The American Spectator

Coolrepublica| 8.18.09 @ 7:21AM

I am no fan of Obama and I think that the health bills have a lot of problem, but I am no fanof people who want to keep spending state dollars to prolong life that should no longer be prolonged . We all have to die. but too many people want to live for the sake of living on my dime. As a cancer patient and someone who lost her mother to lung cancer I think people have to learn how to let go. Barbara was not going to be save by that drug. She wanted the state to pay for a drug that would have let her suffer just a little bit longer. that kind of attidute is cripling Medicare. Too many 80 year old who think 80 is the new 50. They are terminal but want to keep living on life support for as long as the govrnment is paying. Rubbish. If you are terminal let go. And if living 3 more weeks is that important to you than sell your house and pay for the care you want. Barbara could sold her house , used her saving to pay fir the drug, but she only wanted it as ling as someone else was paying. Terminally ill people need care rationing. You can't be saying that the deficit is too much at the same time think we should let program let Medicare get out of hand to prolong life of dying people. Babyboomers are not getting younger. It's got to be one or the other.

Coolrepublica| 8.18.09 @ 7:24AM

Sorry for all the bad spelling my iPhone is the best way to type.

KyMouse| 8.18.09 @ 7:32AM

Coolrepublica, perhaps you would say, "If you are terminal let go. And if living 3 more weeks is that important to you than sell your house and pay for the care you want." I'm not so sure that I would.

Someone in my extended family developed cancer and prepared to let go, after extensive treatment. Suddenly, she found out that she was going to be a grandmother for the first time. She wanted very much to stay alive long enough to see her first grandchild, but died just a few weeks before that happy day. Sometimes, people have a good reason for wanting not to "let go" as soon as you might think they should.

A terminally ill woman in Oregon should sell her house? I've sold several houses in the past four decades, and have found it to be a long, tiring process that takes a great deal of concentration and smarts. Even when the process goes smoothly, the money often isn't available right away.

Three weeks left in life may not seem like much, unless they're yours.

Melvin| 8.18.09 @ 7:43AM

Being born and raised in Oregon before joining the Marine Corps, I observed a radical shift toward the eugenics philosophy of the Left.
Growing up during the sixties, I observed the free love , free sex, free so called spirit of Hippie nirvana who would squat their dingy old yellow school buses on someone else's property and spend the summer running around naked and extolling to the public extolling the virtues of communalism.
The beginning of the end of Oregon is believe it or not Bill Gages and Microsoft. Microsoft became a huge magnet for every left wing nut job from California who desired to leave that state because they had turned it into such a horrid mess that we see today.
Portland Oregon has been turned into the sexual deviant capital of the world that caters to pedophiles, and an openly gay mayor who has been accused of chasing young boys.
Environmentally Oregon has gone off the deep end of sanity. One intrepid idea from one of the transplanted residents was to put diapers on bears to help curb global warming. It was quickly squashed due to the fact that no one wanted to be first to go up to the bear and put the diaper on.
It is not surprising that Oregon would come up with a health plan that would ration care and promote death.
Oregon socially is in a terrible sad state of affairs. It is not the whole State that has jumped off the left wing high dive, conservative Oregonians have been driven to the mountains, and Eastern part of the state to escape the left wing collective hives of feel goodism to live their lives without the constant intrusion of the State.
Oregon's unemployment rate is 12.2% and growing. Looks like the former hippies who traded in their loin cloths for Brooks Brothers suits are not doing so well these days.
Their are those in Oregon and including myself that wishes Bill Gates would take Microsoft overseas and take his parasitic circus freaks with him.

Melvin| 8.18.09 @ 7:48AM

Sorry about my grammar, not enough Starbucks early in the morning. Wait a minute, isn't StarBucks headquartered in the Pacific Northwest? Ahhgggggg, I've been poisoned...the horror, the horror.

JerseyJ| 8.18.09 @ 8:56AM

Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, "We can't cover everything for everyone. "

Frankly this just says it all. It's so incredibly obvious that you wonder how anyone can believe BHO selling his utopia ... no pre-existing conditions problems, no copays, expanded access, coverage for everything.

Tim| 8.18.09 @ 9:01AM

Meanwhile in the UK: The NHS puts down a 22 year old kid:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25816364-401,00.html

TennesseeVolunteer| 8.18.09 @ 9:43AM

We are endowed by the Creator...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Constitution guarantees opportunity, not outcome.. My Mom died two months ago from the vicious infection, C Dificil. If it had been diagnosed correctly when she went to her doctor, it would have probably been a bump in the road. Unfortunately, she went undiagnosed (meaning her doctor treated her diahrrea and not the reason for the diahrrea) and by the time she was diagnosed, she had to be admitted to the ICU. after two months of excellent care, her body gave in to pneuomonia.
She was 87, lived a great life and was loved by many. This was her first hospitilization since cancer surgery 40 something years ago. Medicare paid for most of it, we paid for the rest.
She had the opportunity to go to a Doctor and the doctor missed it.. My Mom LIVED HER LIFE in the freest country man has ever known. She was able to practice her religion without fear, raised her family with love and care and understood the LIBERTY that was possible for her and her children.(My Mom was one of those nuts that would go ring a hand bell on the 4th of July every year..and would make her unwilling kids do it also).
My Mom ended her life happily at a Independent living site paid for by land my Dad bought 40 years ago. She lived a Great Free life with liberties that only a few human beings on this Earth have ever had to enjoy. she pursued her happiness the best she could, raised by a single Mother during the Depression, abandoned by a no good Dad, met a really good man who she shared her life with, raised six kids, buried one and was surrounded by her children and her siblings at her death. she pursued happiness everyday, she didn't always get it but she didn't give up, said a prayer and moved on. My Mom, and my Dad, got everything the Founders wrote about in the constitution that were endowed by the Creator. and when it came time for her to go to the Creator, she was endowed with Eternal life from her Creator.
Ladies and Gentleman, the more personal freedom I have , and am given, the more responsible I am for how I use it. Some type of health help from the state is admirable. Dependence on them to judge how my life should be lived , and ended is not. I want Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness not guaranteed health care, cap and trade, nanny statism, cash for clunkers and a government that wants to make decisions for me. Get the lawyers out of health care, make health care an individual purchase, make people responsible for their day to day health. Let major medical be what is insured. No free health care for illegal aliens, and by the way, no illegal aliens. Have a Fair Tax so everyone has a piece of the responsibility pie and no one can cheat on their taxes by working for cash. Give us the rights endowed by the Creator, and get out of the way.

Ned| 8.18.09 @ 10:20AM

I don't even admit I'm from Oregon anymore... which means I must be from Washington then, which I used to think was worse... with King Zero in charge, it won't matter much longer...

Max| 8.18.09 @ 10:33AM

Washington State also has a "death with dignity" law passed by voters under Initiative 1000 in November 2008.

Neo| 8.18.09 @ 10:47AM

You see, Barbara Wagner had a "Duty to Die"

They might as well add that to the US Constitution, if ObamaCare becomes the law of the land.

coolrepublica| 8.18.09 @ 11:20AM

Neo,

you see this issue is very complex for Republicans it because it is pulling at two extremes. There you said , sarcastically that Barbara had a duty to die and than said that if Obama care becomes law that would be our fate. Well your logic is flawed.

Barbara wanted for the state to pay for her drug to keep her alive and the state said no because the state felt that the result did not justify the cost. So people say that's what life will be like under Obamacare. Taxes are paying for these drugs and the state can't possibly pay for every drug that people think might help them regardless of results. It's not private insurance. Obama wants Obamacare to help people who can't afford healthcare and who might die if they don't get care that we know will save their lives and yet people don't want it. You can't say that we have a duty to pay for drugs for Barbara, but not a duty to provide health care to people who actually are not dying but would die if they don't get care. If think that Barbara should have gotten that drug than you should be for Obamacare. If you're not than you are opposing Obamacare just for the sake of opposing it. Consistency is important.

Truth to Power| 8.18.09 @ 3:47PM

I like gun-toting bible thumpers and know for a fact that you can find them easily in small towns in Texas. The prince of orange can't talk me into liking the perverts that too easily find a home in any big city. He also can't talk me into thinking that there is something very wrong with big cities for making the various perverts so welcome.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.18.09 @ 4:01PM

As long as someone is making a buck death panels are OK?

I know of absolutely no one who believes that. I do know that private beats public religiously (so to speak.) As I was standing in line in the post office the other day I thought...put these folks in charge of my health care! What a great idea!

Bob| 8.18.09 @ 4:22PM

Jeffrey -- the fact is that today there is very little competition among insurance companies. In most states, one or two insurance companies have more than 50% of the market. Furthermore, the differences between plans in one company versus another are extremely small (given the types of plans).

I worked in group health insurance and can tell you that your view of competition in this segment is both untrue and exaggerated. Furthermore, you do not really know what is covered or not until you actually file a claim. Have you ever read the fine print in your health insurance policy? I doubt it.

The solution to this problem is to let people pay for their own doctor's bills if their policy does not cover it. If the insurance policy (or state agency) will not cover it, you can pay for it yourself. After all, in each case you paid premiums that were set with these exclusions. If you didn't want these exclusions, you could have paid for a premium policy. You don't pay the minimum and then expect the maximum. How can a conservative believe such a thing?

You are clearly wrong on this issue. These decisions must be made in either the private or public sectors. If you want more, then pay for it yourself. You seem to have this view that both the state and private insurance companies should pay for everything. I'd expect that from a liberal.

William 5| 8.18.09 @ 4:42PM

Indeed, the post office is a great example of how not to run a company (courtesy of the government)...bad customer service, bad management, etc.

However, in the example used in the article above, there's no way we can assume Ms. Wagner would have had a better experience in the current climate of the public sector. And again, bear with me, I'm not advocating government run health care.

Time and again, insurance companies have to make the exact same decision outlined in the article above, and we've all heard stories of them refusing the risky treatment. We can't assume that open competition would result in a different outcome. Indeed, Ms. Wagner would have to know ahead of time what disease she was going to get, how it would progress, and what forms of experimental treatment would be available, then shop various insurance providers as to their coverage.

That sounds absurd, I know. However, once Ms. Wagner is stricken with something as horrific as cancer, well, she's stuck with the insurance company she's with. Unless she's extremely extremely wealthy. And she's stuck because no insurer is gonna touch someone with a deadly pre-existing condition, unless they pay 'out of this world' premiums, and even then, why would they?

I don't have any answers at the moment, tho I do agree a Nationalized government run health care industry would be, well, not good.

The only other option, given the situation listed in the article, is to be very very wealthy.

I'm workin' on that.

William 5| 8.18.09 @ 4:47PM

by the way, second paragraph of my post above should read "private sector"...as in

"However, in the example used in the article above, there's no way we can assume Ms. Wagner would have had a better experience in the current climate of the PRIVATE sector. "

jr| 8.18.09 @ 5:10PM

Picking on Neo
"Barbara wanted for the state to pay for her drug to keep her alive and the state said no because the state felt that the result did not justify the cost. So people say that's what life will be like under Obamacare. Taxes are paying for these drugs and the state can't possibly pay for every drug that people think might help them regardless of results." Neo, the State has no money! It does not earn money, it takes money away from its inhabitants. It has no money! That is the most stupid conceptual comment that frequently flows from liberals. If the Oregon health care program was founded on the basis of providing health care to everyone, how can any form of health care be denied -- of course, unless the politicians lied, like Obama (several times).

Jeffrey Lord | 8.18.09 @ 5:55PM

Bob...

The point is that government can only screw this up. You don't disagree with that do you?

tailgunner| 8.18.09 @ 6:02PM

Nationalized Healthcare is a DEATH SENTENCE from which there is NO APPEAL.

Britain routinely denies lifesaving treatment to elderly, obese, alcoholic and potentially terminal patients who they decide aren't 'worth the money' to keep them alive.

To add insult to inhumanity, both Britain and Canada have made it a crime to pay for your own care and for a doctor to accept private funds.

That means is the State says 'no', it means NO.

Just shut up and die.

Bob| 8.18.09 @ 6:39PM

Jeffrey... I agree, government does not manage things well because government employees lack incentive. But that was not my point.

You seemed to say -- and correct me if I am wrong -- that Oregon should not have limited what Barbara received. That sounds like a liberal position to me. The fact is that whether a health plan is public or private, there are limitations and the state, or private company, has a right to limit claims based upon the premiums paid (or government payments) and the details of the insurance/health contract. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. In fact, it is a fundamental precept of capitalism.

Therefore, your argument is intellectually weak from that perspective and is more of a political hack job than a principled argument.

I want to lower the cost of health care because we cannot compete as a country with this level of spending. If this spending produced superior results, you could do a cost/benefit analysis, but it doesn't.

If you are a true fiscal conservative, the solution to this lies in letting people make their own decisions about end-of-life matters. If they want to mortgage their home to get more coverage, then it is their decision. In the end, rationing is the only answer. Self-rationing is the only way that will work. Yes, that will mean the poor get worse health care than the rich -- so what else is new?

But it is, again, intellectually weak to say that Barbara should get the expensive drug and any care she wants just because it is a state solution. As taxpayers, we pay the premiums for her coverage and we have a right to limit what she gets.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.18.09 @ 6:44PM

Bob...

"If you are a true fiscal conservative, the solution to this lies in letting people make their own decisions about end-of-life matters. "

We decidedly agree on this. (Smelling salts, please.)

The obvious problem with state involvement is what the state says goes - there is no competition. No way around it. I want the way that gets us to our agreement point above. It surely is not the State with a capital "S"....

I'm open to anything else that gives us choice, lots of it, and reduces costs, which state control will never do...

William 5| 8.18.09 @ 6:46PM

I think Mr. Lord was making the same point I did in my last post. And that is, regardless of public or private sector, it comes down to money.

I shan't make assumptions tho. Take out the righty rhetoric, and that's the gist of the article.

And I think that's a fair enough question for us all to consider.

An insurance company is in business to make money, and if it's not profitable to allow the elderly and infirm to pursue each and every option available to extend life, they're aren't going to allow it to happen. As I also pointed out earlier - the difference between the current system and a gov't run system, is the death panel now wears private sector suits.

This, to me, is the perfect example of two parties who get each side's supporters looking away from the problem and, in the end nothing gets solved.

I want no sympathy from the following - 'tis true tho. My folks, about 10 years ago, were fortunate enough (read, worked hard enough) to retire a few years before 65. Do you know what their individual health care premiums were? Combined, more than my mortgage at the time (roughly $1400).

That, my fellow Americans, is wrong. Just plain wrong.

I don't advocate a gov't run health program, but I also don't wish to work my butt off my entire life only to turn around and give most of it to insurance companies.

Bob| 8.18.09 @ 7:02PM

Jeffrey -- it is a misnomer to assume that there will be much competition in the health care sector. As I said before, I was on the corporate side of this business and most of the requirements are state mandated. The way you get product differentiation is to offer different levels of deductibles and coverages. What you'll find is that for the same coverages, the policy pricing between companies is very close. And if you have a pre-existing condition, you can't move anyway.

Therefore, lack of competition is NOT a good reason to object to a state run health care system. Furthermore, a state run company will probably have a more adverse census and a thus a high claims rate. The argument about buying across state lines is also dumb because each state has different mandated requirements and different experience levels. Eventually, the low cost states will rise in price and the high cost states will lower in price and you won't have virtually any price differentiation.

My position is not based on competition, but on capitalistic rationing as rationing is the real problem here. You pay for a policy and you get certain benefits in the contract. You file a claim and if it is not approved, you can choose to pay for it out of your own pocket.

That's the issue I had with your blog. Barbara was not entitled to unlimited health care and thus what the Oregon did was just fine. Now if you don't agree with that, then, in fact, you are saying that health care is a right and not a privilege. If that is what you believe, then a single-payer national plan is the answer. Right?

Davod| 8.18.09 @ 7:06PM

The State of Texas allows a hospital to pull the plug on terminally ill patients as a cost issue. Signed into law by Governor George Bush.

I am surprised I have not seen at the town hall meetings relatives of people who have died as a result of Health Insurance Companies.

I do think this will happen, but en masse as part of the final push for nationalized health insurance. I would imagine we will also start seeing replays of all the 60 Minutes health exposes (Well, the private company exposes).

You do know what i s covered under your policy. You have to read it though. Allthough, this is a reason why Employer Based insurance is good for the patient. Your employer is in a far better position to discuss problems with a Health Insurance company. By the same token, would you really like something like a quasi government agency to be working on something you need an answer for now.

As far as reduced pricing is concerned.
A government public option or a co-op with government funding or favourable treatment under the law is not competition. It is coercion.

The government should allow for small busisness and other groups to group together to obtain insurance.

As far as the flat tax goes. This sounds great in principle but there are flaws. The major flaw being that it removes the individual from the tax process. The tax is not linked to me so whyshould I care if it goes up. Second flaw is linked to the first - it is much easier politically to increase an unlinked tax. Just look at state sales taxes.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.18.09 @ 7:11PM

Bob...

"If that is what you believe, then a single-payer national plan is the answer. "

Not! And not again! Let me get personal for a moment. Mom is newly 90...OK...But 90. Insured. Hell will freeze over before any state entity is saying they will withhold care. I - and I alone - will be making that decision. And as for you Bob....if I have to be the last guy standing that stands up for Bob's right to exit this existence on his own terms...trust me buddy...I will be there.

I might want to challenge you on a few last minute issues, though....Wherever you are headed I want you to be thinking!

William 5| 8.18.09 @ 7:13PM

This is a very good discussion - why can't the politicians have it? And why can't we drop the liberal vs. conservative rhetorical rubbish that goes with it?

It all comes down to cost. On the public side, the taxpayers aren't going to pony up to extend everyone's life, and on the private side, share-holders aren't going to pony up to extend everyone's life.

Hmmmmm....

Bob| 8.18.09 @ 7:20PM

Jeffrey -- you've again skirted the issue. I will fight for your right to make your Mom's decisions -- that's not the issue. My point is that if you want to keep her alive on machines for the next 10 years, YOU should pay for it -- not insurance and not the state. It is YOUR decision and YOUR responsibility to pay for that decision.

Again, if you think the government, or your insurance should pay for YOUR decision, then you do believe that health care is a right, not a privilege.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.18.09 @ 7:31PM

William 5...

There is nothing in life that is not "rationed"....

The problem here, as humanity has learned over and over and over and over again, is that when you remove individual choice - consumer choice - you run into huge trouble. There's only X amount of bananas available. You love them. I hate 'em. Bob likes them only on Tuesdays in June. Leave it be. Do NOT set up the Federal Bureau of Banana Distribution on the premise that bananas are good for everyone, the banana lobby kicked in five grand to your guy's campaign, and that the Bureau of Bananas employs people to hand out bananas.

These arguments are very old. There is nothing new. What we have here is just the latest generation of Americans learning this old human history lesson all over again. As a Reaganite, I would remind that Ronald Reagan was once a "hemophiliac liberal" in his phrase (or close to it.) He went through his own process of coming to the same conclusion that has now been demonstrated endlessly. You may not like gravity. You may be upset that Newton is a dead white guy. Please: don't jump off the Empire State Building without a parachute. White he may have been. Dead he may still be hundreds of years later. But Newton was right about gravity. I simplify here, but hopefully you take the point.

Have a beer with Barack? Sure! Does he get this? No. He wants to re-invent gravity. Can't be done. He's not alone, either. Hence this site!

davod| 8.18.09 @ 7:33PM

If you are terminal let go! Let me here you say this if you ever get diagnosed as terminal.

I have a close friend who is in his mid 80s. A couple of years ago cancer was discovered. After some normal cancer treatment he started treatment with a group of doctors who use medications approved by the FDA but not for the dosage used nor for the treatment of cancer. These medications slowed down the rate of growth. The medications cost thousand of dollars a month. His insurance company covered most of the pills.

He has already outlived the 12 month average lifespan for those with his type of cancer.

I doubt if Oregon would have covered the alternative treatment nor would the new public or co-op options.

What value do you put on life?

William 5| 8.18.09 @ 7:43PM

Mr. Lord, don't bring science into this (Newton) you'll get the Creationists in a tizzy.

I think you have more faith in the corporate sector than I do.

I believe, that as much as government run health care would kill me (due to the fact that my doctor would leave my life-saving surgery 'cos he ain't workin' a minute past 5p), so would corporate (Mr. 5, we'd give you this blue pill, but you're a broke bastard, and frankly, our earnings statement this quarter is looking pretty good).

Surely, we have to come up with something - you mentioned your Mum - if she's on an individual health insurance premium, then dadgum, how do I get a gig at AmSpec, 'cos you gotta be loaded. As I said in a previous post, my folks were paying more monthly for individual health insurance (this without pre-existing conditions), than I was for my monthly mortgage payment.

That ain't right.

Big J| 8.18.09 @ 7:53PM

Mr. Lord:

'Tis a fools errand to attempt to reason with Bob (hereafter to be called Sybil).

"Jeffrey -- you've again skirted the issue. I will fight for your right to make your Mom's decisions -- that's not the issue. My point is that if you want to keep her alive on machines for the next 10 years, YOU should pay for it -- not insurance and not the state. It is YOUR decision and YOUR responsibility to pay for that decision.

Again, if you think the government, or your insurance should pay for YOUR decision, then you do believe that health care is a right, not a privilege."

None of the above makes sense. Not one bit of it.

I am Bob. I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.

Snort!

By the way, Sybil: Why do you think that insurance companies even exist? I'll tell you what I think: At some point, an American citizen decided that they might be able to make a profit by opening a company that would receive monthly payments, and in turn, pay someone else's doctor bills. Hopefully, the healthy would out-weigh the sick. Only in America, right Bob?

Next thing you know, Big Brother comes in and starts dictating what the company covers, when, where and how. Oddly enough (much like cap and trade will accomplish with energy prices), the above-mentioned American citizen had to increase the monthly price.

Tough luck, that pesky free market, right Sybil?

I am convinced that you are well educated, but you have absolutely no sense whatsoever.

In fact, I think if you truly had a brain, you would take it out twice a day and play with it.

(Sorry all, but I couldn't resist. I've been thinking it for months and finally had to say it)

Go back to your macro / micro economics, Bob. This is adult business and you are well out of your league.

;)

Jeffrey Lord| 8.18.09 @ 8:19PM

William 5..

"I think you have more faith in the corporate sector than I do. "

No, I have a belief that human beings are fallible no matter what they do. Like the Founding Fathers, I believe in dispersing power because humans are capable of abusing that power. Corporations, the private sector, by definition have competition - the more the better. Government has no competition. Which is why every White House has problems with arrogance....every government. You give government officials - bureaucrats - lifetime jobs and no accountability and presto if you are flying a plane and a helicopter over the heavily trafficked Hudson River, well - you're dead. The controller was on the phone with his squeeze and the other guy was on a break. Sorry. This is endemic to government...it is its very nature, even with good, well intentioned people. Putting this attitude in charge of your life in terms of health care? Uh-uh.

William 5| 8.18.09 @ 8:37PM

Fair enough, Mr. Lord, well played. I'm not sure free-market health insurance (across state lines) will have the desired affect. I'm quite certain the Feds ain't gonna run it to improvement (both parties have proven themselves to be philanderin', corrupt knuckleheads). Maybe having more elderly folks in the market place (blue collar gigs and their pensions are about to become completely extinct) will bring prices down.

All I know is - $800 a month for health insurance, when you're healthy (even if you are in your early 60s) is rather ridiculous. I'm not sure too many folks can disagree with that.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.18.09 @ 8:42PM

Remember...perfection does not exist. There will always be "horror stories"...bad bananas. I'm for lowering costs...competition....keeping everybody (me too!)...on their toes. The moment X runs all, all is in trouble in some fashion.

Liberal Reader| 8.18.09 @ 9:04PM

This is all well and good, Mr Lord.

But can you point to a single country where free market solutions have been found for medical costs?

The trend in the modern industrialized world is for costs to go up much, much faster than other prices unless they are somehow controlled.

Now, the free market has its beauties.

If I really, really want a BMW, our system allows me many choices: I can work hard, spend less, save, get a better job, and so on. These kinds of choices make life meaningful: one guy gets a BMW, another guy drives a Honda but spends more time fishing. Good for them both.

But how does health care fit into all this? If I want treatment for cancer but can't afford it, is it morally the same thing as wanting a BMW but not being able to afford it?

The ENTIRE free world -- except for the United States -- has said NO, it is not the same thing.

So conservatives shrug and say they're all fascist marxists who enjoy executing old people. France, Sweden, England -- fascist marxists all.

I can't for the life of me figure out when this became a reasonable kind of argument to make, but here we are.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.18.09 @ 9:12PM

LR...

"The ENTIRE free world -- except for the United States -- has said NO, "

Then please explain why the entire free world (so to speak), given a choice, comes here for health care? People - regular folks - answer this with their choices. And foreigners come here if they can....not the reverse.

William 5| 8.18.09 @ 9:23PM

Liberal Reader - you're heading in Bob's direction, and I think it's something to consider. Is health care a right or a privilege?

I think the free-market has brought us the health care advances other countries would never have been able to fathom. But where's the good in that if only a few can afford it?

There must be a common ground, a model no ones' quite yet figured out.

William 5| 8.18.09 @ 9:33PM

Listen to me...I'm hopelessly optimistic...sometimes annoyingly so.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.18.09 @ 9:42PM

William 5...

"Listen to me...I'm hopelessly optimistic..."

Birth of a Reaganite.........

Jeffrey Lord| 8.18.09 @ 9:44PM

William 5..

"But where's the good in that if only a few can afford it? "

Poll after poll shows the vast majority are pleased with their care and don't want a change...The noise comes from the few. Lift the few up, don't drag the many down.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.18.09 @ 9:54PM

Wm5..

Sorry...meant to include a above...

"Is health care a right or a privilege? "

It is not a right. You have a right to free speech, not to own a newspaper. A right to own a gun, not to have the government buy you a gun. A right to vote, not to have your guy win. Etc etc. You have a right to buy whatever health care you want. You have a right to shape the health care system however you think it should be shaped - and so do I. Neither of us has a "right" to health care...Anymore than we have a right to steak and lobster every night...This kind of thinking, respectfully, is where we get in trouble.

Southern Patriot| 8.19.09 @ 2:01AM

So.

Awesome job with grammar there guys. Why does anyone read this rag again?

Spooner| 8.19.09 @ 10:09AM

It is increasing clear that the primary mechanism for reducing health care costs for the dear Obmanian's is controlled death and controlled population growth or decline. By supporting abortions for all, and in particlular by using our tax dollars for abortions for those who have less resources, by supporting "dealth panels' to recommend depravation of treatment for folks with serious lifethreatening illenesses and the elderly, they will remove those who require the greatest resources and reduce the population of "less desirables" leaving more for the elite.

By supporting health care for illegals, they seek a ready supply of less fortunate servants entering the country to perform at their beck and call.

NW Mary| 8.19.09 @ 2:26PM

I'm a bit torn here, while sorry for Grandma Wagner, the Oregon health plan is limited in what it can do for anyone, it has a finite amount of money - I can't be too mad at Oregon for declining payment. The OHP did only what it was designed to do. I think the article somehow painted it as deliberately choosing to kill grandma, but that is not the case. The OHP is an inanimate object, a program designed by politicians and run by bureaucrats whom they appoint (see the recent appointment of Sen. Margaret Carter to newly created position of deputy DHS manager). Their incentive isn't to save the state money or save lives, but create a program that looks good on the outside, provide good press coverage when they go home so they can get elected. And apparently it works, they keep getting sent back over and over again. I don't see the US health care system overhaul as being anything other than political fodder for the next election and bending to those you owe political favors. Clearly somebody owes somebody a lot this time around.

TJK| 8.19.09 @ 8:19PM

A government which is big enough to give you everything can also take it all away. For me, that's where it begins and ends. The government cannot tell us that it's only goal is to reduce costs WHILE at the same time expanding access and benefits. The two are mutually exclusive. And the government which is big enough to squeeze into the private market will eventually swallow the private market. The door cannot be opened even a crack- trying to close it will be like trying to shovel fleas across a barn. And the question no one has asked is, what happens to the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the insurance industry? I didn't hear Obama talk about what he is going to do for the people whose jobs his policies have eliminated. A few million lost with cap and tax, maybe several hundred thousand more lost in the insurance industry. Who speaks for them? Believe me, I know many people in the industry. None of them are villains, immoral, or whatever other epithet the dems try to use to demonize them.

joy| 8.20.09 @ 2:58AM

Nike jordan 19
ESSE Cigarettes

Angel| 8.20.09 @ 5:14PM

"LIFT THE FEW UP, DON'T DRAG THE MANY DOWN." Precisely why I'm a Conservative--I am the eternal optimist.

Kudos to you, Jeff--you are a beautiful writer and a faithful representative of the great Ronald Reagan. A true Conservative has the heart of a rebel.

I love AmSpec!

Barbara| 8.20.09 @ 10:06PM

If this is what is coming, then anyone with a child that has Downs Syndrom or any other severe illness, will soon see that their child will not receive new drug treatments. Why would our drug companies continue with R & D if many drugs are being refused to patients?

Last year, after people cried for cheaper drugs, we had 81 citizens die from drugs made in China...I look for more of these jobs to leave the USA and if there is any research, it too will be done overseas. People should be careful what they wish for, especially when dealing with the government.

As for Medicare, politicians have helped ruin it, just as much as too may committing fraud.

Nov. 2008, in my area flu shots were given...$20 if you were uninsured...free if on Medicare, but they billed Medicare $118 and Medicare paid $118...Medicare doesn't even pay in full to Doctor or hospitals...why did they pay this amt and not the $20?

Also there are unknown facts about Medicare:

Congress prohibits Medicare patients from paying cash to receive treatment denied by Medicare – unless the doctor agrees not to take Medicare payments for two years.

Citizens who refuse to sign up for Medicare Part A (hospitalization) lose all Social Security benefits. Citizens who disenroll must repay benefits received.

Congress is paying Medicare HMOs (Medicare Advantage) 18 percent more per senior than what is paid through traditional Medicare, perhaps to entice seniors to HMOs.
Congress has begun paying Medicare bonuses to doctors who comply with government and HMO treatment directives.
http://www.cchconline.org/issues/medicare.php

Jenny| 8.31.09 @ 12:55AM

The trouble is that you won't be able to BUY IT ELSEWHERE. My son had the "kids care" government healthcare in Arizona. When he needed a "non approved" dental surgery. His dentist was not allowed to sell us the surgery. We would have had to go 300 miles to find a oral surgeon that was not on the plan. WITH OBAMACARE YOU DOCTOR WON'T
ABLE TO SELL YOU UNAPPROVED CARE!

jiner| 9.9.09 @ 9:18AM

If you really want to get the best buy when it comes to Ugg boots and you're anxious to get a sale UGG, you can always order a pair before the snow starts to fall. If you do not want to use the boots when the snow goes, then you can simply store them in your wardrobe for next winter. But if you're determined to get a sale UGG, then you must be alert and quick to give that perfect pair marked down. Here are some tips on how:

- You must always be in search of discount, either with or without connection to the sale by the stores selling UGG products. In this way, you will be able to get ahead of others when it comes to getting your own pair of UGG sale. While this can be stressful and time consuming, just think of the benefits that can be learned to be ever vigilant.

- Beware of auctions or rummage sales in your neighborhood or even on the Internet that have uggs on sale. These auctions are some of the best ways is perfect when you are looking for second hand or pre-loved uggs.

Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 11:27PM

I never buy from outlet, the priceWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
is expensive and I always bought online.

discount laptop accessory| 9.10.09 @ 2:56AM

dc359a power adapterdc359a power adapter
hp pavilion dv4000 ac adapterhp pavilion dv4000 ac adapter