, you have to at least pick and stay with a side. Either you think the FDA needs to be there to protect Americans or it is not necessary and we can buy drugs from Canada.

And yes, I do believe Republicans are against healthcare, not all mind you, but the general party message. There have been no strong efforts to cover those who are uninsured, no real plans presented other than "NO, we won't agree with anything Democratic", and no real leadership on the issue. Come up with a plan or get out of the way.

• reply

Yes, it fundamentally is about "liberty" for ALL, Anonymous, not just the so-called poor. And, leave it to a statist to change the dialogue!    Personally, we have a major med. plan (relatively inexpensive) to cover major inuries, illnesses which most could affort if they chose to. Again, you just assume that if someone doesn't have something that it is not because they don't choose to, it must be because they can't afford it!  Well, then prioritize!  If you are carrying a 4 cell phone bill every month, maybe you need to put some of that money toward health care!  I happen to do some volunteer work where I am in close contact with many welfare recipients.  They live in better housing than I had as a new college grad with nicer furniture and amenities and access to services than anything available to me! And, then they talk about how Obama just sent them another check for $200 to spend.  While I would have to check case law to see if any court has ever ruled on the constitutionality of "welfare," I am not going to do so as anyone who knows anything about what the Constitution says knows that it is not the purvue of the federal government to engage in such activities.  In fact, the Constitution lays out the specific limitations of the feds, so if something isn't mentioned, it was because it was left to states, etc. Also, I did not say the WA spent any money on insuring anyone, but that they should have, and yes, Anonymous, for our portion of illegals, it probably would have been enough to at least insure major medical for the number of uninsured. Let's assume 10 million for the country, so our share would have been 200,000 people some of whom might have even qualified for family discounts!   Insurance never should have been part of employment in my opinion as that has led to an "entitlement" mentality.  Instead, your employer should have paid you money in exchange for service rendered, and then you go out and decide what to spend your money on.  Enployers don't buy homeowner or renter insurance or car insurance or even in most cases life insurance - you can go get those yourself, and maybe health insurance should be added to that!  Personal choices should remain just that "personal!"   Again, all conservatives are saying, in general, is the government is not the correct entity to "solve" any insurance problem.  And, FDA, you say?  A friend of mine almost lost her brother to having some easy dental work done in Mexico.  Apparently some of the meds used caused him to require surgergy on his spine to save his life from the infection he got!  He is not alone. We do need some regulation to keep people safe in general, but the outrageous case I described earlier is just duplication for the sake of duplication which does nothing but drive prescription drug prices up.  You didn't bother to address that specifically.  Do you know why Whatcom County (small population) has so many physician specialists, especially cardiologists, etc.?  Why? It isn't to treat Americans, it's to treat all the Canadians who come across the border for superior and timely care! Conservatives have offered some ideas for health care reform.  In fact, the CEO of Safeway was describing his company's health care plan to conservaties as a possible model.  Now, why haven't you heard about that?  I'll tell you why, because your sources of news, called editorials now, doesn't report on anything remotely positive about conservatism or what conservatives do and/or are trying to do - making your ability to learn anything very limited.

• reply

Where to start

Well I suppose we could start with the fact that I was talking about buying drugs from Canada and you decided that I also meant Mexico, which you probably could do but you would have to be a little more careful about. If we are trying to cut costs though why not allow the US government to negotiate in bulk with drug companies, and why not allow them to buy the exact same drugs from Canada if they are cheaper? Isn't that all about the freedom and liberty so profess to want.

Which reminds me, if you want a case where the Supreme Court has ruled on welfare I would suggest looking at cases around FDR's first and second term, when the New Deal was put into effect, and perhaps look into the so-called "switch in time that saved nine". It has been ruled constitutional.

Furthermore, you continue both to generalize those without insurance and appear to assume that all people who are young have decided not to get health insurance, when in fact most young peopel without healthcare likely can't afford it, likely more true since it would mean they don't get it from their parents which is where most college-age students get their healthcare from. If their parents don't have it then, it is likely because they can't afford it rather than simply becuase they don't want to provide healthcare for themselves and their families. Why are you trying so hard to make it sound like those without healthcare don't have it becuase of a personal choice rather than an inability to afford both healthcare and food and rent?

Furthermore, you seem to assume that somehow if insurance was not offered through companies and that if private individuals bought plans it would be better. This seems to be ludicrous becuase it would eliminate work-related risk pools and would likely drive up the price of health insurance.

And by the way, I'd imagine the Canadians coming across the border are the wealthier ones, not the ones who would be uninsured if Canada had the same healthcare system as America.

Again, perhaps a plan that didn't rely on some vauge notion of "liberty" "personal choice" and millions of uninsured would help convince people that Republicans aren't against healthcare for the poor.

• reply

Generalize? I don't think so.  But, why are you making it so hard by saying the ONLY reason young people or whoever who don't have insurance is because they can't afford it?  They afford beer, don't they, and Dave Mathews concerts!  That's right, Anonymous, you "imagine" whatever (imagine being the operative word) because you don't have a clue.  I happen to have a clue, but I am not even going to try to explain it to you because I "imagine" you really don't care anyway or you wouldn't be so hard headed!

But, your job is to malign those who don't agree with you without actually giving facts to back up your side of the debate, and then you act contemptuosly toward, again, anyone who doesn't go along with your "imaginings."  Here's one more attempt for you, Canada can sell some of our drugs for less because, DUH, the drug isn't required to go through some Canadian version of the FDA!  Therefore, Canada simply buys the drugs from the drug companies or Walmart, for that matter, and resells them to Canadians and Americans who cross the border!  So, once again, if Congress really CARED about their constituents, they'd do something to alleviate the repetitious drug testing costing the drug companies millions more than a drug should have cost them to get it to market.  And, Anonoymous, Canada can trust that on a very minimal level, America's FDA probably did a reasonable job of making the actual chemical compostion SAFE, so they don't have to!

I'd rather have my vague NOT notion of "liberty" than your notion of socialist health care or worse!

• reply