The American Spectator

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.10.09 @ 7:14AM

No matter how many times you go to the wonderful bottomless pit Tax-Well?,.. it never seems to run out of money!!,.. until the bucket breaks!!

Darin| 8.10.09 @ 7:24AM

Control. That is the operative word, in the health care plans and everything liberals do.

Control of the population. Because we're viewed as too stupid to run our own lives. Because they and only they "know what's best for us."

Control of what you can/can't do. Because "you're just not responsible enough to run your own life."

Control. Consider everything liberals do as ask yourself if it can be considered anything other than an attempt to control you.

Country Boy| 8.10.09 @ 7:25AM

During his brief tenure as an Illinois Senator, obama voted that a child born still alive, in a late term abortion should be denied Medical Care, and left to die. In other words, he believe that infanticide is OK.

I don't think it is OK to have this man making the health care decisions for 303 million Americans.

Curly Smith| 8.10.09 @ 8:02AM

A fourth question - how many of the "chronically uninsured" would be covered under existing State programs if they just bothered to sign up?

A fifth question - if the "chronically uninsured" get treated for life-threatening conditions anyway then what difference does it make if they have insurance? Besides providing them more care options than they've steadfastly refused to pay for, or simply sign up for, to this point?

Robert Rosencrans| 8.10.09 @ 8:38AM

Suffice it to say that any public option will end heath care as you know it. You will wade through endless pools of bureaucrats only to find out you're in the wrong building.

As you enter other buildings you will realize that perhaps you will wait the illness out and not bother the faceless never ending stream of bureaucrats.

At some point you may see a doctor or an assistant. After you jump through many hoops you'll be face to face with a Castro style doctor who will get rid of you as soon as possible so they can get face to face with another hapless victim of the public option.

You'll get third world type medical treatment so that politicians can pat themselves on the back.

When it becomes obvious that the system is a failure, changes will be implemented which will lead to more changes. At some point in your life you will die, perhaps better off then those who will face an unyielding and never ending and unsympathetic bureaucracy.

frost| 8.10.09 @ 8:48AM

It's not original, but, I’d like to go on record as being 100% in favor of The Messiah's health care fiasco, if and only if (1) the congress is forced to give up their current health plan and use messiah care and be banned from exempting themselves from their own laws as is the usual procedures; (2) federal government workers (whoops, employees -- government workers is an oxymoron) are forced to do the same; (3) union bosses at all levels are also forced into the program like the rest of us, and, (4) the aforementioned groups are forced to use Obama’s Messiah Care in their retirement packages instead of their current gravy train.

Bo| 8.10.09 @ 9:29AM

I think Darin hit the nail on the head. Otherwise, this makes absolutely no sense.

2Anglico| 8.10.09 @ 9:38AM

In Florida there are 47 "treatment" mandates, like maternity coverage on every policy (boy's too). The list requires payment for routine and regularly occuring office visits. REMOVE them, let people "customize" their own catastrophic plans and guess what? Health insurance would not be as expensive.
Lost in all the analysis is one question: What section of the constitution authorizes the congress to take money (property) from one American to serve the needs/wants/desires of another? Seems there was a little struggle in the early 1860's about this very issue.

Appleby| 8.10.09 @ 9:50AM

For those who wish to emulate Canada's health care system (and do we notice any Americans rushing up here for treatment?) I suggest you google eHealth and read about the open, blatant fraud, waste and cronyism in the program to convert our medical records to electronic records -- and note that not one iota of progress on the original mission was ever made.

Don L| 8.10.09 @ 10:14AM

Those who haven't awoken to the agenda of death that is occurring from the "culture of death" party, are like the King of Revolutionary France shouting "Seize that man" as he is led up the steps to the guillotine - they be slow learners!

Those, that naively think they will still have their own doctors, will be a bit surprised when the government hack that they are forced to meet with, the one with a deathascope around his neck, will wake up about the same time as that King of France - when they hear the blade falling.

Don L| 8.10.09 @ 10:16AM

"What section of the constitution authorizes the congress to take money (property) from one American to serve the needs/wants/desires of another? "

You apparently missed that neat little Supreme Court decision called Kelo?

Did you really think that Commandment about not being envious or coveting was in play? The state is the new god!

2Anglico| 8.10.09 @ 10:58AM

Don L: Yeah, I forgot about the "emanations and pneumbras" wafting around the Supreme Court.

Art| 8.10.09 @ 11:19AM

Peter,
(1) the roughly 38 million "optional" uninsured you describe are already costing us more through way overpriced ER services than they would through insured regular care. We pay the bill through inflated costs. And since they don't get regular preventive care, we get the 'big' hits on their serious health failures at inflated prices in the ER.
(2) There IS a lot of talk about tort reform - but fact is malpractice costs are under one percent of the med costs, not the big picture.
(3) Private insurers will survive, through more creative services. And if the system went to single-payer, it would only be basic costs, like Medicare. The privates would provide supplemental for those who want more, and they would find a thousand ways to thrive. Meanwhile, all of those employers who complain they can't compete with overseas manufacturers because of their benefit costs would finally have that level playing field they claim they want. That overseas competition supports gov-run health care.

Paul from SA| 8.10.09 @ 11:34AM

The Democrats want to provide free health insurance for approx. 50 million people. If I had free insurance, I would visit my doctor once a month, heck I might even go every week. I might just get so sick I would need to set up free room and board with my own personal nurse -- a young female please. Of course that will drive up the costs for everybody who is able to pay.

Next year, the number of people suddenly qualifying for free insurance will increase to 60 million further driving up costs... and then increase 10 million every year, until everyone eventually qualifies for free insurance.

Art| 8.10.09 @ 11:41AM

Paul, no one goes to the doctor for fun, not even Republicans . Even with great insurance most of us are more likely to skip our "regular" checkups than show up, and most will hold off on getting treated until they realize they aren't beating whatever bug they are fighting on their own. It's human nature. The "moral hazard" argument doesn't work here.

Allan| 8.10.09 @ 12:08PM

Might be time for everyone to exercise their "Roe v. Wade" privacy rights and refuse and forbid their medical records to be shared.
It is folly to believe you can create a workable outcome plan based on the treatment of individuals that respond differently to the same treatments.
Healthcare insurance is a state issue and that's where the modest reforms necessary at this time should be addressed.

Art| 8.10.09 @ 12:12PM

Peter, one other thing. Why does no one ask how many of the 70% so-called 'satisfied with their health care insurance' are ALREADY on gov't-provided health insurance (Gov't employees, Vets, Medicare, etc.) and of the remainder, how many are confident that they don't have to worry about losing their job and health insurance in the not-too-distant future? Why do I think that 70% would do an incredible shrinking act?

TLM| 8.10.09 @ 12:27PM

Art: Wow. With the way you experience the world, the government SHOULD be involved in our healthcare. Maybe they could even schedule our annual physicals, be there to hold our hands, and give us lollypops for being so brave. Have we been so conditioned to rely on others to care for us that we can not even take care of our own personal health? I, for one, have not. I see my doctor once a year for a general physical and blood test. I also go to the dentist, dermatologist, and ophthalmologist yearly. But, I have not had insurance for 10 of the past 12 years. I personally pay for all of the services and tests (usually at a discount since I am "self pay:). Maybe if we were ultimately responsible for our own health (ie. not relying on the Gov or an employer) and did not have the safety net of insurance, we would be more preventive instead of reactive. The Gov has drowned the liberties of Americans for the past century. It is time we weened ourselves of its control.

Dustoff| 8.10.09 @ 12:29PM

Everyone, get a look at this mess. If you think they can pull this trick on us and get away with it, what do you think they will do to our health care.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Diving and snorkeling at Australia's Great Barrier Reef, watching New Year's fireworks in New Zealand, and sleeping in a luxury Hawaiian hotel is the vacation of a lifetime — unless you're a member of Congress. Then it's a fact-finding mission to study climate change.

Ten lawmakers — six Democrats and four Republicans — spent 11 days on an international junket in some of the most breathtaking spots on Earth. Then they stuck taxpayers with the $500,000-plus bill.

According to the Wall Street Journal, six spouses also made the journey at the end of 2007, and their expenses for lodging and travel also came out of taxpayers' pockets.

“The trip we made was more valuable than 100 hearings," Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., told the Journal. “Are there members of Congress who take trips somewhat recreationally? Perhaps. Is this what this trip was about? Absolutely not.”

Foo| 8.10.09 @ 12:43PM

This post is excellent and contains no untruths or faulty logic at all.

Art| 8.10.09 @ 12:44PM

TLM, Great! We're proud of you, and sounds like you can afford to keep on paying for your own care, and that's terrific. I'm doing ok too! But we'll have to hope you don't face bankruptcy in the near future or we'll be paying for you when the old ticker starts to suffer from the stress and you show up at the ER. And those millions and millions of 'employed' folks out there who are losing their insurance with their jobs probably aren't as fortunate as you. Maybe they'll lost their houses, too, or maybe they've never been fortunate enough to HAVE their own house, not quite able to get into the market, but hey, the big thing is YOU are OK!

Allan| 8.10.09 @ 12:44PM

Dustoff,

They should have skipped the Great Barrier Reef. Even the Australian media admitted the death and so-called bleaching of the reef turned out to be a global warming hoax. The reef is fine - no climate change data to be gleaned there.
Maybe congress ought to visit constituents instead.

Bill Pearce| 8.10.09 @ 1:05PM

Did anybody catch Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, statement on the health care protests over the weekend. The quote I found is “.....To demonize citizens who are energetic about this strikes me as demonstrating a kind of weakness in your (Democratic) position.”
I am still amazed at the brilliance of the leadership of the Republican Party. With such statements is it any surprise the Republican Leadership is watching the conservative base recede over the horizon. I doubt the Republican Leadership has the guts or ability to get in front of the troops in the health care debate. The really bad news is the Republican Party is the best hope of the conservatives in stopping Obama-care.

TLM| 8.10.09 @ 1:58PM

Art, you missed my point. It is about being responsible for oneself, on all levels, and not relying on other members of society to coddle and protect you. People losing their insurance with their jobs? Why are the two connected? Insure yourself, free up the expense to the employer, and stay covered no matter if you are fired or quit. What a novel idea!

Marianne| 8.10.09 @ 2:00PM

The Obama healthcare will deny medicine and procedures to the elderly and the infirm and give it to millions of illegal immigrants

Art| 8.10.09 @ 2:51PM

TLM -- I would have said that you are missing mine (my point). The point is that there are very few of our 300 million-plus population who can afford the cost of any serious health care at today's prices, not to mention tomorrow's. Check-ups, sure. Dental cleaning, ok. Not heart care, not cancer treatments, not any of a long list of major health complications that involve hospitals and will come no matter how religiously you get your check-ups and do your exercise.

My point is that this isn't just about you and me. It's about the really vast majority of folks who would be left behind by your approach. The Republicans like to say that those folks can just go to the ER for treatment, but the fact is that ERs are overloaded and probably cost several orders of magnitude over what it would cost to give basic health care through the government. They won't eat those costs, they pass them along to those of us who pay for our care, insured or not.

Nothing wrong with your philosophy if you are willing to ignore the plight of others, or blame them all for their own misfortune. I can't and won't. No one can make you want to take responsibilty for the fate of others -- it's your decision. But the thing about democracy is that voters are supposed to make decisions informed by fact, not based on the kind of scare garbage that the right has been pushing on health care. And the final result should be a result of informed decisions.

If the right was being honest - if there weren't all of these annoying little facts left out and huge lies layered into their "information" attempts - I would never have posted. I'm fine with going with an informed majority decision, because I believe in democracy. But I believe in feeding it with honesty, and there's precious little of that going on. Disinformation NEVER serves democracy.

marie3548| 8.10.09 @ 3:39PM

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2009/08/09/lets-talk-astroturf/
Recent Posts Log in Sign Up Let’s Talk Astroturf

Posted by Caleb Howe (Profile)

Sunday, August 9th at 4:45PM EDT

65 Comments
So I received an email/comment this morning about a craigslist ad soliciting health care activism for money. “Activism for money,” I thought!! Was this it at last? The missing link Democrats have been searching for? Obamacare opponents turning up at town halls really are a mob?

We really are nothing but a slew of paid hacks drummed up by the promise of easy cash by cynical Obamacare opponents to create an artificial appearance of opposition?!?

Ummmm, no. (click for full size)

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/files/2009/08/reform-for-hire1.jpg
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2009/08/09/lets-talk-astroturf/
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/files/2009/08/reform-for-hire1.jpg

Marc Jeric| 8.10.09 @ 4:37PM

One of the main complaints against private health insurance companies is that they will not accept new customers with prior conditions of serious sickness. Well, let us see:
A fellow works 30 years without health insurance with no trouble; thus he has "saved" about $90,000 over that time - well, much more than that if he bought tax-free municipal bonds; then, after 30 years he would have a capital of about $200,000, all of it "saved" by his not paying for health insurance. Better yet - let him invest this stream of $3,000/year in the stock market index - at the end of 30 years the value of those "savings" would approach one million dollars! And I don't care if the bastard drank it all up in bars - it is still $1,000,000! Then suddenly he develops cancer and wants to insure himself; if the company accepts him this will increase the rates of other insured customers. Better the company does not dare to inflict the costs of that irresponsible goon on me and my family; I have been paying that insurance for years and I do not want to pay his costs now!

2Anglico| 8.10.09 @ 4:45PM

If my "healthcare" does NOT pay for sex change operations and Art's does, whose plan costs more?
If I, being a boy, don't want maternity coverage but Art does, whose plan costs more. If my plan does not cover hair plugs, ala Joe Biden, and Art's does, which plan is more expensive? Recognise a pattern here? GOVERNMENT mandates (only a few were mentioned- I could write for days on the subject) and unseen regulations are the CAUSE of expensive "health insurance".
Oh, and when these poor people who cannot "afford" health insurance give up their cell phones, cigarettes, Rolling Stone subscriptions, ipods, plasma TV's, cable or satellite..... then and only then will I begin to believe there is an "affordability" problem.
34 million Americans on Food Stamps.... very close to the "uninsured" number.

Peter McGrath| 8.10.09 @ 4:45PM

Art's point is:
"... this isn't just about you and me. It's about the really vast majority of folks who would be left behind by your approach."

The simple response is that health care is an individual responsibility. Taking responsibility for one's health, and paying for insurance to deal with unexpected contingencies, is a personal - and can never be a collective - responsibility. A "right" to healthcare is a "tax" on those paying for it.

It is the fact of collectivized responsibilithy for health care that has driven insurance premiums THROUGH THE ROOF. Government mandates, government meddling, government subsidization, in the health care and health insurance markets, have resulted in massive fraud and waste. Just look at the dolts and poltroons populating the SEIU and imagine them in charge of a healthcare bureaucracy and your healthcare decisions.

(As an aside, how in God's good name were government workers allowed to unionize in the first place?)

Couple the inherent inefficiencies of a government driven health care market with massive costs incurred by providers in ensuring (and insuring) against malpractice / tort claims, and you get a system with escalating costs that drives a wedge between provider and patient, firmly placing private adjusters and government bureaucrats in between.

Let's get the government OUT of health care and health insurance. Let's allow consumers to contract for the coverage they want, and stop allowing government to mandate coverages.

Employers, similarly, should simply get out of providing health insurance. Each individual should pay for their own chosen coverage using tax exempt income to pay premiums.

Tort reform is essential to this solution, capping non-economic losses at $100k or so.

If there are poor folks who simply cannot afford basic, high deductible, coverage, then (and only then) should the government get involved in providing subsidized coverage for certain pre-approved insurance plans. Those folks, unfortunately, will get what they pay for (crummy coverage) but - then at least - they'll have coverage.

Folks who decline the help and get injured will get the invoice from the E.R. But then, with a government bureaucracy out of the private health insurance market, the entire system will be better able to deal with the problem.

Allowing government to run the show is a preposterous idea. What it has run so far (Medicare, Medicaid) has been run into the ground, dragging the private health care market with it.

The lousy, stinking government broke the system and can never be trusted to fix it.

2Anglico| 8.10.09 @ 4:51PM

Marc Jeric: Very good point! Your unique solution could be applied to Retirement Income as well. How novel... providing for oneself. If someone does not and the claim is made "Society must take care of him!!!', that is not our fault it is SOCIALISM's fault.

ben| 8.10.09 @ 4:59PM

Art - you miss the point.
If gov't has an interest in our health care costs, they also have an interest in evey lifestyle choice that influences those costs.
We've demonized Smokers for years, taxed them and hid them from view, now were working on the Obese. LA has banned any new fast food restaurants, New York is taxing "unhealthy" foods, the fed wants to issue a 10 cent/can soda tax. When you give the gov't control over your health care, you give the gov't control of your health and every personal choice that pertains to your health.
You seem to have a lot of empathy for those without Health Insurance. So put your money where your mouth is. Go find one of those uninsured and pay their premiums for them. If the 60 million+ Obama supporters would do this we'd not only have all 47 million covered but a surplus as well.
"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." -Leo Tolstoy
You are supporting a policy that you beleive is right but does not pertain to only you, it instead forces everyone else to conform to your beliefs as well. You can spread your own wealth around if you beleive in it, but you have NO RIGHT to force my decisions or take my freedom away.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, NEITHER RESTRAINING NOR AIDING them in their pursuits." – Thomas Jefferson

J.C.Eaton| 8.10.09 @ 4:59PM

Art, seems to me you inhabit a world where we"re all responsible for the w ell-being of everyone. Someone, for whatever reason lacks health insurance, so Art says: round up those recalcitrant taxpayers and by force of law--put another bite on "em. Art, why don't you just unlimber the old wallet and give more of YOUR own money to the government? Just donate...and then your self-congratulatory sanctimoniousness will have some actual heft. You compassion monopolists with other people's money make me chuck.

Len| 8.10.09 @ 5:00PM

Great Art, so now the purpose of government is not to protect our rights of life, liberty and property/fruit of labor, but to rewrite reality and by force of will(and a lot of legislation) make everything magically okay.
Government has no authority to dictate moral good, only restrain from harm, otherwise government is God and we are it's servants/slaves. Government has no right to take of one persons wealth and give it to another for their benefit.
Let's take a for instance; someone who is making 50, 000 a year comes down with a sickness requiring treatment costing 100, 000, and then multiply this over many times. Where is the difference made up? It's not. Now you might say this is hard hearted, but this is because
1)You look to government as God and the righter of all wrongs, even the "wrongs" of nature. The truth is man is corrupt(moral/spiritual), as is nature(physical) and without something outside of them the wrongs cannot be corrected. Also, as part of your government is God you establish the premise of a false dilemma that if government doesn't help man, man will not be helped. Much of this due to your likely individualistic approach to life, which oddly is contradictory to your one for all, and all for one approach in this matter. By individualistic, I mean that unlike others who choose not just family, but congregation and the ties established there, or even a true community where the people know each other and choose to associate together for a defined purpose, you are for every man doing what is right in their eye(s) without ties or accountability to others. You cannot then have these same people have one way accountability or benefits going to them.
2) You willingly ignore the injustice in making one person responsible to provide for another without reciprocating binds. We are all human is not enough, particularly when one human might be working to accomplish something at odds with the well being of others. There are various levels of binding agreements, such as covenant, legal, common community, such as church. These are all(except for family) voluntarily entered into. Society, merely being people living in a common physical area is not enough, PARTICULARLY when a central government imposes a uniform way of life and the choice of establishing an identity is taken away.
3) Which brings me to this point, we are not a democracy(except by force, but not by law), we are a confederated republic. TO be a democracy we would have to be one nation, but we are 50 nations joined together for strength in defense and commerce, and to benefit each other through the harmony that results in common law in our external functions. You have no right to have the federal government makes demands of a citizen or state to benefit the citizen or citizens of another state. There is certainly no power granted under the US constitution.

Richard Baker| 8.10.09 @ 5:13PM

Dictators and their dictatorial schemes deserve, hell, demand disrespect. The Kenyan thinks that he is the tribal chieftain who says "Let it be written, let it be done". Nuts to that.

Dai Alanye| 8.10.09 @ 5:38PM

Hopey-changey saps like Art always assume that THE GOVERNMENT will live up to every bit of wishful thinking our legislators prescribe. In fact, no large government program has every worked efficiently, nor ever will.

What wise men want is a medical system with less not more government interference, and a greater emphasis on individual responsibility.

Paul from SA| 8.10.09 @ 5:42PM

Art,
You're missing the point: demand for medical care by the freeloaders will immediately exceed supply. It will lead to access controls, cost controls and rationing.

Eventually everybody (except the ultra-wealthy) will be induced, by excessive costs, into the free public plan. If you provide something for free, by meeting certain qualifications, people will change their lives to meet those qualifications.

I don't believe the gov't should be involved whatsoever in healthcare, except for our armed forces. No medicare, no medicaid, not even welfare or social security. Gov't involvement and intrusion is responsible for ruining our healthcare delivery system. I believe healthcare and insurance would be much cheaper and of higher quality without the gov't.

Paul from SA| 8.10.09 @ 5:49PM

Healthcare is not a right, like the right to free speech.

Though the gov't is not allowed to prevent you from purchasing healthcare nor is the gov't allowed to prevent a hospital from providing you healthcare. Ditto for insurance.

You have the freedom to provide healthcare to whomever you want. Go for it.

ben| 8.10.09 @ 5:53PM

This collectivist health care policy can't possibly save money.
Under the proposed collectivist system we all help each other pay for our health care. So every time you need a script you pay less because everyone else helps you pay. Conversely you also help everyone else pay for theirs. There are 3.2 billion prescriptions written every year in the US. If you paid 1/10 of one cent for every prescription written - it would cost you $320,000,000/year.
1/100 of one cent = $32,000,000
1/1000 of one cent = $3,200,000
1/10,000 of one cent = $320,000
1/100,000 of one cent = $32,000
1/1,000,000 of one cent = $3,200
1/10,000,000 of one cent = $320
1/10,000,000 of one cent means that 10 million people combine to pay 1 cent of the cost of the script. With 217 million people over 18 helping you pay for your scripts at 1/10,000,000 of one cent each, your savings would be about 28 cents per prescription, but your helping others would cost $320/year. Is it worth it?

ben| 8.10.09 @ 6:06PM

I messed up on the math - forgot to conver the cents into dollars - move the decimals 2 spots to the left for every dollar amount to figure out the true costs. Still, paying $3.20/year to save $.28 on every one of your scripts ends up costing the average person more than they otherwise would pay.

Sue| 8.10.09 @ 11:05PM

To Art and Peter: The bill, which can be found at www.opencongress.org/bill/111.h3200/text, allows for "preventive" care; not major castastropic care. The Health Commissioner gets to decide what "best practices" will be paid for by the government. This position is a political appointment by the president and answers to no one but the president.

The Health Benefits Advisory Committee will be comprised of 26 persons plus the Surgeon General and they will decide the covered benefits for the government and private policies - grouping the policies as essential, enhanced, and premium plans. 9 members appointed by the president 9 (non-federal employees) 9 members appointed by the Comptroller General and 8 Federal employees and officers appointed by the president, plus the Surgeon General, appointed by the president. As the bill is written now, wellness care is priority.

To Peter: there is absolutely no reason to have tort reform as with single payer the government is a bottomless pit of class action lawsuits. Why would Obama care to tick off the lawyers?

There is no right of appeal to any of the committee decisions - at least not that I saw. There was no directives written about how the judiciary would be involved in legal matters. I did see where the insurance companies could appeal certain fines, etc., but nothing about the individual.

There is so much wrong with this bill and it is so socialist and anti-American in its makings that it sickens me to even write about it.

There are fees (taxes) imposed on private plans and health savings accounts. These fees are to fund the cost effectiveness committee which will decide procedures and best practices for the entire health care system. So, not only do we get health care decisions which may lead to rationing, we get to pay for it too.

There is specific information on how the government will allow first the small companies and single individuals/couples to enter the "public plan," then entry of the health savings account holders, and finally, towards the end of five years (also when the legality of the HSAs expires) entry of the larger corporations).

There is the section on how the policies currently in existence will be grandfathered in, but new policies will be subject to "pricing controls" and expense/payout ratios that will be established by the government committees and when an insurance company is found to be in violation, the amounts have to be rebated back to the consumer.
So, in effect, this will eliminate the reserve accounting mechanisms since the grandfathered in policies will be depleted over time because no new business will be added to the existing reserves; and the new business will be price controlled and profits controlled by the government.

In effect, the insurance companies will become "servicers for a fee" of the public-run government plan. I guess this is why the boards/officers, etc. pretty much rolled over for the Congress. Their companies will be remade into "mortage like" servicing companies. I don't see how they can stay in business as the type of businesses they are today.

If the government mandates/controls the types of plans, what the plans will cover, the cost of the plans, and the "profits" to be made, why will we need insurance companies?

Another section of this bill deals with the complete remaking of America as we used to know it. $1,000,000,000 will be spent for "diversity training" and "certification" for persons of a specific race, gender, and ethnicity. The health care educators will be required to meet diversity outcomes or be fined or shut down. This is how Obama will get his "union" friends jobs in the quaisi-government sector. Since ASFCME (the government union employees) and SEIU will be controlling the "jobs" they will also be controlling the purse strings of our health care dollars.

So, when you ask yourself about government run health care and you think you'll be better off, you better ask yourself if you believe that a union shop produces better goods and services than a non-union shop, because union shops is all that we're going to have when this passes.

There will be demands made against our taxpayers dollars like you've never seen before and these demands will not hold a candle to the pork-spending of Congress.

Sue| 8.10.09 @ 11:11PM

There is budgeted also $100,000,000 to fight fraud and abuse. I think the fraud and abuse is right before our very eyes, but the government is not interested in fighting it - they're interested in encouraging it.

They have also budgeting "reserve" or "stake" amounts into the trillions of dollars which will provide a starting point for expense outlays.

Think about the establishment of social security - the person turning 65 years old started collecting right away with no money paid into the pot - so the funding for SS has always been behind the eight-ball so to speak.

Health care will be the same way, unless they (the government) takes over the insurance company reserves.

V.DeMarco| 8.11.09 @ 12:51PM

The passage or failure of this legislation will define the IQ of the American voters.I feel sorry for anyone who thinks a group of 26 political hacks should decide what type of health care either they or their family should receive.

V.DeMarco| 8.11.09 @ 12:59PM

The passage or failure of this legislation will define the IQ of the American voters.I feel sorry for anyone who thinks a group of 26 political hacks should decide what type of health care either they or their family should receive.

Mayte| 8.11.09 @ 9:54PM

Tort reform would reduce malpractice costs, which currently keep doctors out of business and cause them to seek employers, such as hospital networks. Malpractice costs make doctors go to different states, causing severe deficiencies in some states, like FL (mainly South FL). Additionally, Tort Reform would prevent defensive medicine --i.e. the ordering of useless super expensive tests out of fear... i.e. the over-use of antibiotics to keep the "customer" happy out of fear... etc... So to the person who said that malpractice costs are about 1% of total healthcare costs is missing it completely. Fear of litigation affects us doctors daily, multiple times per day. Thus inhibiting good sound, cost effective medical practice.

Steve Hansmann| 8.12.09 @ 3:47AM

Conservatives in this country have excelled at providing commentators, like the rotifer-brain who wrote this tripe, who have absolutely no expertise in what they're commenting on. Is there anyone on the right, not a millionaire doctor, or an ignorant fool, who practices medicine? What is wrong with you people? Limbaugh is an expert on children, child-rearing, and education? The thrice-divorced, childless and childish, high-school educated buffoon who refers to schools as screwels should be an embarassment to the right, not a spokesman. But hey, he's your idiot.
Only you guys could make hospice a filthy word. As a sometimes hospice nurse, I hope all you pig-ignorant, cruel, moral-defectives have to end your lives without hospice........enjoy.

Lee| 8.12.09 @ 5:59PM

As a person who spent some 30 odd years in emergency medical services, I do see a problem with the current health care system. Now having said that, I sure do not support a government controlled system as proposed. I have read thru much of the 1,000+ pages of HR 3200 and have read many of the little summaries that are floating around via email. At first, I thought these summaries could not be true... but unfortunately they are. Yes, we may need to work on the health care issue in this country but not in the current manner / method proposed...

While I do not have the answers, I do know that this is not the "ANSWER"

What happened to the Constitution?

Dr. Jason Campagna| 8.16.09 @ 3:48AM

I applaud Mr. Hannaford's writing and his cogent arguments. Mr. Obama may mean well, but his policies as articulated and planned are a trojan horse of sorts for very concerning things. Light, as a supreme court justice once said, is the best disinfectant.

جلسات| 12.17.09 @ 11:22PM

Good

توبيكات| 12.17.09 @ 11:23PM

thanks

liyang| 4.26.10 @ 5:29AM

　You are what you eat, or so the saying goes. But a new generation of molecular biologists is starting to give that old adage a decidedly high-tech twist.
http://www.udtek.com/dell_Car-.....2a_41.html

دردشة يمنية| 6.10.11 @ 3:13AM

Goood

شات سعودي| 6.12.11 @ 2:21AM

vere nice

سوريا| 6.21.11 @ 8:09PM

Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
http://www.xn----ymcbk0bld8nta.com
This website is for travel to Malaysia
http://www.xn----ymcbk0bld8nta.com
this site for songs