Originally Posted by playwrite

Me too. I'm going to a town meeting in south NJ.

The other thing I just printed out was my Repub. congresscritter's schedule of "listening sessions." He's got a pile of them going on the week I'm on vacation so I may have to pay him a visit or two.

Yesterday on another thread I mention that this is such a hot button issue, and there is definitely a split decision on the issue. I believe we need health care reform, but have studied the pros and cons that thoroughly. How many of you believe this could be the make or break issue for Obama? His approval rating for the second hundred days is down over the first hundred. But this is what we sent him to Washington to do, and I do feel that after so much animosity over Bush II, the people are going to keep Obama on a short leash, that he is going to have to accomplish at least 70 percent of what he promised during the campaign to get a chance at re-election in 2012.

I believe he has to let his creative talents shine in order to sell this to the American people. I really thought that at least 70 percent of the people would be supportive, but the reality is more like split down the middle. And I believe he is going to find it much more difficult to change the culture in Washington than he thought it would be during the campaign. I actually know someone who thinks it will be the damnation of the world as we know it if this passes. This is not my opinion, however. After all, weren't the same arguments made regarding social security? And I bet all the naysayers who lived long enough to benefit from it were glad they got it.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Yesterday on another thread I mention that this is such a hot button issue, and there is definitely a split decision on the issue. I believe we need health care reform, but have studied the pros and cons that thoroughly. How many of you believe this could be the make or break issue for Obama? His approval rating for the second hundred days is down over the first hundred. But this is what we sent him to Washington to do, and I do feel that after so much animosity over Bush II, the people are going to keep Obama on a short leash, that he is going to have to accomplish at least 70 percent of what he promised during the campaign to get a chance at re-election in 2012.

I believe he has to let his creative talents shine in order to sell this to the American people. I really thought that at least 70 percent of the people would be supportive, but the reality is more like split down the middle. And I believe he is going to find it much more difficult to change the culture in Washington than he thought it would be during the campaign. I actually know someone who thinks it will be the damnation of the world as we know it if this passes. This is not my opinion, however. After all, weren't the same arguments made regarding social security? And I bet all the naysayers who lived long enough to benefit from it were glad they got it.

He's good, but he's taking on the 4T with the highly-viable vestiges of the 3T - the latter is not going down without a big fight.

Here's another piece that lays it out pretty well -

http://hunter.dailykos.com/

Of Birthers, Senators and Morons
by Hunter
Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:00:02 AM PDT

In the news: John Cornyn thinks fact checking is pretext for domestic espionage. Which he's suddenly against. Chuck Grassley uses Ted Kennedy's medical condition as propaganda for his own false and nonsensical claims about "socialized medicine" killing old people -- and this is who Max Baucus is "negotiating" with to bring us his version of health care. Rush Limbaugh thinks Obama is like Hitler. Glenn Beck muses about poisoning Nancy Pelosi.

The birthers are going strong, and the teabaggers are trying to shut down healthcare reform by making town halls on the subject impossible. Dick Morris and John Bolton agree: we should have left those two journalists to rot in North Korea, because Clinton going there to secure their release made the U.S. look weak, and now other countries will steal our lunch money at recess. And Lou Dobbs never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like, as long as it was about brown or black people, but after people got angry that he peddled false nonsense he says he's now reflexively going to oppose Obama on everything.

It almost makes you want to cry. Between Cornyn, Grassley, Limbaugh and Beck, between Dobbs and Morris and Bolton, between birthers and "socialized" medicine but keep-your-hands-off-my-Medicare, the stupid is overwhelming. It's become a tidal wave of stupid. It's a giant Noah's Ark of stupid, in which two examples of every kind of dumbassery known to man have been loaded up to be set adrift on a sea of their own drool. It's the "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" gameshow of stupid -- loud, with big flashing lights, and on every goddamn day of the week. It's the result of drinking conservative bong water and eating the paint chips flaking off Bill Buckley's lead-encrusted casket.

I'd be afraid for the future of our country, but I know that if these people ever actually armed themselves and tried to take over they'd all have accidentally shot themselves in the groin within the first ten minutes. Then they'd all limp to D.C. to hold a rally demanding free government healthcare for crotch-related injuries.

Hunter is always a good read.

Perhaps the President should spend more time explaining his ideas than having citizens tattle-tail on each other. Both sides have valid arguments for their side of the arguments, Single v Private or a combination of both. Right now as written, its children/adults vs. the elderly with Medicare vs. military Care (Single-payer version/ HMO care and it you have 3 days to block out of your schedule). Boob jobs, Botox, Lipo and other elective services, you should be on your own. Special circumstance, reconstruction after treatments and accidents.

The Health care plan that is good for my Representatives is good enough for me was the first line to my Congressman.

Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals.

For now. But several members of congress, as well as the president himself (not at the present, but within recent memory) were saying that a single payer system was a good idea, and in some cases that a "public option" would be the best way to get there.

Also, the government has the ability to just throw money at things it likes at will. So why not, instead of just subsidizing lower income people and their employers, why not just subsidize the public option so that it operates well below operating costs, completely forget profit. Enough people will switch, provided they are able to, that it probably will destroy the private sector health insurance companies.

So there is the means to do so, and there is the stated will to do so. And yet we should just trust them now that they won't do it? Which subset of idiots (called American voters) are they really trying to snow here?

Originally Posted by Joral

For now. But several members of congress, as well as the president himself (not at the present, but within recent memory) were saying that a single payer system was a good idea, and in some cases that a "public option" would be the best way to get there.

Also, the government has the ability to just throw money at things it likes at will. So why not, instead of just subsidizing lower income people and their employers, why not just subsidize the public option so that it operates well below operating costs, completely forget profit. Enough people will switch, provided they are able to, that it probably will destroy the private sector health insurance companies.

So there is the means to do so, and there is the stated will to do so. And yet we should just trust them now that they won't do it? Which subset of idiots (called American voters) are they really trying to snow here?

Yep, same type of insidioius folks that brought us Social Security and completely destroyed the banks, brokers and the rest ot the investment industry. Well, ah, that one is still underway, but its only a manner of time. You just gotta feel for these poor helpless bankers, brokers and now the insurance companies. Boo-hoo, its so sad.

For the rational (i.e. birthers/deathers/screamers/teabaggers/crankies need not bother), this was handed out at the Town Hall I went to -

http://www.suicide-dream.com/public.doc

However, it is now up on DailyKos with the links to the referenced material - a lot of which is really good stuff -

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...n-Their-Tracks

The Ten Health Care Talking Points EVERY DEM MUST REPEAT

When you need life-saving care, private insurance companies only profit by denying you and letting you die. If you have paid your premiums on time all your life, you're as likely to be dropped by your private insurance company when you need life-saving care as you are to get treated. A public option gives you a lifeline.

Private insurance companies are spending over a million dollars a day to kill the public option by inventing phony citizen groups, and trying to scare the elderly about euthanasia and pro-lifers with abortion; they know the only way to kill reform is to get people of good conscience fighting each other over misinformation, while they laugh all the way to the bank. They don't think very highly of our intelligence.

We pay more than any other country to be 24th in life expectancy: while the average Canadian family spends less than $2000 a year on health care with no waiting periods for life-saving care, the average American family spends $16,800 a year, waiting for private insurance companies to approve life-saving treatments.

Fourteen thousand Americans lose their health insurance every day; over forty-six million are currently uninsured.

Eighteen thousand Americans DIE each year due to lack of health care: THAT'S 50 A DAY.

Nearly two-thirds of American personal bankruptcies are related to health care costs.

Businesses - particularly small businesses - cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employees under the current employer based private insurance system, and will be forced to either drop their coverage or go out of business unless a public option is passed.

One-sixth of all our government spending is on health care, twice as much as any other country spends out of its budget. Our nation pays $2.5 trillion for care costing $912 billion.

Every independent estimate says the public option will save us money, from saving 150 billion dollars (CBO) to saving 265 billion dollars (Commonwealth). The Congressional Budget Office estimates the current bill in the House would actually leave a 6 billion dollar surplus

So - if you'd rather spend more taxpayer money, bankrupt businesses, AND pay $16,800 a year for your family's private insurance coverage in exchange for a policy that can be dumped the second you actually need it, then the current system is great for you. If you'd rather spend less, wait less, have less of a chance of dying, and want to remove the corporate bureaucrat from between you and your doctor, then a public option is the way to go. Right now, even if you're lucky enough not to be dropped by your provider when you need urgent medical care, your private insurance company can overrule your doctor's advice for life-saving treatment and only offer to cover something cheaper; a public option would remove that middleman and leave these decisions where they belong, between the patient and doctor.



Any private citizen or elected Democrat making the case for the public option, whether going to a town meeting, speaking on the airwaves, or debating behind closed doors should know the order of these talking points in and out. They're quick, they're effective, and when communicated in sequence, they're bulletproof. Most importantly, they kill every Republican talking point while staying consistently on the offensive.



Notes: The numbers are purposefully lowballed/rounded down in order to avoid a subsequent conversation devolving into bickering that distracts from the main points being made. The statistic about the average Canadian family paying less than $2000/yr is based on a single Canadian paying $40 a month, times 12 months ($480/yr) times a family of four ($1920/yr).

By the way, if you have been confused by the propaganda on the costs of the Health Care Reform and thereby surprised by CBO's forecast of it causing a $6 billion surplus. this explains what is really going on -

http://politicsorpoppycock.com/2009/...llion-surplus/

Bottom line - Lying Repugs - wow, what a surprise. Fool us once, shame on you; fool us for over eight years, well....

We don't even have a bill to debate. This whole mess has devolved into talking points that have absolutely nothing to do with what Congress is actually talking about doing.

Yes, American healthcare is screwed up. We pay more and have poor results to show for it.

Republicans don't want to admit it because they like to pretend money can buy health here (it doesn't) and that they're among the group who can afford good enough coverage that they'll never be denied or sold into something they don't need. Its frankly delusional and ignores the way American doctors over-treat and over-prescribe everything: especially to the people with premium insurance. Compromising with this group is like guaranteeing failure.

On the other hand, Democrats are screaming (or wishing they could) about how bad our current system without explaining how a series of purchasing mandates, labor and/or business taxes, and corporate subsidies will improve things. Again, there's no actual legislation to discuss.

Then there's a third group, not invited to the debate, that says costs will just continue to balloon until excessive litigation is confronted, preventative medicine is more profitable than maintenance treatments for degenerative & chronic conditions, and the massive bureaucracy of private insurance is avoidable.

Originally Posted by independent

We don't even have a bill to debate. This whole mess has devolved into talking points that have absolutely nothing to do with what Congress is actually talking about doing.

Yes, American healthcare is screwed up. We pay more and have poor results to show for it.

Republicans don't want to admit it because they like to pretend money can buy health here (it doesn't) and that they're among the group who can afford good enough coverage that they'll never be denied or sold into something they don't need. Its frankly delusional and ignores the way American doctors over-treat and over-prescribe everything: especially to the people with premium insurance. Compromising with this group is like guaranteeing failure.

On the other hand, Democrats are screaming (or wishing they could) about how bad our current system without explaining how a series of purchasing mandates, labor and/or business taxes, and corporate subsidies will improve things. Again, there's no actual legislation to discuss.

Then there's a third group, not invited to the debate, that says costs will just continue to balloon until excessive litigation is confronted, preventative medicine is more profitable than maintenance treatments for degenerative & chronic conditions, and the massive bureaucracy of private insurance is avoidable.

I can generally agree with this.

However, I do think the 'public option' has been put forth as a means to bring in competition that could put a lid on costs. But that gets quickly interpreted to mean some sort of rationing of care either directly ("euthanasia boards") which is ridiculous or indirectly (limiting payments to the medical industry) which is likely. The latter suffers from the perception that it is un-American for any one in the medical field, other than nurses, to not have an assured path to becoming rich.

Being technically a "disabled American" and having several friends that are disabled in some way or another I was really offended by Sarah Palin's "They want to euthanize Trig" comment. It's pure projection. Disabled people here in Minnesota are lucky because he get out healthcare paid for by the state, that's not the same in most other states. The "Health" Insurance corporations would care less if the disabled just dropped dead, better for their god-d*mn profits. If I were in charge I would have the whole health insurance industry completely liquidated, they are a bunch of evil parasites, so d*mn them to Hell. We need to the Canadian Single Payer System, and if the Free Market Fundamentalists and the Town Hall Screamers don't like it they can go pound sand.

Originally Posted by Odin

Being technically a "disabled American" and having several friends that are disabled in some way or another I was really offended by Sarah Palin's "They want to euthanize Trig" comment. It's pure projection. Disabled people here in Minnesota are lucky because he get out healthcare paid for by the state, that's not the same in most other states. The "Health" Insurance corporations would care less if the disabled just dropped dead, better for their god-d*mn profits. If I were in charge I would have the whole health insurance industry completely liquidated, they are a bunch of evil parasites, so d*mn them to Hell. We need to the Canadian Single Payer System, and if the Free Market Fundamentalists and the Town Hall Screamers don't like it they can go pound sand.

That says much about the mind of Sarah Palin. The psychological term is projection, the attribution to others of attitudes that one has, can't realize, but can't fully hold in -- so one attributes them to someone else. The bank robber who rationalizes sticking up banks because "the banks are the biggest crooks of all" exemplifies it. To attribute Social Darwinist tendencies to the Other Side as in the oxymoron "deathcare" shows what goes on in the murky levels of the unexamined mind. The idea of people being subjected to boards that decide who is worthy of life and who is a "useless eater" is nothing new; it really is Nazi in the infamous "euthanasia" program.

Bad 3T behavior of course must die in a 4T, whether it is politics of resentment and deceit, heroin trafficking, real-estate speculation, or profiteering on cost-plus arrangements without competition. What you call the Town Hall Screamers are either the last expressions of 3T irrationality or portents of a really-nasty 4T for America.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If they (Democrats) were genuinely interested in "health care reform", it could have happened at any time in recent years. They could have put together a truly bi-partisan bill that included Republican positions on tort reform, portability and opening up competition for insurance.

This is crazy. Why in the hell would Republicans do this? Health care reform is 100% against their interests. It would be like shooting themselves in the head.

The American people want health care reform. The Republican party is 100% opposed for extremely sound reasons, the issue is politically toxic to them. Democrats talk about health care reform a lot but a sizable fraction of the Democratic party is just as opposed to reform as Republicans (its analogous to immigration limitation for Republicans, a policy their base wants, but the leadership doesn't). This Democratic faction plus the Republicans constitute a majority in Congress.

So Congress is opposed to reform, but since the people want it, and the Democrats talk about it endlessly, the Democrats have to make an attempt. The hash you see now is that attempt. When the dust settles there's a good chance insurance companies will make out nicely, e.g. United Health Group (note the relative strength versus the broad market).

If the status quo continues, Medicare, the VA, and Medicaid will bankrupt the nation and dethrone America as a great power in about two decades. So it looks like its going to come down to a game of chicken.

Looks more and more like America is in an irreversible decline.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

85% of Americans are covered.

Coverage does necessarily mean anything. If you are employed by a Fortune 500 company and have a network plan, then coverage means something. With a network plan, if you go to a specialist in the plan (and you can easily check online if they are in the plan) then all you pay is what the policy says that you pay. Of course you still cannot find out what you will pay in advance of the procedure, the providers simply refuse to tell you, but you can hazard a reasonable guess. For example you can guess that a knee replacement will be a few thousand dollars and be with 100% of the correct amount.

But if you don't have a network plan through a huge company then your "coverage" may mean nothing at all. If you need some sort of uncommon treatment, not only will you not be able to learn what the charge will be, but you also will have no idea what, if anything, will be covered.

A great many of that 85% do not have network plans through Fortune 500 companies, which means they might not have coverage for uncommon or expensive procedures. Most of them will never need an uncommon/expensive procedure and so not find out that they don't have coverage (this is why the desire for reform is intense only in a minority-- those not covered by a big network plan who have experienced ailments requiring uncommon and/or expensive treatments).

Much of the rest is people like me, happy with the company plan they have now, but worried that if they were laid off they could never get a job at the few big companies left who still hire and who still offer new hires a plan equivalent to what they have now.

We have nowhere near enough money to simply pay cash for medical care. Were I laid off we would probably take the COBRA, which is $20K annually now (and likely to grow at 5-10% per year) while I look for a job. A public option network plan (like Medicare) that cost, say, $12K annually, would be a wonderful thing. It's what Obama promised in the campaign, but not what it looks like we will get. Instead we will get the status quo or worse.

It came to me last night were both sides are coming from. Those of us who favor health care reform - which, as I keep on repeating, is NOT the same as health INSURANCE reform - CARE is the end and insurance only the means- see the provision of health care as a public health issue. Just as public education came about because the majority of people were afraid that an uneducated populace would not function as citizens, so public health care will come about if and only if people start thinking that sick people are a drag on the economy.

However, having actually read the blog of a rabid anti who is in no way rich, and having read what you all have to say, I decided to assume that what the antis are saying is true, and try to figure out what it could possibly be true OF (besides the dismissive "they're paranoid/dupes/dirty dogs" I mean, in the real world.)

The first thing I see and hear from many is the notion that health care is an individual benefit and an individual responsibility. To continue the education analogy, to them it's analogous to "higher education is a way to raise yourself above the common ruck and therefore is yours to pay for and obtain. Not the public's."

The second is a very deep-seated terror of losing what control they have over their own health care. Maybe they have no health insurance but actually do have a family doctor who they pay cash to up front. Maybe they prefer using the local herbalist, curandera, or country doctor manual - I know of people who swear by all sorts of alternatives. But most of them totally believe that if they can pay for something they should be able to get it, and that under any government plan, they'll be told what they can and cannot get and under what conditions.

That this is true of any private health plan is obscured by the fact that you often can pick and choose what plan you can get. Or some of us can. But if it's the government telling you, then what little choice they have has vanished. I can totally see that; I'm a little suspicious of any payer or provider having a monopoly on what health care you get. That's whether it's the only pharmacist in town, who refuses to give you your birth control pills for religious reasons, or the HMO who cuts you off for having a condition not on their list, or -- yeah. it being the government scares them even more because (to quote libertarians everywhere) they have a monopoly on the use of force.

Taking just the Individual Benefit model and you can see why people in the Southwest are advocating closing the emergency rooms to illegal immigrants. Why should they get benefits when there's not enough for us? But under the Public Health model, everyone should be able to get treatment for anything necessary.

Combine the Individual Benefit model with the feared loss of control - again seen as irrelevant to those of us who have little or no control over the conditions in which we get care - and I see where the antis are coming from.

BTW - that doesn't change my mind because I have a deep-seating feeling that the public health model is the right one.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

But most of them totally believe that if they can pay for something they should be able to get it, and that under any government plan, they'll be told what they can and cannot get and under what conditions.

That this is true of any private health plan is obscured by the fact that you often can pick and choose what plan you can get.

At present, one can pay directly for medical services. Part of what you wrote (I put it in italics) is NOT true of private health plans. Your next statement is false.

The fear is that under a single-payer system, the only way to get medical care will be through the program. That is, it will be illegal for doctors to treat patients outside of the government plan.

Nobody is proposing a government plan that would prohibit private practice, but irrational fears are part of politics. For example, much of the opposition to the spread of slavery in the 1850's was not out of concern for the slaves (most anti-slave folks were racists who couldn't care less about blacks) but out of fear that spread of slavery to new territory would open the door to white slavery (for failure to pay debts). That poor white people lived in the South and were not made into slaves if they went bankrupt made no difference. Some people believed this and became Free Soilers (and then Republicans) because of it.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

...under any government plan, they'll be told what they can and cannot get and under what conditions.

The WH has a pretty level-headed response to this -

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/4

The current reality takes a little math (something that is probable beyond most of the screamers) -

http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/28/unconscionable-math/

Unconscionable Math

...Half of the insured population uses virtually no health care at all. The 80th percentile uses only $3,000 (2002 dollars, adjust a bit up for today). You have to hit the 95th percentile to get anywhere interesting, and even there you have only $11,487 in costs. It’s the 99th percentile, the people with over $35,000 of medical costs, who represent fully 22% of the entire nation’s medical costs. These people have chronic, expensive conditions. They are, to use a technical term, sick.

An individual adult insurance plan is roughly $7,000 (varies dramatically by age and somewhat by sex and location).

It should be fairly clear that the people who do not file insurance claims do not face rescission. The insurance companies will happily deposit their checks. Indeed, even for someone in the 95th percentile, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for the insurance company to take the nuclear option of blowing up the policy. $11,487 in claims is less than two years’ premium; less than one if the individual has family coverage in the $12,000 price range. But that top one percent, the folks responsible for more than $35,000 of costs – sometimes far, far more – well there, ladies and gentlemen, is where the money comes in. Once an insurance company knows that Sally has breast cancer, it has already seen the goat; it knows it wants nothing to do with Sally.

If the top 5% is the absolute largest population for whom rescission would make sense, the probability of having your policy cancelled given that you have filed a claim is fully 10% (0.5% rescission/5.0% of the population). If you take the LA Times estimate that $300mm was saved by abrogating 20,000 policies in California ($15,000/policy), you are somewhere in the 15% zone, depending on the convexity of the top section of population. If, as I suspect, rescission is targeted toward the truly bankrupting cases – the top 1%, the folks with over $35,000 of annual claims who could never be profitable for the carrier – then the probability of having your policy torn up given a massively expensive condition is pushing 50%. One in two. You have three times better odds playing Russian Roulette.

Basically, if the screamers thought about it, what they and their Repug stooges suggest as good health care strategy in this country is -

DON'T GET SICK.

Or at least don't get really sick and be in the top 5% of medical needs. And if you ever come up in the top 1%, well currently, that's where you got a 50% chance of being euthanized - its just that you lay there in extreme pain for as long as the old bod can hold out.

These screamers aren't only 'real nice,' they are also very optimistic, hey?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

At present, one can pay directly for medical services. Part of what you wrote (I put it in italics) is NOT true of private health plans. Your next statement is false.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The fear is that under a single-payer system, the only way to get medical care will be through the program. That is, it will be illegal for doctors to treat patients outside of the government plan.

It will be regulated outside the plan, as currently written. Once you start reading the bill, most administrative activities will need to go through a board and the Secretary of Health. There was a website that broke the bill down, 50/50 of the facts were correct especially on Illegals (free Healthcare), Doctor payments (The Rani, No more Happy Days), and choices in the Government plan/ For most, Premium plus is the only way.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Nobody is proposing a government plan that would prohibit private practice, but irrational fears are part of politics. For example, much of the opposition to the spread of slavery in the 1850's was not out of concern for the slaves (most anti-slave folks were racists who couldn't care less about blacks) but out of fear that spread of slavery to new territory would open the door to white slavery (for failure to pay debts). That poor white people lived in the South and were not made into slaves if they went bankrupt made no difference. Some people believed this and became Free Soilers (and then Republicans) because of it.

You are really hard up on Slavery just to make the analogy of old White man versus the common man. Most times it is based on the unknown that has Americans on edge, perhaps if the Great Teleprompter can explain it better to us.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Say what? I wasn't even a part of this discussion.

As a health care provider, your options for pay will be regulated further by the government for services rendered.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

It will be regulated outside the plan, as currently written. Once you start reading the bill, most administrative activities will need to go through a board and the Secretary of Health.

Where does it say that I cannot hire a medical provider with my own money to perform a medical service for me?

You are really hard up on Slavery just to make the analogy of old White man versus the common man. Most times it is based on the unknown that has Americans on edge, perhaps if the Great Teleprompter can explain it better to us.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

A Leftie-Libertarian view:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Where does it say that I cannot hire a medical provider with my own money to perform a medical service for me?

Those expenses will be capped.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070502517.html

We have a major problem with health insurance being tied to employment. If you lose your job, you lose your income and your health insurance. Sure, you can continue your insurance through Cobra by paying out of pocket for a period of time (18 months, 24 months, I forget which). However, at a time when your income falls, you have to start picking up health insurance costs, and most can't afford.

Also, if you are self-employed or with a job that doesn't have health insurance, and you have a pre-existing condition, if you can find an insurer who will take you, it will either not cover your pre-existing condition or if it does, you probably won't be able to afford it.

Last, if you have a job with good benefits but you hate it, and you have a pre-existing condition, it may be hard for you to switch jobs.

What solutions do you suggest for these problems and how would you pay for those solutions?

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Those expenses will be capped.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070502517.html

Nothing in that article addresses my question. The article talks about what the plans might or might not pay for. There is nothing about people who can afford to pay for their care.

If Bill Gates gets sick he doesn't need insurance, he can just write a check, the cost of any conceivable treatment is peanuts for him.

You seem to be saying that very rich people who can afford any kind of medical care they wish will be forbidden to spend their money on such care. Nowhere have I read that this will happen. So I ask again, show me some evidence that this will be the case.

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

...But I believe basic healthcare is a human need being held hostage by a powerful industry and I don't want any decent possibilities for fulfilling that need torpedoed by politics and greedy interests.

-The percentage of Americans who get medical care when they need it is already 100%, and this includes aliens (legal or otherwise ).

Interesting point on Obamacare (or any other socialized medicine):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574344900152168372.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

"...Mrs. Palin has also exposed a basic truth. A substantial portion of Medicare spending is incurred in the last six months of life..."

"...once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, rationing care is inevitable, and those who have lived the longest will find their care the most restricted... Far from being a scare tactic, this is a logical conclusion based on experience and common-sense..."

"Mr. Obama's reply is that private insurance companies already ration, by deciding which treatments are covered and which aren't. However, there's an ocean of difference between coverage decisions made under millions of voluntary private contracts and rationing via government... Virtually every European government with "universal" health care restricts access in one way or another to control costs, and it isn't pretty..."