Duplicating Disaster:: Fred Thompson on Government Health Care

the problems with the Canadian system as described are exaggerated and wrongly attributed to socialized medicine in general when in fact they were caused by politics.

As ajs mentions below that is exactly the point that a big problem with socialized healthcare is it makes it political and care subject to all that entails. The discussion of a socialized system can't be removed from one of politics as they are flip sides of the same coin. Who gets care, how much care is given, when they get care, how much we will spend on care are all decisions made by the state in a socialized system and all decisions made by the state are made via politics that's what politics is.

Frankly I'm scared of that notion in the United States because we are a study in conflicting ideologies and interests. When a political group manages to gain control of the system they can use it to cement their advantage. Say for instance instead of cutting funding to make Canadian's health care not as expensive the Conservatives cut the cost by declining care to people at least 50% thought were undesirable anyway, not all care just start with the expensive care. It would probably be popular enough to pass, extrapolate that out and people will start voting for those in power to prevent themselves from being targeted next.

@KyleN

Say for instance instead of cutting funding to make Canadian's health care not as expensive the Conservatives cut the cost by declining care to people at least 50% thought were undesirable anyway, not all care just start with the expensive care.

No party would do that here as it would seal their doom in the next election; public health care has been called a sacred trust here. The whole point is access for all.

It would probably be popular enough to pass

Not in this country; perhaps in yours, I couldn't say. As I said elsewhere, there are many viable models of public health care that you can look at.

a big problem with socialized healthcare is it makes it political and care subject to all that entails

I suppose I understand the concern, but I see the system already riddled with politics. I don't see how you can escape politics no matter how you organize it because its always present when large groups of people have to work together.

No party would do that here as it would seal their doom in the next election; public health care has been called a sacred trust here. The whole point is access for all.

That's the beauty of politics, anything can be worded to sound good. Instead of cutting service it would be 'Optimized Healthcare Provision Plan' or something equally inane. With all sorts of promises of how it would actually help those affected somehow. Many people think politicians are stupid, however I'm not one of them. They as a group are very smart and very manipulative.

I suppose I understand the concern, but I see the system already riddled with politics.

That's certainly true in the US, starting with the AMA and continuing through the FDA with honorable mention to MedicCare and MedicAid. All those are government manipulations that have significant impact on cost and quality of care - usually negative.

I don't see how you can escape politics no matter how you organize it because its always present when large groups of people have to work together.

The first thing that comes to mind is quit trying to have large groups of people trying to do it together. One person is sick and a relatively small team of people will help/cure them. Large numbers of politicians, beuracrats, insurance agents, adjusters, etc are not needed to heal a sick person and thus politics isn't needed to heal the sick.

We don't need a solution to health care, we need options and the freedom to choose what is best for each of us. Government's role in this is contract enforcement and removing barriers to trade like mis or lacking information. It's not to facilitate care by deciding what is and isn't good for us.

The trick is getting rid of the politicians.

I don't understand how that ever could be done. The people who would then take over... what would you call them?

we are the last moder4n democracy that doesnt belive in basic health care for the poor.
But what we really need to think about is preventative healthcare
people should be able to get checkups and other preventative measures for free
we can argue about the major care.
But I also worked for an ins company, and quit for the same reason as the woman in sicko
we were supposed to deny everyone the first submission and the expensive ones we were supposed to fight as much as possible. I have seen us be very evil to very sick people.. akak we knew we were in the wrong but we also knew the people we were wronging were to poor/ignorant to do anything about.
And it's not just the INS companies, hospitals too will try to raise that bill as much as possible as they know the ins will pay, i got ran over by a car, broke my legs but otherwise i was lucky, the hospital gave me all kinds of useless things, like a toy/therapy thing, you blow int he tube and try to keep the ball floating, not only was nothing wrong with my lungs but noone actually showed me how to use the thing or checked my progress or even checked to see if i could actually make the ball float at all, that little plastic device that would have been $$5 in a dollar store cost the ins company $120, I also had to pay $5 a pill for over the counter tylanol, when i brough in my own tylanol(whole bottle cheaper than one pill) i got in trouble as the hospital refused to be responcible for medication(even sealed fda approved and the exact same meds there were giving me), that they them selves didnt provide.. which would have made sence if they really cared but they didnt, they just wanted to jack up my bill as much as possible as i had good ins.

We don't need a solution to health care, we need options and the freedom to choose what is best for each of us.

KyleN, you're making the entirely unfounded assumption that we have this freedom now. We don't: an oligarchy of insurance company executives currently dictates what care we get.

Medical care is not subject to ordinary free market assumptions because the potential demand is infinite---how much would you pay to save your own life? The system is further distorted by profit motive; we assume that better healthcare is more profitable healthcare but have no basis for that assumption. Our free market medical agents (insurance companies, hospitals, and ultimately and most destructively, our doctors) gradually shift from the business of making people well to the business of making more money, and the two goals don't necessarily have anything to do with one another.

Haven't you noticed this trend with your family practitioner? Many of these offices are run now as 'patient mills', where you wait two hours for a cursory ten minute consultation with the doctor, who then prescribes an antibiotic that he has an incentives on from a drug rep.

Yes, we do need a solution to health care.

KyleN, you're making the entirely unfounded assumption that we have this freedom now. We don't: an oligarchy of insurance company executives currently dictates what care we get.

He's really not making that assumption. You're assuming that just because he is against a "solution", it means he's for the status quo. That, I can tell you, is certainly not true.

Certainly we don't have this freedom now, if we did I contend we wouldn't be in this mess.

I typed out a nice reply last night and hit post and Newsvine hung, I wasn't in the mood to redo it :(

The short version was I work in health care and know many of it's current problems. I see most of them as being related to various government manipulations not the least of which being the withholding tax system that created the insurance behemoths.

Drug reps don't have as much power as some would have you believe. The reps spend much effort and money because it's such a hard nut to crack so to speak. Doctors put up with it mainly to get free samples to hand out to their patients in my experience working with over 50 doctors daily. Right now believe it or not drug companies are massively paring back their direct marketing techniques to doctors because other techniques are paying of far better. As you might expect the TV commercials and direct to public marketing is much more effective because doctors tend to know the difference between BS and not while the public, most aren't so good at that which is reasonable they aren't trained to know. Doctors aren't generally fond and some downright hate those commercials because it leads people to demand treatments that aren't the best course for them and the doctor must spend twice as much effort first to de-program the patient then treating them the right way. And why does this whole crazy system work? Insurance. People never ask about costs because 'Insurance will pay' so they never look into anything for real just take it as a no-cost treatment so why not give it a try. All tied back to government mis-incentives and subsidies as usual.

Joshua Deacon wrote:

You're assuming that just because he is against a "solution", it means he's for the status quo.

KyleN wrote:

The short version was I work in health care and know many of it's current problems. I see most of them as being related to various government manipulations...

I take it from the above quotes that you acknowledge that our health care system is a problem, but that your solution would be further deregulation? How far would that extend? I can't imagine you're proposing a laissez-faire system in which the poor are left with whatever care they can afford.

The point of my post was not that drug reps influence doctors, though of course they do, that's what they're paid for. And while I agree absolutely that mass marketing of prescription drugs is destructive, it is only a symptom supporting my main contention that a medical system predicated solely on profit does not guarantee good care. In fact, look no further than your local doctor's office to see that the two can be diametrically opposed.

Further deregulation? When was it ever being deregulated? It's been in a state on increasing restrictions since the late 1800s. Very specific regulations are being applied in a very poor manner that has nothing to do with care, simply power for some and profit for others using the state to enforce no competition. When most care doesn't cost $200 a visit it'd be much easier for poor to either afford directly or through various forms of insurance plans. As long as a state monopoly exists prices are artificially inflated making direct or insurance out of easy reach.

Drug reps are paid to inform technically and given the number of drugs that come to market constantly that is more a service than those outside the industry would like to admit. Many drug reps are pharmacists, doctors, or surgical techs (for surgery equipment) they aren't all or even mostly salesmen. However I'm sure they are happy with any influence but what I was saying is the drug industry is realizing it's not very effective of a sales strategy. Pfizer I think is the one really scaling back the most right now, they all but did in their entire sales force.

And why exactly do you think a government bureaucrat with a budget is going to care more about you than a doctor that needs you to live, or get reasonably helped, to get paid? Elected officials care about as far as my vote goes, appointed officials or employees with little to no ability to get fired care just about not at all. I'd rather has somebody who wanted my money than somebody whom I have absolutly no influence over deciding if I'm worth paying out their budget on. If you think our system that encourages doctors to overtreat for extra money is bad, wait until the government cost cutting comes around then overtreatment will seem a nice dream.

Many drug reps are pharmacists, doctors, or surgical techs (for surgery equipment) they aren't all or even mostly salesmen.

Do you have any basis for that assertion or did you just make it up? They are salesman. Everyone knows it. Heck the Pharmacy industry even refers to them as part of their salesforce. Even you refer to it as their "salesforce".

Well considering you aren't likely to take my word I'd say I don't have a basis you will accept. I work for doctors and see 1-3 drug reps a day. Over the last 4 years I've known dozens of them on the front line so to speak and that is where it comes from. And I refer to it as their salesforce because that's what it is so you can split terms and say their are all salespeople correctly as they are in sales however that doesn't mean they are all like car salesmen or direct sales people they are actually mainly professionals otherwise and were picked because they can learn or know about the drug they are selling. The talk they give doctors when they get them to listen isn't like those commercials it's highly technical, and doctors are far far more likely to listen and converse with other doctors, sometimes it's research doctors that helped design the drug.

Imagine if the car salesman could tell you the entire history of the process that goes into each subsection of the car and knows the details of all 30 studies on safety, crash tests, etc. That would be like your average drug rep. Sometimes that would be spiced up by the automotive engineer that designed the car selling it to you. Then imagine you know what the hell they are talking about :)

My point wasn't they aren't in sales, my point is that people have a very different vision of sales than what drug reps do. Doctors insist on somebody knowledgeable if they are going to be bothered on the subject and that doesn't just come off the street.

When was it ever being deregulated?

In 1997, for example, when drug companies won their lobbying fight to conduct those advertising campaigns that you noted for prescription drugs.

Elected officials care about as far as my vote goes...I'd rather [have] somebody who wanted my money.

This is the crux of our differences. You have faith that a medical system driven solely by profit will give you good care, while my observations lead me to believe that it results in predatory practices and a lesser standard of care. I believe there are human motivations beyond profit and that we should leverage the power of community, a large part of which is participating in a democratic society and not just operating as a profit-seeking agent in some idealized economic model.

Except the profit motive isn't mutually exclusive to other motives. People can still provide health care for other motives. But guess what? The mass amount of regulations really put a damper on that.

I agree with that, Joshua. Whatever system ultimately emerges, it should minimize the burden on the doctor-patient relationship.

KyleN,

Drug reps for the most part are very personable and friendly people. They know a fair amount about the drugs they sell. Your anecdotal experience really doesnt address the issue since it is not whether they are nice or seem knowledgeable. They are first and foremost sales people.

The Drug Pushers
As America turns its health-care system over to the market, pharmaceutical reps are wielding more and more influence—and the line between them and doctors is beginning to blur

Do you think adding government to our systems problem sounds like a good solution?

When you have the most expensive system in the world and mediocre results, I dont see how we can afford not to learn from other nations.

Some people assume that the Government hurts everything it touches - Reality doesnt work that way.

By all means you explain why Americans should accept spending twice as much for mediocre care that covers fewer people. When there are alternatives that have better results accross the board, its pretty foolish to ignore them because such solutions dont fit your rigid ideological outlook that government is always bad.

its pretty foolish to ignore them because such solutions dont fit your rigid ideological outlook that government is always bad.

And yet it's not foolish to ignore market solutions because it doesn't fit your rigid idealogical outlook that government is always good?

The US doesn't have a market healthcare system it has a heavily regulated semi-socialized system. That does in the end provide universal care.

It would be more momentous of a change for the US to try a significantly private system as it would to try a more socialized system. Of course there is no perfect system because all systems are good for some and bad for others. Our current system allows the rich autonomy in health care choices, other systems prevent any choice other than that of the super rich to flee to free countries instead.

Who's being rigid here? The healthcare system is based on profit so the less care provided, the higher the profit. People know that and want a single-payer system. Politicians with their bullhorns, propped up by their large campaign contributors, the for-profit "healthcare" industry, want to kill that possibility. The right wing ideologues like you with your buzzwords scream in terror of socialized medicine" simply because they are ideologues.

What's with Canada?
We can look at every other 1st world country an learn-
Denmark, Sweden,France,Germany,Israel,England,Ireland etc.etc.etc. ---the only one we can't look at is
us.

You are quick to judge which side who is on. Most politicians, even Republicans, are for government control of your health see the recent Medicare bill. Why would they want to take the middle step of making money and using it to gain power when it's much easier to simply grab power directly without the mess of money and accountability in the middle.

Most people I don't think have an opinion on a single payer, fully socialized, hybrid market, or fully private system. So it's a stretch and a bit self-serving to simply claim people support you. As far as ideologically defensible positions, I think my claim to not know what is best for you is easier to make than your claim to know what's best for me.

So inform me why you know better than me about my health and how it is you know it?

And yet it's not foolish to ignore market solutions because it doesn't fit your rigid idealogical outlook that government is always good?

It would be foolish to ignore "market solutions" that have good demonstrated potential to generate a better system. Having universal healthcare doesnt mean ignoring markets, if thats what you are trying to imply.

You throw around the world socialized in a manner that suggests you either dont know what it means exactly or are intentionally obfuscating the issue. For the record, government regulation is not socialism. The closest thing we have to "socialized" medicine in this country is the VA System, which also happens to provide some the best healthcare in the country at a good price.

Reducing regulation doesnt magically translate into better quality healthcare at a lower price. Repeating ideological assumptions isnt the same as proposing a solution.

The fact is we spend twice as much for mediocre results to cover less people. There are better systems we can learn from. You have no evidence to support your theory that free markets provide the only solution to this problem, nor any workable road map to get there.

The term universal healthcare itself is similar to the terms anti-choice or pro-abortion debate. It frames the topic in favor of a solution. Healthcare in the US is universal, anybody can get it. That isn't however what the whole topic is really about it's about shifting the burden of paying for it around to different people in different ways and giving control of access to a different system.

Socialized/Socialist is one of the most abused terms there is, it can mean nearly anything to anyone. I use it to mean government control of the means of production. In this case production of healthcare. The US regulates who can provide healthcare and even what constitutes healthcare thus it is socialistic in nature. A single payer system is a form of power consolidation and a higher form of socialism than is currently practiced. All governments fall somewhere on the socialist scale technically since there is no examples of pure communism or capitalism but it's useful information to say the direction certain policies would move and calling things communistic because they are further along the sliding scale would be more hyperbole than calling them socialistic as in this context we all fairly well agree what is meant by it.

Increasing regulation doesn't magically translate into better quality heathcare at a lower price. In fact there is sound theory to suggest otherwise especially about the cost part. This is a loop argument both simply stating opposing opinions. Reducing regulation (in the context of the current US system) would allow more classes of health care provider. That would allow less expensive care, which in turn increases access to care which increases overall quality. So breaking the AMA monopoly over care (a reduction in government regulation) I feel would indeed reduce cost and increase quality.

Free markets don't provide the only solution, and I also said earlier there is no (single) solution. Which is what makes free markets superior because they allow multiple systems to co-exist. A grouped commune style distribution of costs and risks is possible and allowable in the free market however a free market is not allowable in a commune. One is choice restrictive while the other is not. I don't presume to tell you that a group form of payed health care isn't best for you, just that it isn't best for me. If you don't force yours on me I'll do likewise.

Socialized/Socialist is one of the most abused terms there is, it can mean nearly anything to anyone. I use it to mean government control of the means of production

.

You are abusing it here. Since you say you mean it to be government control of the system of production, but when you actually use it you mean government influence of health care. A system in which the government or collective owns and employs physicians is an example of socialized medicine. Where they in fact control who gets hired and who doesnt and what people pay. Most universal healthcar systems do not do that. They do not exercise control. If you disagree with my distinction where does government control end and government influence begin?

We have regulated markets in this country. The government influences virtually all aspects of commerce. That is NOT socialism.

Abusing it or not using your definition? I said my definition and I said that it's one of the most overly defined terms ever which is no joke.

The government says who may and may not practice medicine. The government will establish payment schemes for all medical services. So what exactly is the non-semantic difference between that and the government employs physicians? You apply to be employed as a doctor, and you get paid by the government that is classic employment just under a political twist of a name.

In the specific example of health care a single payer system and a direct government controlled system are semantic differences. Were this a company instead of the government I don't believe we would have this disagreement of terms. If a company controls who, what, where, and when through selective use of funds it's still a monopoly despite the fact you can choose to not buy their product. When the product is health/live though it's just that much more obvious it's really total control. People have to be able to choose to NOT be a part of the insurance scheme for it to not be a government controlled health care. Doctors have to be able to choose what they want to charge, and the government can't deny access based on it (like Medicare already does). Then it's a regulated market and not a direct controlled market.

Communism is when the government controls all aspects of the economy. Socialism is when government controls some (generally defined as the major) aspects of the economy. That isn't some off the wall definition it's in virtually all political science and economic textbooks. The US is a socialism technically. Socialism is a scale not an absolute though since obviously if the government owns 1 business it's a socialism and if it owns all BUT 1 business it's still a socialism. The UC proposals will move the US along the scale closer to the communist end. I don't see why this is a big deal to those who support it.

The government says who may and may not practice medicine. The government will establish payment schemes for all medical services. So what exactly is the non-semantic difference between that and the government employs physicians? You apply to be employed as a doctor, and you get paid by the government that is classic employment just under a political twist of a name.

First the government does not set prices for all medical services. That is false. It does set what it pays for services but not what insurance pays. Setting a professional bar for practice is not the same as socialism and never has been. The government also says who can and cannot practice law - nope not socialism. You seem to have badly confused government regulation of the professions and socialism. You definition is so broad as to become meangingless. Furthermore, there is no prospect of the government dropping all requirements for medical practice nor any evidence that doing so would solve our problems.

Second, the non-semantic difference is that there is a huge difference. If you honestly believe there is no difference then you must believe that healthcare systems that actually do employ the physicians like Canada, are no different than those that do not, like ours and many other Health Care systems.

The non-semantic difference is the English language, by your definition all medicine on the planet is already socialized medicine. It becomes meaningless. The fact is that countries that actually practice socilism do it differently than we do.

The government does by not allowing insurance to pay for part of services it's an all or none proposition. It would be fine if it paid $X for a procedure no matter what was charged and left it up to the patient to decide if the difference is worth it - say like all other insurance works. However it doesn't, it says the amount it pays can be the only amount paid period and if the provider doesn't want to change that then they get nothing at all. That in a private company with the market share the government already has would be a flagrant abuse of monopoly powers.

There isn't a line that says over this is Socialism over here isn't. I don't have the same hostility to the label that others share. You want to create a line so that you can claim to not be socialistic, why do you care? And I keep saying it's socialistic for a reason, there isn't a Socialism there is only more or less socialistic. It's like saying that something isn't salty because it only has an amount small to you when we are trying to talk about how salty it is. If I was using the term blanket style this country is a Socialism and that country is a Socialism it would have little meaning, but I'm saying this country is more socialistic and that one is less socialistic which conveys information. You are attempting to make a line and say those are Socialists and these are not and ignore degrees, that is less information.

I didn't say the government shouldn't be involved with any regulation at all. I think the regulation we have is poor though, it's too restrictive where it needn't be. There should be more levels of care than 20 year trained doctors for head colds. The government regulation doesn't have to support that system it can loosen up and allow more degrees. In fact it can quit refusing anything and simply provide information, that would be the best mix of regulation and choice. Let me decide if the government knows what it's talking about. It is a public good to know and prevent fraud it's not a public good to restrict choice.

Fred Thompson is an right wing ideologue, too, but was lazy and ineffectual as a senator and was lazy in editing this piece someone wrote up for him. The right wing stuff posted here is usually this low quality trash.

I want universal health care NOW!

I want a date with Natalie Portman. Sometimes we can't always get what we want.

Sounds as if Fred Thompson is a schill for the medical insurance and pharmaceutical industries

That's exactly what they mean by the 'free' market - bribery and corruption.

Hell, perhaps the Government should take over all McDonalds and Burger Kings and have them provide healthier food for free for anyone that is hungry too. yeah....

If you want more -buy more-
Buy your own one room hospital. It's your money.

Depends on which plan you go by. In some Democratic health care schemes it would be illegal to buy better private care.

Maybe they can go to Canada?
Let's not dwell on the worst plan-
It's not fair to the others-is it?

Well, it is hard to properly critique universal health care if no one is willing to settle on the details, like what is covered, what isn't covered, how is it rationed, what is the cost, etc etc etc.

Until then it is all just guess work.

adam care to elborate which dem sponcered schemes make it illegal to get better healthcare?

But one important point that i like to make in these threads. We have two classes in america and only one gets the best health care in the world(shoot look at CONgresses health plan it is insane)

WE have the best healthcare in the world, but only if you can afford it, our adverage heathcare IS NOT the best int he world.

In some Democratic health care schemes it would be illegal to buy better private care.

A. Whose plan exactly?

B. Even if a tiny minority due, the fact is that the vast majority of proposals do not. Nor does the plan you bring up to attack have any real chance of becoming law so its not really helpful to pretend that its representative.

WE have the best healthcare in the world, but only if you can afford it, our adverage heathcare IS NOT the best int he world.

Actually that is not exactly true either. Certain aspects of health care in this country is excellent other parts are not even if you have a lot of money. See, e.g.,
High Medical Payments Do Not Result in Higher Quality of Care, Study of Pennsylvania Hospitals Finds

I don't consider paying taxes for health care, FREE. I'd rather see universal health in AMERICA, of all places, than billions going to an illeagal war, pumping cash into new weapons systems that we can sell to the world and arm our enemies with or pharmaceutical and oil industry wellfare. Paying taxes and expecting a return that benefits We The People, is hardly what I consider a handout. You can take your arguement and put it where it belongs, in the trash heap of bankrupt propaganda

By G-d, I think you've got it !!!

Why is the choice either health care or war, weapons and whatnot. Why can't we just have none of the above and really be free?

It seems that you have a straw man on your hands.

Adam --here, equating war making ,weapon making,military aid,arming future enemies,with giving Universal health care for our citizens !!
An did you earn your M.aster S.ubterfuge with that stuff?

the either or generation?

buying ins you subsidized teh people that are less health than you who have the same ins.. you are already paying taxes for health care.
Preventative free healthcare would save us billions a year as the indigent already get free healthcare.
As for giveawys the happiest country in the world is norway, you shoudl check out their health care, sure they pay 50% of their income in taxes compared to 39% for us but if they get sick they get help..
all of education is also free alll the way up to doctorates.

but your right their system must suck.

we actually dont have to raise taxes we just have toi shift what we spend, and the giveaways we give and most important, close the tax loop hgoles the rich use to pay no taxes.. like that woman said "only the little people pay taxes"

Except there is only one doctor who is the best and he cannot see every patient. How exactly do you propose to ration his services?

Start more schools an make more doctors-The gov't can pay for those who's farther's cannot afford-an you know that many doctors spring from the same family an you know why too.

You can't just "make" more doctors. Who is going to pay for these schools? Who is going to train the doctors? Who is going to become the new doctors? Many potential new doctors now go into research or other positions because they won't have to fear for their career being ruined by a lawsuit.

The best should be teaching the others.
Sure ,make it well worth their while,but don't let their skills die with them.

The best should be teaching the others.

What if instead they'd rather actually be doctors? Are you going to force them at the point of a gun to teach others?

There will also be doctors better than others. Who will decide if you see a bad doctor or a good one?

No one pointed a gun an told them to be a doctor- did they?
Let them be an attorney for the bad doctors.
If a doctor is a bad doctor -he should not be a doctor-an he will soon need an attorney.

If a doctor is a bad doctor -he should not be a doctor

So what if there are not enough good doctors to go around? How do you propose to ration them?

You can't just "make" more doctors. Who is going to pay for these schools? Who is going to train the doctors? Who is going to become the new doctors? Many potential new doctors now go into research or other positions because they won't have to fear for their career being ruined by a lawsuit.
1. Yes, you can-
2. the govt
3. As I just said [other doctors who would prefer teaching to research]
4.The students [just as now]
5.prior post

How are you going to force the people that would make good doctors to select going to medical school in the first place? Where do you propose that 'the government' get the money to pay for the medical career, the schools, and the teachers AND the doctors?

And if the government is handing out free money for medical school, then what is to stop people who will be bad doctors or really don't care about being doctors from going since it'll be free?

My brilliant 16 year old brother (who could do anything he wants with the grades he gets) is only sure of one thing at this point, there is no way he is going to be a doctor, why? Because he is sure the government medicine of some form will eventually become the norm here in the US and he wants nothing to do with it.

2!#9.9 - Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:12 PM EDTDAWebHow are you going to force the people that would make good doctors to select going to medical school in the first place? Where do you propose that 'the government' get the money to pay for the medical career, the schools, and the teachers AND the doctors?

1!#9.10 - Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:26 PM EDTAdam HobsonAnd if the government is handing out free money for medical school, then what is to stop people who will be bad doctors or really don't care about being doctors from going since it'll be free?

0!#9.11ajs Your brother is obviously interested more in making money not in helping the sick--best he be a stock broker

DaWeb--Your question needs work--who's forcing?--what ?

Adam-
What is stopping them now?
Or you think your a 'good' doctor if you can afford to can pay your way?
No "bad" doctors in our system today?
If so, why are you so worried about UHC ?

gpnavonod.

First, please make use of the button above your edit box marked quote. It will make your comments that much easier to read.

second, you ask me

who's forcing?

well, in comment 9.8 you said

1. Yes, you can-

This was in response to the statement earlier that you can't just make good doctors

It seems that you believe that you canmake good doctors. but what if the people that would be good doctors don't want to be doctors?

You have been asked some very good questions and the only answers you have come back with are

The government will make, pay, school, teach doctors and give their services away to everyone.

You have never answered the question of how you will handle the situation of more people wanting to see a particular doctor then he has time to see.

Because he is sure the government medicine of some form will eventually become the norm here in the US and he wants nothing to do with it.

It sounds like you have probably influenced his thinking. So what? We should assume that because your 16 year old brother is convinced that governement will do bad things to medicne that we should all take on the same unsubstatiated opinion?

Dont you see how completely ridiculous and circular that is?

Fortunately a lot of people become doctors because they want to heal people and find away to be good doctors in what ever system they work.

Pardon me if I dont assume that your brother is a prophet or is a special font of wisdom. Perhaps you should talk to him and tell him to follow his dreams and do what he wants to do instead of allowing ideological presumptions get in the way?

Why don't we just remove politicians from health care? As long as the government controls it, the politicians will be there to screw it up.

Why don't we just remove politicians from health care? As long as the government controls it, the politicians will be there to screw it up.

So you trust insurance companies not to screw it up? Anarchy? Heck we already have one of the most screwed up systems in the world. Why not half the costs and improve the quality first and then we can try your "plan."

Why do I need insurance companies?

Why can't I just walk into a doctor's office and pay cash for services rendered?

For emergency and long term care, why can't I get together with a few thousand or more other people and create a non-profit trust to handle payment for our care?

Being against socialized healthcare does not mean the same as leave our current system alone...

For emergency and long term care, why can't I get together with a few thousand or more other people and create a non-profit trust to handle payment for our care?

You mean insurance?

You mean insurance?

Yea, but real insurance, not this pre-payment crap that we have today. And there is no reason that it has to be run by a for-profit company either with layers of middle management eating away at its effectiveness.

And there is no reason that it has to be run by a for-profit company either with layers of middle management eating away at its effectiveness.

Current tax law prevents such firms from existing. To be a non-profit, you can only give money to people who work for the organization, or who are not donors. Thus, all large-scale systems of group savings are taxed higher than saving individually (because you thereby become subject to corporate income tax).

A lot of people don't know this, but fraternal orders used to provide health care to the families of their members. The decline of such organizations tracks very closely with the growth of the welfare state.

Current tax law prevents such firms from existing.

We're talking about something new, so I'm for getting rid of those tax laws and making all medical payments tax deductible, not just employer contributions.

Adam Hobson,

Nothing is stopping you from paying cash right now. You seem to be projecting some imaginary free market fantasy land. Are you talking about banning insurance? Or is this just gonig to magically appear?

Why can't I just walk into a doctor's office and pay cash for services rendered?

In addition to the fact that no one said you cant. If you want to you can pay cash, and often pay more than you would pay than someone who has insurance since the companies bargain on their behalf.

For emergency and long term care, why can't I get together with a few thousand or more other people and create a non-profit trust to handle payment for our care?

In otherwords, start an insurance company of your own. You can do that know if you have the capital and resources. Good luck! Odd our system allows that know and we still pay twice as much for less.

Nothing is stopping you from paying cash right now.

No, but the government is putting a strong barrier in place through the tax code. Right now any money my employer spends on my health is tax free. However, if I said, no thanks just give it to me in cash and I'll pay as I go, then that all gets hit with income tax, both state and federal, payroll tax and medicare tax. That's basically taking away 30-40% of the value right there. If that's not a very strong disincentive, then I'm not sure what is.

In otherwords, start an insurance company of your own. You can do that know if you have the capital and resources. Good luck! Odd our system allows that know and we still pay twice as much for less.

Actually this is illegal as Entelechy pointed out up top. The tax code would forbid the actual payment to the doctors since they would not work for the non-profit trust itself. And then there is still the tax codes from my previous answer just above that would mean I'd be getting 30 to 40% less to use for healthcare because the government would now be taxing it.

Our current tax code is very much set up to disincentive anyone from taking control of their own health.

In addition to the fact that no one said you cant. If you want to you can pay cash, and often pay more than you would pay than someone who has insurance since the companies bargain on their behalf.

You mean he would pay more because prices are artificially inflated, due to the fact that no one paying for the services actually knows, nor cares, for the true cost of those services, because their insurance will pay without them really having to think about it at all. It removes personal responsibility from the equation.

And really, most offices aren't set up to take cash/check/card for the full amount, whatever that is.
I tried asking my doctor at the sleep clinic how much his services would cost with no insurance, and he gave me a rough estimate of $1,500, but I got the feeling that he didn't really know. I asked if I could pay the full amount, as a sort of experiment. Nope.

Then when I got my insurance statement. They had been billed for over $2000. Now what other industry can just arbitrarily mark up their estimate by over 35% without ever informing the customer?

because their insurance will pay without them really having to think about it at all.

And insurers have little incentive to optimize their payment of a claim since there are laws requiring them to maintain very high reserve ratios. The laws make it more likely that an insurance company will save money by denying a claim than by negotiating over price.

ComSen,

You offer a lot of plausible hypotheses and possible pitfalls. Fortunately we can learn from the experience of other nations which have demonstrated that you can getter better care for half as much for all people without necessarily falling into the possible traps you list.

Of course, no system is perfect, but there are other proven ways of doing it that have a LOT bettter results. The fact that they are not perfect is not a rational reason to stick with the lousy system with very real problems we have now.

you can getter better care for half as much

Of course you are only looking at direct costs there. You fail to account for indirect costs. Ever notice the unemployment levels in some of these Universal health care nations like France or Canada. Ever compare their economic growth to that of the United States. These are all prices that you would have to pay for Universal Health Care. And in the end, you'd be surprised who is really spending more.

Ever notice the unemployment levels in some of these Universal health care nations like France or Canada. Ever compare their economic growth to that of the United States. These are all prices that you would have to pay for Universal Health Care.

Here is a simple logical truism: Correlation is not causation. You have offered no plausible basis to believe that the method of Health care is causally conneced with econimic growth or unemployment. You offer no basis to assume Universal Healthcare is a drag on either employment or economic growth.

And in the end, you'd be surprised who is really spending more.

I would be surprised if you could document your ridiculous assertion. Have you ever looked at the costs of unisurance and underinsurance? Unlike your asserions they can and have been documented: U.S. Loses up to $130 Billion Annually as Result of Poor Health, Early Death Due to Lack of Insurance

Bureaucracy in the health care system accounts for about a third of total U.S. health care spending – a sum so great that if the United States were to have a national health insurance program, the administrative savings alone would be enough to provide health care coverage for all the uninsured in this country, according to two new studies

.

In reality, these transactions do not take place in competitive free markets. Hospitals and insurance plans have consolidated in most geographic regions (41, 42), and entry of new hospitals or health plans into a market is difficult, thereby undermining the price competition that is a necessary component of a free market. http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/142/10/847

Of course some nations with Universal Healthcare have better economic growth than the US. Have you looked at Ireland? Unemployment is high in some industrialized countries not in others. Irelands is lower, so is Iceland etc.

The United States has a powerful economy but it is largely despite our lousy healthcare system not the other way around. Now if you have concrete evidence to back up your ideologically based assumptions that univeral healthcare harms the economy please share.

Here is a simple logical truism: Correlation is not causation. You have offered no plausible basis to believe that the method of Health care is causally conneced with econimic growth or unemployment. You offer no basis to assume Universal Healthcare is a drag on either employment or economic growth.

Universal health care will require a gigantic increase in taxes. Economics 101 teaches that any tax imposes a dead weight on the economy.

This is of course assuming that you are not willing to cut current programs like social security to pay for universal healthcare without increasing taxes.

Bureaucracy in the health care system accounts for about a third of total U.S. health care spending – a sum so great that if the United States were to have a national health insurance program, the administrative savings alone would be enough to provide health care coverage for all the uninsured in this country, according to two new studies

You could use that if I was arguing for keeping the current system. But I am not. I already proposed one example of smaller non-profit trusts to handle our health insurance. They would currently be illegal, but we can always change the tax code.

Of course some nations with Universal Healthcare have better economic growth than the US. Have you looked at Ireland? Unemployment is high in some industrialized countries not in others. Irelands is lower, so is Iceland etc.

Ireland is in a current boom period. Look back a decade or two and you will see an entirely different story. You may also want to look as to what changes were made prior to their current boom, it involved lowering taxes and removing government regulations.

Iceland is one of the few nations that actually ranks economically freer than we do. They may have Universal Health but they counterbalance that by having far less regulations and taxes overall than we do.

It is also not fair to compare a nation of 300 million to smaller nations. The infrastructures needed to support these plans are vastly different in smaller nations. That is why I could somewhat accept a state-run health care plan, because at least then they would be somewhat manageable in size. It would also allow you a bit of choice.

smaller non-profit trusts to handle our health insurance

What does that mean? It really sounds like you're in a fantasy world with that one.

It really sounds like you're in a fantasy world with that one.

Yeah, non-profit trusts only exist in the realms of dragons and Harry Potter.

Universal health care will require a gigantic increase in taxes. Economics 101 teaches that any tax imposes a dead weight on the economy.

Anyone that knows anything about Economics knows that huge unrealistic assumptions are taken in economics 101. Anyone that knows anything about economics 101 knows that there is no such simplistic rule that taxes are always a net dead weght on the economy.

Your confuse ideology with economics.

Of course, there is no such truism that universal health care will require a "gigantic increase in taxes" Again you are dealing in myths. Many universal healthcare options dont require any taxes.

I notice that when faced with facts you just respond with more ideologically based conclusions.

It is also not fair to compare a nation of 300 million to smaller nations.

You are the one who did that. You have completely failed to support your claim that Universal Healthcare would cause any of the problems you allege. You completely ignore the documented costs of uninsurance.

I have documented my poinst and provided evidence. Clearly a lot of people just want to believe what they want to believe. Feel free to document your assertions instead of merely assuming their truth in the face of evdience based upon your political conceptions.

Lovely sarcastic aside, Joshua, but that doesn't provide any details as to how small non-profit trusts could manage a comprehensive national healthcare system.

Catch,

Just what have you provided evidence for?

That there is a hidden cost for uninsurance? Of course there is. No one is arguing against that.

That our current system is bloated, wastes money, is inefficient, and is in general just downright sucks? Of course it does. No one is arguing against that.

That competition is undermined leading to inflated prices? Of course it is. The major culprit is, unsurprisingly, the AMA, which is one of the most successful political lobbying groups in the country. They now want to prevent and shut down low cost clinics run by nurse practitioners, again trying to limit supply, all in the name of "protecting" the consumer.

I have yet to see anything from you that suggest what causes these problems. Again, no one is saying that these problems do not exist.

Many universal healthcare options dont require any taxes.

Please be specific. I'm really curious as to how these plan to pay for it. Are there any summaries of the overall gist of them that you can point me to? Are they authoritarian in any way (in other words, do they require all doctors to work under their banner, and do they outlaw private practice)?

upright

but that doesn't provide any details as to how small non-profit trusts could manage a comprehensive national healthcare system.

Because that's not what Adam was suggesting them for? Why is everyone hung up on the idea that health care must be national in scope, or nothing at all?

Fair enough, but healthcare really seems to me like a national not local problem. I don't see how a localized system could work well without leaving people in poor rural & urban areas behind.

Sick and injured people who can't get treatment are a drain on the economy.

Why is it national?

Why does some smoker's lung cancer in California matter to some random citizen in on the east coast? I think your logic is reversed. Taking it to a national level makes it even more likely that it will not meet the needs of several subsections of citizens. Retailers sell different things or emphasize different things in different areas. They have different store layouts.

If you want a government "solution" to health care, can we please start at the state level? Let each state decide what is best. Run some experiementation before jumping head first into waters where the depth and dangers are unknown for the United States. States are more localized, better able to represent their smaller demographics of people. And if someone in that state doesn't like the way things are going, he can just move to another state that might align with his interests a little more.

Let California enact a universal health care system. The rest of the states will gladly watch and learn. Brining it immediately to a national level is its own form of tyranny.

Experimentation is great but meanwhile the US is losing its competitive advantage while we spend more than any other industrialized nation on healthcare. Simply put, our current system is hampering economic growth. Leaving it up to the states to experiment is good, in theory, but in practice time matters. The longer the federal government avoids the issue, the larger and more cumbersome the issue becomes. Furthermore, leaving it up to the states insures that people in poor states, like West Virginia for example, will receive substandard care further exascerbating socioeconomic differences between states and geographic regions.

Why is it national?

Why does some smoker's lung cancer in California matter to some random citizen in on the east coast?

Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US. Let's say that smoker in California can't pay his medical bills and falls into debt; an account executive for a credit card company in New York calls to try and collect debts owed; the collections process costs the company and individual on the east coast both time and money.

If you think the government trying to keep its citizens healthy and competitive is its own form of tyranny, try Zimbabwe.

Basing a health care national policy around a small group of people is not wise. Special case insurance is not the issue and is not related to the broad plans outlined by UC supporters. It's a straw man argument, designed to appeal to emotions instead of logic.

Medical professionals, well MDs anyway, take an oath to do no harm. They do not take an oath to be a slave. What you describe is slavery, forced labor against their will. That is no better than the case presented of greedy doctors trying to kill you for money.

Twisting around the debate to include all of your pet peeves along the way doesn't make your case stronger. Taxes, their collection, and burden are their own issue and not dependent on socializing health care further. Neither are ideas on national defense, past defense policies, or education policy.

I hope your post was cathartic because there was much hate spewed at many people. I personally felt insulted and threatened by the presentation. Take some time to tone down the attacks and present your case for health care or other topics in a non-abusive manner and the response from those who don't otherwise agree with you is more likely to be favorable. Plenty of people above did so, even Catch22 who I always get into it with.

KyleN:

Where do you get the idea that this is a "small" group of people? You need to take some time sitting in an emergency room of a major public hospital for a while. Listen when the adults give their occupations or employment along with their earnings. Then listen to those who like my husband and I are uninsurable.

I lost count of the number of times I attempted to purchase health care insurance. Do you know the first words out of the mouths of health care providers when I call or they call me with regards to health insurance? As soon as they hear the words "insulin-dependent diabetic, borderline high blood pressure, tachycardia, lupus, Sjogren's, hereditary eye disease called retinitis pigmentsao." The response is generally a click on the other end as the health care sales person hangs up the phone without so much of a reason why or a kiss my ass so yes, if you must know I am a bit angry. I have major health problems yet those who swore on an oath to do no harm and serve the people are lying! It's sort of along the lines of taking a wedding vow while knowing ahead of time you plan to go out and screw the brains out of anything with the right genitalia. In the end, everyone gets a raw deal, those who believe there are kind decent medical professionals left in the world that actually give a damn about their oath and others who learned too quickly how the tables turn and the cancellation notices go out the minute someone becomes sick.

The US Government supposedly goes after countries stock-piling weapons while at the same time this government is doing the same thing yet the United States Government's stockpiling events go unchecked and without criticism. It is time the defense budget takes a backseat to the real problems, healthcare and education. If you find that too much to handle, that's just too freaking bad.

The elderly, low-income yet hard-workers get nothing for all their work except an early grave. We earn too much for any assistance yet we possess too many health problems to gain access to health insurance (period). I am not saying affordable health insurance. I mean health insurance in general! WE CANNOT BUY INSURANCE BECAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL NOT SELL IT TO US. Did you get that time? If so, then how is it that "anybody can buy health insurance" is the common thread mentioned above? No, not everyone can purchase health insurance and it is not always a direct correlation of money. It is the insurance company's refusal to sell insurance that tanks us. Even if we could buy it, the medical professionals within the company would do everything within their power to prevent ever paying out a claim but that is something they refuse to take a chance on because both my husband and I bought have college educations yet our health prevents me from working at all and keeps him out of some of the better jobs due to medical discrimination that has no chance in hell to prove.

Am I angry, you damn right I am. We pay out taxes every year, including taxes on MY disability only we see no return on our investment in this country. Our country continues to rape us monetarily year after year after year without anyone ever forcing them to make amends for the dollars stolen from families such as ours who cannot obtain, not cannot afford but cannot obtain health insurance. Bush spews his idiotic second-grade mentality about helping people get insurance. Well, how is that going to happen when insurance companies refuse to touch those with preexisting conditions? The government as well as the insurance companies, both of which comprise of those who took the oath to do no harm, would rather see us dead first. At least if we are dead, they get out of any responsibility to help keep us alive and not only do we lose but our children lose as well.

Furthermore, what does it say when supposedly the United States has the highest and most modern medical technological advances yet only the top 5% of patients - rich patients who could pay out of pocket instead of insurance, are the only ones who have access to it. Well there are the poor cases they send here for free medical care. The government can take in freebies for medical care yet those in office cannot be bothered to help insurance the billions of American citizens across the country who have no insurance or inadequate insurance or worse, insurance where the company canceled the policy because they didn't want to pay for something and therefore instead of doing their job, they denied the claim and refused service to the payee. It's all cut and dry for the insurance companies. If they don't like someone because that person requires a medical treatment that might eat into the $3 billion dollar bonus for the CEO of the company not to mention the few billions of dollars split among the doctors sworn to help patients yet they deny claims.

How much does it honestly take to live a reasonably comfortable life? When does one person need millions or billions of dollars each year to survive? I am not talking about company money. I am talking about individual income taken off the backs of those who can least afford it. I am referring to the individual incomes of those who benefit every time someone cannot afford a medical procedure after an insurance company denies the service often to the detriment of the patient.

Do you not realize that if everybody had preventative care, it would reduce not only future major medical intervention, but taxes for those who lose work because they had no preventative care. Models put into place by various companies when it comes to in-house daycares, excellent sick days/vacation/etc..., and adequate health care benefits the companies by increasing productivity, the need for fewer temps, and fewer absentees within the companies.

Parents can move onto handling company affairs instead of worrying about their uninsured children or inadequately insured children in addition to the fear of losing insurance altogether if the company learns there is the slightest chance the employee might have a genetic hereditary disease that might cut into the insurance company's profits down the road.

I feel we must have Universal Health Care if we are ever going to level the playing field for everyone. Nobody, not the insurance companies or the government has the right to play god with somebody's life.

KyleN: Do you have enough balls to tell someone that they have no choice but to die and shut up trying to make the insurance company change its mind? If so, then you have no heart or care at all and if anything, you are not human. I only hope that you are fortunate enough to remain healthy, never have someone in your family lose health benefits because the happened to make the mistake of contracting a hereditary genetic defect, or ever become a doctor. You would probably follow in the euthanasia and start putting the sick yet living to death by lethal injection.

I guess you believe we need to kill all the elderly people too since they are the ones who most often have to choose between life-saving yet overpriced medication or keeping a roof over their heads and groceries on the table. It is why so many elderly people stay so sick. They do not have access to maintenance medication. If one cannot obtain the maintenance medication to remain living, eat a healthy meal, or have a roof over their heads then they might as well be dead according to your words and the current state of our government and those whores who call themselves doctors working for lobbyists through pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and other government groups that play god every day with somebody's life.

I am only sad that you appear to be able to sleep soundly at night without your conscious eating you alive because you agree with this horrible predicament. You must be a harsh and uncaring person. I feel pity for you.

Where do you get the idea that this is a "small" group of people?

"insulin-dependent diabetic, borderline high blood pressure, tachycardia, lupus, Sjogren's, hereditary eye disease called retinitis pigmentsao

That isn't a small group out of the 360 million in the United States?

The oath you make so much of does not include servitude, there is a big difference in do no harm and do anything for anybody for nothing. Not to mention there is an implicit value definition built into the assumption your care is worth more than the next person's care that is reduced or avoided in it's practice.

The insurance company part is covered above but generally they are rigged through government tax mechanisms that create most of the coverage issues. Insurance companies customers are a mix of government and business HR/CEOs not those being insured which greatly distorts their competitive pressures one of which being available choice plans. However as I already said those with very significant conditions incapable of helping themselves is not the thrust of the debate. Health care for 360 million with reason removed and bureaucrats installed isn't the same as special case assistance for the < 1 million with serious disabilities. It's not the same morally, nor economically. You continue to tie the two together as though it's the only way while it's not and use pejorative language to boot.

Universal care run by the government gives it the right to play God more like it gives one little paper pusher in an office who never knows or has any reason economic or otherwise to care about you the power over you.

What a straw man you draw of me, making me out to be the evil person in need of removal. That is unfair, unkind, and very disturbing. I don't believe I nor anybody warrant such hate. If you wish to apologize and debate rationally I'll continue here or elsewhere if you continue to be so abusive I'll move on.

The oath you make so much of does not include servitude,

Nobody said anything about servitude. I AM saying that it is wrong for those who took an oath to do no harm to deny legitimate coverage for those who have insurance in order to make the insurance companies more profitable. Again, what should the butcher's bill be before this country starts thinking more about people and less about greed?

If you want to push and fund those who care more about money than the lives of a human being then you are the bad guy and I refuse to apologize because I have nothing to apologize for. Where is your humanity? Do you even care that thousands of people die every day from lack of medical care? Obviously not because your posts seem cold-hearted and cruel. It makes it sounds as if you are one of those who are receiving money off the backs of those dying or already dead.

That isn't a small group out of the 360 million in the United States?

No, that is not a small number of people.

Do you realize that 10.8 million people in the US have diabetes

14.6 million diagnosed
6.2 million undiagnosed

1 in every 400 to 600 children and adolescents has type 1 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is even more prevalent than type I.

Diabetics are dying every day because they cannot afford the $35 to $60 a vial of insulin, two to three vials every month, in addition to syringes, test strips ($75 per 50 strips), a glucometer (roughly $130 to $495, even higher if you need one that talks such as I would need if I were a diabetic)

CDC National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) based on five years of data.

High blood pressure affects 1 out of every 3 Americans or 65 million people according to the American Heart Association. An addition 28 percent or 59 million people have prehypertension.Of those with high blood pressure, 28 percent do not know they have the condition. Among the 61 percent who are under treatment, only 35 percent have their blood pressure adequately controlled.

How is this a small group of people? We haven't even reached the number of blind Americans, particularly those who could see if they had access to health care. Do you realize that if a diabetic suffers from diabetic retinopathy, the surgery to correct one eye alone costs well over $20,000 not counting the doctor's fee, hospital fees, and aftercare. It does not take into consideration the chance of failure of said surgery. It does not take into account other health problems associated with diabetes.

Information about blind prevalence in the United States - staggering and this does not account for all causes of blindness such as retinitis pigmentosa, ROP, and other blind-related causes.

Numbers of blindness in United States

This has yet to even touch upon those suffering with diagnosed and undiagnosed cases of rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjogren's disease, Celiac disease, and many other autoimmune diseases. Do you not realize how much the medication for said diseases cost each and every month not to mention the FDA's rule of where every patient with an autoimmune disease has to have a visit with their physician every 30 days in order to receive life-saving medication. How is somebody going to afford the high cost of medication when there is no money coming in to pay for it?

My medications alone cost well over $2000 a month. Should I say to hell with and just die leaving two children, one of which is in elementary school, so the state will be left to raise them? My husband's medications run approximately $800 to $1000 a month. What am I to tell him? Should he stop taking his medication and simply die, again leaving our young child with nobody to raise her but the state? What about our other child? Should she die because she has a hereditary heart condition that without medication could cause her, at 19 years of age, to have a heart attack that could debilitate her, lead to a stroke, and/or death?

What is your proposal supposed "all-knowing"? If you have all the answers then please share them because I have none. Universal Health Insurance is THE ONLY ANSWER!

Why do we continue to pay taxes if we reap NO benefits from it? How are we going to manage when my husband becomes as deathly ill as I am? How are we going to live? How are we going to obtain health care while continuing to have a roof over our heads, food on the table, and clothing for our children? Again, there is only one answer and that answer is Universal Health Care where our dollars actually support something that will help the country as a whole. I can think of much better uses of our money other than shipping it all into the military defense budget. I am so sick of hearing how our government cares more about the freaking military, yet our soldiers do not receive a tenth of what is allocated to them and yet the money still flows somewhere yet it never makes it to the proper destinations. When is education and health going to overrule war and killing?

You need a reality check, not me. I am in the middle of reality. I have more reality than most. I am living it each and every day wondering how I am going to survive to raise this child at home, continue to help her older sibling manage college, and try to keep their father alive long enough for these children to grow up and make lives for themselves while praying neither of them happen to follow us with the hereditary diseases each of us suffer.

If you have the answers, again, I am willing to hear them but all I am hearing so far is BS. Nothing less and nothing more, just complete total BS. It must be nice to have great health. You need to pray you continue to have it because I would not wish what we have on anybody.

Upright:

There is a healthcare crisis in this country but higher taxes on those who can least afford it will not cure the problem. It will only make it worse.