What a SURPRISE!

[Karl Bebout]

FINALLY...THE $64,000 QUESTION WAS ASKED...
YESTERDAY ON "ABC-TV" DURING THE "NETWORK SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE"....
OBAMA WAS ASKED:

"MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW 'UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM' THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????"..... (BET YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER)...
THERE WAS A STONEY SILENCE AS OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER IT !!!...
IN ADDITION, A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THERE RESPONSE WAS..."WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT."
AND THEY DID. IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE "KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL" WAS WRITTEN INTO THE NEW HEALTH CARE REFORM INITIATIVE ENSURING THAT CONGRESS WILL BE 100% EXEMPT !
SO, THIS GREAT NEW HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT IS GOOD FOR YOU AND I... IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA, HIS FAMILY OR CONGRESS??

Burn up the net with e-mails to your congressmen, unless you agree with the proposed healthcare plan.

[Excaliber]

This is a plan for the masses, the people, not the rich, wealthy and powerful and that makes perfect sense to me. CEO's, rock stars, movie stars, would you expect them also to give up their personal health care choices as well? For many folks cost is not a factor, good for them. But for MOST folks cost is a huge factor in that they cannot afford ANY health care plan.

The $64K question here suggests that we should level the playing field for health care across the board. Then the unemployed worker with a family who cannot afford insurance would be equal to the POTUS or CEO's or movie stars in terms of health care. Such a plan would deny the rights of the wealthy to purchase the best health care they can afford or are offered as part of their job. Should we then prohibit ANY business from providing any health care above and beyond a set Government standard? This is a ludicrous argument.

Let's also limit the cost of all Government employee personal vehicles, rock star's too, phuck 'em. Everyone drives a 4 cylinder car, no exceptions!

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

This is a plan for the masses, the people, not the rich, wealthy and powerful and that makes perfect sense to me. CEO's, rock stars, movie stars, would you expect them also to give up their personal health care choices as well? For many folks cost is not a factor, good for them. But for MOST folks cost is a huge factor in that they cannot afford ANY health care plan.

The $64K question here suggests that we should level the playing field for health care across the board. Then the unemployed worker with a family who cannot afford insurance would be equal to the POTUS or CEO's or movie stars in terms of health care. Such a plan would deny the rights of the wealthy to purchase the best health care they can afford or are offered as part of their job. Should we then prohibit ANY business from providing any health care above and beyond a set Government standard? This is a ludicrous argument.

Let's also limit the cost of all Government employee personal vehicles, rock star's too, phuck 'em. Everyone drives a 4 cylinder car, no exceptions!

Eh...Ernie ol pal, dat's what they intend on doing given time. Where ya been meboyo?

[Excaliber]

Well I've heard that rumor, but I don't buy it. Those that can afford "extra special health care" will find a way. I couldn't imagine a scenario where the rich and famous "take a number" and wait their turn or are limited in their options.

But for many at least "take a number" is better than a soup nazi, "No soup for you!"

[Karl Bebout]

Ex, of course its ludicrous to expect those with the means to put up with the same services as those that have not. Wait, isn't that what this administration, and its majority of legislators, want with Big Brother taking over manufacturing businesses and financial concerns. Aren't they wanting to have the folks that have been able to amass some wealth subsidize those who haven't? Maybe I'm mis-understanding what's been happening.

[Excaliber]

Subsidizing is called "taxes" and yeah I think it needs to be done fairly. The question then is, "What is fair?" I've heard some estimates that suggest a person with a taxable income of $450K a year will see an increase of a $1,000 a year. About 70 or 80 a month? I think that's reasonable myself, to help, as Leona Hemsley called them, the "little people".

I think the primary aspect of this thread may be: A public option health care plan will make it impossible for a private/for profit health care plan to compete in the market. Therefore, the only viable option will be a Government administered, backed, run, setup (pick one or more) plan that would drive the independants out of business. Hog wash say I! Those private plans will flourish with folks that can afford them. Those plans that can't cut the mustard will go away.

While I'm fundamentally opposed to "more Government" it's clear that we have to have more over sight of key Big Business shops. Wall Street cannot regulate itself based on an honor system, nor can any big business. Government intervention/control was/is warranted in the current economic conditions for many of these institutions.

I'll grant you this, it couldn't be a worse time to push for a health care program, what with the deficit and all that. We should wait until 2016 or so when Social Security goes bankrupt and then try it again when were really really broke!

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

While I'm fundamentally opposed to "more Government" it's clear that we have to have more over sight of key Big Business shops. Wall Street cannot regulate itself based on an honor system, nor can any big business. Government intervention/control was/is warranted in the current economic conditions for many of these institutions.

Ernie,
There is a huge difference between regulation (even oppressive regulation) of businesses, and government actually BEING the business. I do not trust businesses regulating themselves, and government being in business would be exactly the same thing.

Steve

[bomelia]

Earnie, you are one scary guy. I never thought I would be hearing stuff like this said out loud and with so much confidence.

Earnie, you go take care of you, and I will go take care me and mine. And stay out of my effing pockets.

As for me, I intend to oppose anything that does not deal with tort reform and insurance deregulation (cross border competition).

OMG.

We may all be screwed now.

Mike

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Subsidizing is called "taxes" and yeah I think it needs to be done fairly. The question then is, "What is fair?" I've heard some estimates that suggest a person with a taxable income of $450K a year will see an increase of a $1,000 a year. About 70 or 80 a month? I think that's reasonable myself, to help, as Leona Hemsley called them, the "little people".

I think the primary aspect of this thread may be: A public option health care plan will make it impossible for a private/for profit health care plan to compete in the market. Therefore, the only viable option will be a Government administered, backed, run, setup (pick one or more) plan that would drive the independants out of business. Hog wash say I! Those private plans will flourish with folks that can afford them. Those plans that can't cut the mustard will go away.

While I'm fundamentally opposed to "more Government" it's clear that we have to have more over sight of key Big Business shops. Wall Street cannot regulate itself based on an honor system, nor can any big business. Government intervention/control was/is warranted in the current economic conditions for many of these institutions.

I'll grant you this, it couldn't be a worse time to push for a health care program, what with the deficit and all that. We should wait until 2016 or so when Social Security goes bankrupt and then try it again when were really really broke!

[bomelia]

BTW, you all know what the problem with folks who live in Shangrala type places (Hawaii, California, etc) is that its too DAMN expensive to live there for many of them. Rather than move to a place of lower costs, people insist the the government should help them. And they do! Because who wants to lose voters?

The reason our free market system does not work is because we do not have one anymore. And after this? It will be all but dead. The good news it that with its death, the Government will soon run out of money to steal. And maybe, just maybe, smarter folks than politicians will finally restore sanity.

Keep on reading Atlas Shrugged Earnie, maybe some of it will sink in. Have you ever read it?

Doubt it.

Mike

[Excaliber]

Then it depends on how a Government health care plan is setup, the jury is out on that question.

I'd be interested in some opinions on how such a plan might be administered. Or more specifically how it's being proposed currently. Solely Government? Government subsidy? Gov set-up but run by independants?

Perhaps a famous example of Government run business is that whore house they took over. When you can't even make money selling sex and alcohol, yeah, we have a serious problem!

[427sharpe]

Seems to be a lot of the administrations talking heads leading toward a VAT...Rham Emmanuel's brother is a big proponent AND a close BHO advisor. Summer's has been talking one up too, although he seems to have been stifled after he said on the Sunday shows that a middle class income tax increase was 'unavoidable'. I just don't understand why the public lets this crap go on and on. And for all of you emo's out there, I wholeheartedly refer to BOTH parties, if you can tell them apart .

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

This is a plan for the masses, the people, not the rich, wealthy and powerful and that makes perfect sense to me. CEO's, rock stars, movie stars, would you expect them also to give up their personal health care choices as well? For many folks cost is not a factor, good for them. But for MOST folks cost is a huge factor in that they cannot afford ANY health care plan.

The $64K question here suggests that we should level the playing field for health care across the board. Then the unemployed worker with a family who cannot afford insurance would be equal to the POTUS or CEO's or movie stars in terms of health care. Such a plan would deny the rights of the wealthy to purchase the best health care they can afford or are offered as part of their job. Should we then prohibit ANY business from providing any health care above and beyond a set Government standard? This is a ludicrous argument.

Your missing the point. The rich will always be able to get the best care, best access no matter what system is ever in place, current or any future. The point is that the politicians are deciding for us, what type of health care we should have, but exempting themselves from it, and having us pay for a better plan for themselves, like they deserved it, or you may feel they do. Do you think they are to blame for the financial crisis? Correctly make payouts to banks and the auto industry? Make correct decisions regarding iraq, aphsganistan?, vietnam, etc.? Do you think they can get it right with healthcare?

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Then it depends on how a Government health care plan is setup, the jury is out on that question.

You really think so? Do you really think a group of lawyers can set up a national health care system that will work to most people's expectations?

Kind of like worker's comp, VA, medicare, Medicaid?

I think the easiest thing to do, is to expand Medicaid, make a public option plan subset, and put all the politicians on that plan as well, as it is by far the best value ( bang for buck) health care plan out there now, not that every physician is on the plan, but enough of them are on it to make it work. It would save us taxpayers money on what we spend for their health care. If they want a better plan, then they can pay for it themselves, as most of them are wealthy anyways.

[purespeed]

Many, many people, while not 100% satisfied with insurance all the time, are really, really concerned about releasing that "insurance bird in the hand" to accept that suspicious "government run program" from that man behind the curtain.

Why I use "suspicious" is because everything from the get go about the Obama Plan has been suspicious....examples: 1000 pages not read but passed by the house, Obama clearly wanting single payer while telling people they can keep private insurance knowing they can legislate private companies out of business later, Obama's saying savings will be made in Medicare while not limiting healthcare......In short, many of us don't TRUST Obama and the cast of people around him.

Found this on the internet:

Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it and whose members will be exempt from it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.
What could possibly go wrong?

Some liberals are calling him a "bad word" for his behind the door drug deal.

http://www.breitbart.tv/charming-lia...ist-drug-deal/

Many people are covered with insurance today. Why mess with them?

If your lawn needs cutting, just mow it! Don't bulldoze the whole neighborhood!

[fastd]

Given that the vast majority of Americans (I've seen 85-90%) are covered and satisfied with their healthcare insurance is an amazing statistic. How often can that be said of any kind of service received by the American public.

Does the American public have that kind of satisfaction level with the Post Office, Social Security, VA Hospitals, any other Government service? You know that Medicare and Medicaid is broke, don't you? That Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been a disaster? Why do you think Government healthcare is going to be run more efficiently? Why aren't the examples of Canada, UK, Cuba enough to those who think they support this?

This is an obvious play for the government to take over roughly 20% of the economy. If there were an sincere desire to increase coverage for the 10%-15% of the population that doesn't have adequate health insurance and keep costs down for the rest of those who do have insurance, we would be talking about a whole range of other alternatives to a government takeover: portability, catastophic coverage, tax incentives, other ways to change incentives, etc. But that is not happening. Why? Because the real goal for this administration is to redistribute wealth, have a government takeover of 20% of our GDP. Why is the this administation so opposed to be calling "socialist" (they actually do not want to take over the means of production, they just want to control it, tell them how much money they can make, how to manage their business, etc.); they are definitely not "capitalist"...are they something else?

What they will wind up doing is encouraging fraud, waste, mismanagement, contribute to the government monopolization of a critical industry, disincent R&D, encourage the rationing of health services in ways that the American public will absolutely hate.

One of the true embarrassments of this whole debate is the willingness of a large portion of the American public willing to give up many of the rights that American's have fought and died for for the last 200 years...

Constitutionally, if the court wasn't half full with activist jurists, HR 3200 or a similar public option health care would not pass the smell test.

[Excaliber]

Perhaps expansion of Medicare would be a solution, a Government program mind you. I guess thats one option...

I KNOW, we have to have some kind of reform, not just to limit the spiraling costs but because people are dieing, right now. When the Las Vegas oncology clinic closed, recently, that was a real wake up call for me. Suddenly a couple of thousand people were left with no options, no way to get medication. Those at home, and many were out patients to begin with, will have their medical supplies taken right out of their bedrooms. Oxygen tanks, special beds, other special supplies will be reposessed by the contracted suppliers for non-payment. That is ONE clinic among the thousands in America that are/will be running out of money. People ARE going to die as a result. I feel compelled to do something, like "stump" for health care reform. The problem is FAR beyond the capacity of Churches and non-profits to even begin to address it.

If 85% have insurance it is NOT acceptable to let the other 15% die because they don't.

[purespeed]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Perhaps expansion of Medicare would be a solution, a Government program mind you. I guess thats one option...

I KNOW, we have to have some kind of reform, not just to limit the spiraling costs but because people are dieing, right now. When the Las Vegas oncology clinic closed, recently, that was a real wake up call for me. Suddenly a couple of thousand people were left with no options, no way to get medication. Those at home, and many were out patients to begin with, will have their medical supplies taken right out of their bedrooms. Oxygen tanks, special beds, other special supplies will be reposessed by the contracted suppliers for non-payment. That is ONE clinic among the thousands in America that are/will be running out of money. People ARE going to die as a result. I feel compelled to do something, like "stump" for health care reform. The problem is FAR beyond the capacity of Churches and non-profits to even begin to address it.

If 85% have insurance it is NOT acceptable to let the other 15% die because they don't.

You are 100% correct.

BUT there are BETTER ways to handle matters like this. Stirring up the whole nation over healthcare qualifies as a MAJOR bonehead miscue.

Instead of identifying the items that need to fixed, corrected, retuned, or overhauled....he stirred up the whole nation.

Now, everybody's upset. Why do that?

If he had used transperency and been very clear about specific items, the American people would have bought into it. We could have something to work with.

Instead, he tried to "bum rush" a 1000 unread page document into law.

That's not right.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Perhaps expansion of Medicare would be a solution, a Government program mind you. I guess thats one option....

Howard Dean suggests expanding Medicare, but with Medicaid, you have similar contracts set up already with providers that reimburse these providers 30% less compared to Medicare. Why would you set up "free" care for people, and pay providers 30% more (from taxpayer money) than you would providing the "same" care through Medicaid? Makes no sense to me.

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I KNOW, we have to have some kind of reform, not just to limit the spiraling costs but because people are dieing, right now. When the Las Vegas oncology clinic closed, recently, that was a real wake up call for me. Suddenly a couple of thousand people were left with no options, no way to get medication. Those at home, and many were out patients to begin with, will have their medical supplies taken right out of their bedrooms. Oxygen tanks, special beds, other special supplies will be reposessed by the contracted suppliers for non-payment. That is ONE clinic among the thousands in America that are/will be running out of money. People ARE going to die as a result. I feel compelled to do something, like "stump" for health care reform. The problem is FAR beyond the capacity of Churches and non-profits to even begin to address it.

The reason why there is spiraling costs is because there are more older and sicker people than ever. That's the main reason, not that more money is being paid for any given service, but becasue more services are needed. There's no way around it. More care is needed for the population, and it will cost more money. As you pay providers less money for the same service, some providers will opt out, limit their care, provide less of a service, etc. You get what you pay for. You can't buy a CSX4000 for the price of a factory five.

Rationing care has been going on for years. No trauma service, neurosurgery on call at local hospitals because of higher malpractice premiums and lack of reimbursement to providers (hospitals, doctors). Rationing is the way of the Canadian system. My one employee, a nurse, is Canadian, her parents still live there. 5 years ago, her father , 69 yrs old, was admitted to the local (Canadian) hospital with chest pain, ruled in for a MI (heart attack). He recovered in several days. No additional studies were going to be done. As she was a crital care nurse here in the US, knowing the standard protocol for MI's, she had to call the doctor's in Canada and demand they do a cardiac catheterization, which they ultimately did, and found significant blockages. He was sent to another Hospital, London or somethng like that, for a bypass operation. He was told that he was very lucky, as they never see "elderly" men like him getting a bypass operation, which is the standard of care here in the US. 5 years later, now at 74, he continues to work on his farm. Unfortunately, he was diagnosed with severe blockages in his carotid arteries, and in the Canadian system, he is not a candidate for a carotid endarterectomy where here in the US he'd be on the table in a week or so if he and his doctor decided to do so. It's just so different. Night and Day. I guess you could say they have death panels there in Canada. Believe me, there are many more stories.

Originally Posted by Excaliber

If 85% have insurance it is NOT acceptable to let the other 15% die because they don't.

My experience is that many of the people without insurance choose so, to have none. Some of my employees, and some of my patients, who are somewhat younger 30-40's would rather have the cash for something else than spend it on insurance. I give my employees the choice of more money or health care. Some choose more money. The poor have Medicaid. Uninsured get urgent /emergent care anyways. It's not as big of a problem as it is made out to be. I;ve never seen someone die in a hospital because they were denied care because of no insurance.

If you really want to have an impact on people dying, much more than the "uninsured", you need to get people to stop smoking, lose weight, and exercise, like I need to do it as well.

[Excaliber]

He's not the first to try to reform it, won't be the last, heck if I know how to get it done.

[purespeed]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

He's not the first to try to reform it, won't be the last, heck if I know how to get it done.

How to get it done?

You know how to eat an elephant.....one bite at a time.

I would think that the first bite to take would be the one that saves the most lives. I don't know the answer to that, but if I were the President, I would make it my business to find that out.

Guess what my second bite would be? Yes, give that man a cigar! You know it be the the one that saves the second most amount of lives.

You jumped ahead to number three on the list didn't you?

But you what I wouldn't do....I wouldn't rile up the whole country.

[Ronbo]

Well the blame seems to be solely born on the insurance industry, but lets look at this...

The claim is the ins. co's profits are too high at 20% which means 80% of your premimums are going to cost, right? (look at the profit margins of a software company sometime) Figure in 10~15% overhead which I doubt the government will eliminate (if not increase). I doubt it's this low, since almost any doctor will tell you they need at least two people to just file paperwork.

Even at say 25% less, the uninsured won't pay it, they can barely feed the kids they shouldn't have had. (God forbid we ask the mothers to keep their legs shut) I'd love for some news outlet to actually go down to the getto to highlite the majority of these "underprivlaged".

Medical Insurance is expensive because medical care has advanced and is much more costly than in the past. Not to mention the booming malpractice business. (something government hospitals can't be sued for) The hospitals rape the insurance co's as well to make up for indiginent care they have to provide by law. (hmm, government involvement? say it ain't so!)

Improving your lot in life is pretty much your resposibility, this is just another hand-out to kill incentive to improve yourself. Reality is the "born out of poverty" crowd usually just cranks out the next batch of useless humanity. Sucks, but there's no way around the truth.

Sink or swim has an undisputable success rate, these "social experiments" don't.