Start the conversation
Comment on This Story
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
In a vote that was held at 1 a.m. Monday, the Senate approved a procedural measure that makes it likely a version of the national healthcare bill will make it into law.
In fact, by taking advantage of an obscure rule that allowed lawmakers to start their day and vote on the measure well before dawn, Senate leaders were able to approve the measure and keep alive the possibility that the healthcare bill will be passed by Christmas.
But if you study the Senate bill carefully – no matter what your political persuasion may be – you have to wonder why they even bothered.
The bill will significantly increase federal healthcare spending – by about $185 billion in 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It will involve a substantial increase in taxes – by about $100 billion in 2019. It will compel everyone to buy healthcare, even the young and healthy, which ought to reduce costs.
But the political classes seem to have brought forth a miracle: According to the CBO, the plan will actually increase healthcare premiums for individuals and small business by an average of 10% to 13% in 2016.
The American healthcare system is already the most expensive in the world, at a total cost of nearly 17% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). After the better part of a year of effort by the Obama administration and Congress, one would have hoped that one result of this healthcare-system makeover would have been a measurable reduction in costs. Instead, this bill increases it. It's only a modest increase, to be sure. But it's still an increase.
There are three cross-subsidies in the U.S. healthcare system, which greatly increase its cost. Cross-subsidies increase costs because when Party A makes Party B provide a service without paying for it, the service is generally lousy and the cost high.
The first cross-subsidy is the provision of free emergency care facilities for the indigent. If Congress wants to make hospitals provide these services, it should pay for them. Under the current system (which was sneaked in through the small print of a 1,000-page reconciliation bill in 1986), hospitals have to provide the expensive facilities to everybody, and don't get reimbursed for the deadbeats. Needless to say, loaded with these extra costs, hospitals do what comes easiest – they unload those costs onto the middle class. That's about $80 billion a year in extra healthcare that we pay either directly or through higher insurance premiums.
Second, the same service gets charged at three completely different rates – depending on who's paying for it. The lowest rate is paid by the government through Medicare/Medicaid. This means doctors hate taking Medicare patients, which is tough for senior citizens who need healthcare. The middle rate is paid by insurance companies, who negotiate and get volume discounts. The highest rate – and we're talking here about three or four times the insurance company rate – is paid by the middle class, by folks who lack health insurance and by those who have been denied coverage (such as for a "pre-existing" condition).
Needless to say, this grotesque pricing system adds hugely to the costs of healthcare, as everybody devotes huge amounts of time, energy and resources to accessing more-attractive payment methods or to offloading low-rent patients.
Third, there's the cost of the trial lawyers. Here we're talking about roughly 1% of GDP in direct costs, and an additional 2% to 3% that gets spent on unnecessary medical procedures that are undertaken to fend those lawyers off.
We don't expect Congress to solve all these problems, even though previous Congresses were in many cases the major cause. But you'd think a huge healthcare bill – like this one – would be viewed as a real opportunity to fix the system, and to make a dent in those costs.
This bill forces everybody to have healthcare. That brings a lot of young healthy people into the pool, which should reduce rates. It forces companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions, thus cutting out a lot of the insurance games that prevent people from having proper healthcare coverage. That should also reduce costs, as well as reducing healthcare bankruptcies. And it sets up a system of health exchanges, which should allow health-insurance policies to be sold across state lines, creating one large market instead of 50 small ones. This, too, should reduce cost.
And yet, according to the CBO, the bill increases healthcare premiums paid by individual people (as distinct from premiums that are paid by companies through group schemes) by 10% to 13% in 2016. That's on top of the aforementioned $185 billion increase in federal healthcare spending and $100 billion in additional taxes that we'll see in 2019. Then there's also the $100 billion in Medicare savings that won't happen because it involved reducing Medicare reimbursement rates still further.
Can't one expect any economic literacy from our Solons?
The one saving grace is that this mess won't come properly into effect until 2014, so two more Congresses will have the chance to sort it out.
If we hold our breath and try really hard to believe in fairy tales, perhaps one of them will do so.
[ Editor's Note : There's a reason Martin Hutchinson is building a reputation as one of the sharpest prognosticators in the investment world today: He can see things that "the system" is trying to hide from individual investors. Today's analysis of the new U.S. healthcare bill is a case in point: Hutchinson sees the costly pitfalls.
But that same vision allows him to spot the top profit opportunities available to individual investors. And Hutchinson scours the globe in search of the "hyper-profitable" investment plays that he recommends for his Permanent Wealth Investor trading service.
Hutchinson's experience as an international investment banker has taken him to major markets such as Great Britain and the United States – and to smaller ones such as Macedonia. Wherever he traveled, Hutchinson found one fact to be the same: No matter the market's size, he was always able to uncover the most profitable investment opportunities.
In a new report, in fact, Hutchinson not only uncovers the very best profit opportunities available today, he guarantees triple-digit gains. To check out this report – and these new investment picks – please click here.]
News and Related Story Links:
- Washington Examiner:
Who's responsible for the Senate's middle-of-the-night vote?
- Congressional Budget Office:
Official Web Site - Wikipedia:
Solon - Medical News Today:
What is Medicare/Medicaid? - MSNBC:
Obama Starts Big Push for Health Care Overhaul
Sadly, this piece of crap will pass and conservatives will never have 60 seats in the Senate to undo any of it. The U.S. standard of living has been reduced forever, and Obama is just getting started. If he gets Cap & Trade, turn out the lights. Actually, you won't have to. Obama will turn out the lights for you.
No matter what happens or who is in office after this bill is passed cannot undo it. That part is already written in the bill. YOU are no longer in the drivers seat. YOUR choices have been taken away. YOU do what they say or you pay fines and worse. Is this America? Land of the free home of the brave?
My friend: Our standard of living (or at least mine), got hammered by Bush/Cheney, So instead of BSing yourself about Obama, take a hard look at what has transpired over the last 8 years of the crappiest administration in the history of the world.
IT SEEMS THE CONSERVITAVES ARE THE DEATH PARTY….THEY DON'T MIND SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON A WAR FOR OIL CAUSING THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN DEATHS BUT THEY DO MIND SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SAVE THE LIVES OF POOR AMERICANS THAT CANNOT AFFORD HEALTHCARE…WHAT A PITY !
Listen, Toeser. Wake Up! Listen Well. Health care will cost $800 billion dollars, but it will save millions of peoples lives. Would you rather spend $894 billion on Health Care for all Americans or spend $894 billion or spend $894 billion on defense spending, that kills our troops. Think about that. Why would you keep health care the way it is? You're one of those people that want to keep there "5 star insurance" (which you WILL KEEP) but not want to allow poor Americans (white or black) to have that "5 star insurance". The bill's defecit neutral and will pay itself by eliminate wastes (not cutting) Medicare, and by taxes on "Cadilaac" insurances.
Martin, Great article, however, I would like to point out that the current majority in Congress (the Democrats) will not allow competition between helthcare providers over state lines. This is one of the points that was in the Republican version of the bill, but which was completely ignored by the majority party. Also, how about tort reform? Well, I guess the Lawyer lobbyists are just too big to ignore. Frankly, this helath care bill could bankrupt the country, as if we aren't there already. Remember all 465 seats are up for re-election in the House of Representatives in November 2010. A little revolution is good now and then. Remember the Boston Tea Party? Send a message to Congress. Vote them all out !!
I find the modern day Congress (Democrat or Republican) to be the most despicable group of individuals this country has ever assembled. As citizens we have the exact government we have asked for. We have allowed this group of individuals and their backers to manipulate us into two camps and the media keep us bickering as to who is right to keep the populist divided. Unless and until we all start demanding accountability for their corrupt actions, we will continue to have one of the most corrupt governments in history. I am with Richard DeBuck, I vote 100% vote against any and all incumbents. In America we do have term limits we just have not used them. United we stand, divided fall; let us unit in complete, total, destruction of corruption in Washington D. C. vote against every incumbent regardless of how good or bad he has represented your interest. It is time that we take back America for the people.
We do need to vote out all Democrats and Republicans. If anyone runs as an independent without BIG MONEY'S backing, I'm for them. The idea that a vote is wasted on an independent is just not logical. I say kick the bums out!!!! Like Tom Bloom says, " The news media tries to keep us divided and not focused on the real issue, which is THEY"RE STEALING OUR TAX DOLLARS AND OUR CHILDRENS TAX DOLLARS. Let's start an Indepent candidate movement with no special interest backing for all new political candidates. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!
I really agree with this sentiment, but not all the incumbents are bad. Look at Ron Paul. He has consistently voted against the people that have made this bill a reality. Also, don't think that all the people who would replace those incumbents would suddenly become immune to the wheeling, dealing, and power-mongering. That said, I think almost all the incumbents must go, as soon as possible.
The House needs a clean sweep (so does the Senate)! The problem is everyone wants the other persons senator/representative to be replaced! Whether you were for health care reform or not, surely the vast majority (MYSELF INCLUDED) was not/is not behind what we know about what they are supporting now, just to get it done!!!!! Their agenda is not why they are there and their defiance needs to be addressed directly . . . !!!!!
As for the current state of the health care industry, it is brokedn and needs to be fixed. Rather, they propose taking on an out of control monster into an unknowing, irresponsible Federal burocracy, with probably yet another cabinet and another thousand federal employees
You can rest assure I will be at the polls casting my Republican vote as I did last election. As for the revolution, if Obama & the democrats succeed in removing our fire arms there wont be much of a 2nd Boston Tea Party.
I hope every one of you that wasted your vote on Obama, get what you deserve
THEY MAY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE, BUT WE ARE ALL IN THE SANE BOAT SO WE TOO WILL GET WHAT WE do not DESERVE
VOTEMALLOUT.COM
Tim, you're a moron. Obama's not socialists. (I know you didn't say that). Get what you deserve, shut up! You're one of those uninformed Republicans! Lot of them out there. Wake up. Don't listen to the media. Research for yourself.
Amen to that brother, vote them out and with no pension
Thanks Martin and Richard for your comments. Just exactly what needs to be done.
Vote every one of them OUT of office, and then see what happens.
YES, the American public does know a lot of this already and is doing what it can to resist being enslaved to this idiocy! These LAME DUCK DEMOCRATS smiling at whom ? ? ? ? ? Who is smiling back ? ? ? ? NOT the American voter !
Thanks for the succinct article on the health care debacle. Among other things, I had not previously seen any specific data on the enormous costs caused by "ambulance chasers."
You say (in the 4th paragraph from the end) that requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is going to reduce costs. But isn't this like requiring an auto insurance company to insure a driver after he has an accident? Forcing companies to cover people who are already sick raises costs in at least two ways. First, it raises costs directly because treatment for pre-existing conditions are very expensive. Second, covering pre-existing conditions conveys moral hazard by further "socializing" costs that should be the responsibility of the individual or his/her family. So how can you say that requiring companies to cover pre-existing condiitons will reduce costs?
My new e-mail bi-line, "you must vote against ALL incumbents" What are these people thinking?
Nutos for sure.
The US has now been pushed totally to the left, and we are no longer a representative republic. In short, the Senators were bribed or cajoled into voting for this bill in spite of what the people want. The only way to start the change is to vote every one of them out of office and start from scratch. We are witnessing Chicago politics as it has never been witnessed before. We will end up with not democracy or a representative republic, we are witnessing the start of a socialist United States. That is not a crazy assertion that is simply recognizing what is actually taking place. Think about it, the government currently directs military, with this bill it will be in charge of the health care system, it currently owns the banks, insurance, and domestic car manufacturers, . What else is next? Think we are not going socialist? Don't doubt it. We have some hope of throwing all or nearly every one of them out of office next November. Be afraid sir, be very afraid.
Has any one heard of this old saying?
“Putting the cart before the horse”.
Everyone seems afraid to address the real problem which is: the health care costs in the USA are 4 times as high as in other countries that have decent health care systems.
When the health care costs are way out of line, insurance plans and insurance providers are secondary issues.
What happens in the real world if a company is not competitive?
Health care should not be commercialized; people should only require health care at the beginning and at the end of life. Mid life health care should be minimized to care of the population who are really sick and in need of care.
Eliminate advertising, minimize non essential health care services, get the costs of hospital visits in line with reality, then the health care insurance discussions can begin.
This is no surprise that they would eventually would get past. Obama is a Marxist Socialist who cares nothing about the U.S dollar, budget or unemployment etc. The best way for him to triumph in his goal is to try to wreck the U.S. economy as quickly as possible. He was not sitting in Rev. Wright's chuch going out to the rest room when Wright preach his hatred for America. Now he is getting his opportunity to do exactly what Wright recommended —-
F— America and damn it. Those who voted for him were reactionary non- thinkers. Those that did not need to vote Republican in 2010 — you also need to get to your congress and Senate representatives during their X-mass break. (The Democrats are praying for snow and lots of itkeep you away) – give hell.
Listen, Gene. You Marxist socialist. You are wrong for all this. President Obama's your president. Treat him like one.
There was a simple slution to your health-care problem, one that most readers pf Money Morning probably refused to even consider: a simple single-payer system like Canada's or a well-thought out mix of public and private as the French, who have the best system in the world (I know because I used it twice while on vacation there). However your media would not even discuss such options despite strong support from US citizens. Instead you still have the most expensive system and one that is incredibly complicated.. but… your insurance industry is doing well and will take in an even greater shatre of the money US citizens spend on healthcare than they did before. A country that can put a man on the moon cannot fix its major problem. Here is a suggestion: outlaw private contributions to political parties and have the taxpayer fund all election expenses. While you are at it, spread the ownership of the television media. You will get government that is more responsive and more responsible.
Someone that actually makes sense.
Thanks for another partisan hack job, Mr. Hutchinson. Glad you got in the obligatory shot at trial lawyers.
The fact is, the current system is unsustainable. The solution before Congress is not perfect, but it is better than doing nothing, which is what conservatives would do if they were in charge.
Actually, the solution isn't better than nothing. It's worse than nothing. It's going to increase costs dramatically. Wasn't this bill supposed to constrain cost increases? And, yes, trial lawyers are part of the problem. If malpractice suits aren't restricted in any way, this will be yet another burden on the doctors who will already have their hands full. This will drive good, qualified doctors out of the field. Then, what's left?
That's what happens when you write "blank checks". People will go to see the doctor for every minor ailment, rather than waiting until they truly need to see one…all on the dime of those who aren't "fortunate" enough to escape having to do so.
Not to mention what it will do to businesses who must provide ins to their employees…Why should they be responsible for doing so, by the way? If plans are more affordable to individuals, they wouldn't have to–only attainable by allowing ins cos to compete across state lines.
The problems are way too numerous to fit in this comment box. The viable solutions too costly politically: restrict malpractice suits, allow ins cos to compete across state lines (which will drive down costs…as it allows the market to work the way it should), offer individuals the tax benefits that employers get for providing health coverage.
How is it doing the health care system any better, if I get the same coverage I have now and have to pay more for it in 2016? How?
WTF is wrong with people? If 67% of Americans oppose the health care bill then why is it being passed.
Hope your blindness problem can be taken care,but by thenit will be too late for all of us
The only 'partisan hack' is you Frank … health care reform could have been accomplished with a 50 page bill outlining steps to free up the constipated health insurance market, and put consumers BACK IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH DOCTORS AND the RELATED EXPENSES. Everything has been tried, EXCEPT A FREE MARKET BETWEEN DOCTORS and PATIENTS, and LAWYERS KEPT UNDER CONTROL.
You big government 'true believers' always crack me up … you'd sell your souls for a handout, which is why most (not all) women are liberals, they are just looking for the free ride, whether its Daddy, Hubby, or Uncle Sammy. As for Trial Lawyers, there is no profession that SUCKS more … just look at who infests both houses of Congress ass-wipe. I dealt with lawyers … and it is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY $$$$$$$$$. Period.
There goal is not to lower health care costs for the average American; their goal is to lower it for the people whose votes they want to buy.
How does a subsidy lower the cost of health care? It only lowers it for one person, by making another person pay some of the cost. Anything that actually has a lower cost, would not need a subsidy!
I could subsidies an aircraft carrier too! I can make you pay $100 for it and then bill the other $500 billion to the tax payer; but I would not call that "an affordable aircraft carrier"!
You are pointing out something I have been saying about the current legislation for awhile. If you don't allow insurers to exclude preexisting conditions, then all insurance plans effectively become like company group plans which already don't exclude preexisting conditions. Anyone familiar with health insurance premiums right now knows that it's much cheaper for a healthy individual or family to buy an individual plan than it is to pay for a group plan. When this passes, the cost of an individual plan for a healthy individual or family will be higher without a doubt. If the goal of health insurance reform is to keep costs down, more people should be discussing this aspect of the legislation.
Great article Martin and I'm sure all of the stats that you threw out there are both, accurate
and well intended to inform all of us; however, if what you say is true (and I don't doubt that
it is), then we need to focus on how to make the government foote the bill for the whole
thing. Most people will take what you say to heart but those who don't have any healthcare
now, have never had it in the past, and won't be able to afford it in the future, will go along
with what the majority will say!
If Obama hadn't taken over an already screwed up administration of nearly twenty four years,
and a deficit of trillions of dollars, he wouldn't have had to try to come up with a solution that
could save the tax payer money and give the elderly and the disabled another way to try to
save some money. Healthcare reform is a necessary evil, but it's one that will have to be tried
befor we can start shoving it onto a back burner. I say, give it a chance first but let the folks
vote on it. We should have had the opportunity to vote on the bailout of the banks and the
giant corporations too, before Obama gave them our money; but if he hadn't done it, there
would be millions more people out of work, from a failed automotive industry, steel, plastic,
fiberglass, shipping, and lots of other industries.
Give the man a chance, it's only his first year!! America let the Republicans screw us up for
twentyfour years; so bad in fact, that they let history be made in this racist country; now
that they have a scape goat, they want to hang him out to dry. If you want to put the blame on anyone, blame the ones who have been in power for so long and who got us into
some unnecessary wars; that's where all of the money has gone.
Foolish Foolish people! Give Obama a try you say? Anyone that wants to give a President who sat under a Pastor for 20 years that preached F—America and G– D– America is an idiot. Enough said. Wake up Americans before everything you know as American is gone. United we stand Divided we will fall. Don't be blind just look at how things have been done. Middle of the night votes, votes on bills that have not been shared with the American people. From Obama's own words October of 2009 "This Administration will have transparency" Man who speaks with fork tongue can not and should not be trusted. STOP worrying about Democrat or Repubican THINK AMERICAN and what is going on is not!!!
Oh my goodness. give Obama a chance? WTH he has been in over a year and has screwed the American people how many times. You say give him a chance. I am ready for him to be impeached. Its time for us the American people to clean house in 2010. Elect all new reps to the house.
There are three things that I wish to address in your comments:
You can not make the government foot the bill. They have NO money – they get it from TAXPAYERS.
If they pass this mess, there will be no changing it,. They have written in the bill it can not be changed, revised or eliminated. Which is not constitutional, nor is the provision forcing the people to purchase insurance. Government can not force citizens to purchase a product or service. Non of that seems to matter to them.
And for clarification Clinton is a democrat – and served for 8 years. All the money Obama is BLOWING is a drop in the bucket to past administrations. Check out http://www.usdebtclock.org. A child born at this moment is born in debt of $18,301.
This was more balanced than I expected, kudos for that. One misconception that persists is the cost of care when uninsured or under-insured. I have had experience with both and always get a discount without asking. The provider saves the paperwork and collection hassles of dealing with an insurance bureaucracy or Government reimbursement. When I was younger, I weighed my need for healthcare against the costs and forewent the coverage. Not all those without health insurance are victims!
One of the advantages citizens of First World nations that have a version of single payer healthcare have over Americans is freedom of choice over care providers. Every system is different, but I think most Americans would like to seek care at their discretion, not that of an insurance carrier.
I've interviewed a number of hospital administrators over the past decade and found them all saying just about the same thing. Just over a quarter of every hospital bill is costs shifted from non-paying patients – almost exclusively illegal aliens. Citizens who are indigent, they'll get Medicaid for some reimbursement. Otherwise, they'll go after anything, including a lien on your house. Only for illegal aliens are their hands totally tied – unable to do anything to collect.
Just over another quarter of each hospital bill is administrative costs, almost all of which are government-mandated admin and reporting costs added over the past couple of decades. Even the insurance forms are largely mandated by govt. Add in long delays in getting insurance reimbursement, most notoriously state Medicaid programs plus Medicare, and the admin costs are huge.
If hospital bills were cut in half by eliminating unnecessary (at least to patient care!) paperwork & falderole, plus eliminating mandated care for one segment of the populace which outright refuses to pay for its medical care, more than half of the uninsured could afford insurance! And small companies which cannot afford health plans for their employees would find this a more-affordable benefit for their employees.
Government alone caused these problems and high costs. So what on earth makes anyone think that government can solve the problem of high and ever-rising costs of medical care?
In all this health care debate, I never hear the elusive C-word. Is any of this CONSTITUTIONAL? Check out the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and you will find that it is NO. But the only thing left of the Modern Constitution is Article I, Section 8: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United states," where general welfare refers only to today's welfare with no thought to tomorrow's.
Regardless of the details of the Universal Health program that passes, the strategy will most certainly become the future blueprint for buying votes. Coming up next: Universal college education, Universal housing, Universal Standard of Living. Shame on congress for putting their personal greed / job security, above the best interest of the nation.
The one Universal program which will never be passed: Universal Legal Services.
In many areas hostpitals' emergency rooms are already required to handle patients regardless of ability to pay or whether insured or not.
All conventional medicine is dubious and leads to shamelessness and it is a shame that money should be spent on this.
Sincerely,
Inez Deborah Emilia Altar
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but in an industrialized world where most countries have universal health care all this nits and picks is a waste of energy. Get with the program and make the US health care system not only the best but the most accessible.
WHO will pay for my premiums? I surely cannot afford to pay….how can they force people to pay for insurance when they are losing their homes?
How much will the premiums be? And again, WHO WILL PAY FOR MY PREMIUMS AND FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE JOBS?
Yeah, just keep screwing up the old, retired folks health care. See where that gets you at the polls. They do not forget. They VOTE.
We need to get the current politians out of Washington, States, and cities. We need polititians who are truly for the people not big business. It sucked under Bush and is now even worse under Obama. The Senate and House are corupt all politicians we now have are corupt. It is all for them the kick backs or payoffs they get.
STOP LEGALIZING FOREIGNERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BRING OUR COUNTRY BACK TO WHAT IT WAS A GREAT NATION. AMERICA IS DOOMED UNLESS THE PEOPLE GET SMART!!!!!!
WE NEED A UNITED STATES FOR THE PEOPLE NOT BIG BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE CONTINUALLY GET PRICE GOUGED FOR EVERYTHING GAS, NATURAL GAS, AND NOW HEATH CARE. WHATS NEXT ????????????????
SOON THIS WILL BE CHIMERICA OWNED BY THE CHINESE!!!!!!
ONE MORE QUESTION I HAVE WHY ARE WE DOING BUSINESS WITH A COMUNIST COUNTRY CHINA? HOW STUPID IS THAT THEY SAY THEY WANT TO TAKE OVER AMERICAN BUSINESS AND THEY ARE DOING A GREAT JOB OF IT!!!!!
FOREIGN COUNTRIES CONTINUOUSLY RUN AMERICAN COMPANIES OUT OF BUSINESS. OUR WASHINGTON POLITICIANS LET FOREIGN COMPANIES LIKE HONDA TOYOTA AND OTHERS COME HERE. NOW LOOK WHAT HAS HAPPENED GM AND CHRYSLER WENT BANKRUPT LOTS OF JOBS LOST.
WE AS US CITIZENS NEED TO GET SMART AND STOP THE RUSH OF FOREIGNERS ENTERING OUR COUNTRY AND GETTING A FREE RIDE ON TAX PAYERS MONEY!!!!!!
Thanks for an article that provided information on the costs due to litigation, and described how cross-subsidies skew costs upwardly.
For those who want greater government control over all aspects of their lives, this legislation is a great vehicle to advance that cause. It is not about improving health care. It is about political power, enslavement of legitimate USA citizens and enlargement of the potential pool of future voters who support more socialism because they naively don't understand the true cost of government programs.
I concur with those who believe we need to vote most of the current members on Congress out of office.
I blame the Republicans more than the Democrats for the sinking of the ship of state. When the Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, they did nothing but spend, spend, spend. They lied about what they were going to do when they got control of the Congress and White House. At least the Democrats don't lie about their intentions.
To "Junie"… Tomorrow morning when you wake up, REALLY wake up~! And open your eyes of intelectual analysis thinking.
IF this arrogant, puppet of the international bankers has pounded this country this far down the black hole in ONE year…. just imagine how dead America is going to be in another THREE???
"The Health Bill".. (health for who?)… "The Cap & Trade Bill"…. $3,600.00 a year in extra tax for every family of four in America~!…. And I have only scratched the surface of what terrible nation distroying acts, bills and statutes have been put in place by adherants and "Czars" of this Posturing Puppet~!!!
To: Stephen Pate…. "pate" is old English for "head".. and you don't seem to have one~! You say "just get with the act and make it work"…. I have a flash for you. Before you have the option of "making anything work".. you have to have something to work WITH.. and all the people of this land have is treasonous betrayal and an insidious plan to distroy America as we have know it.
Great raw material to work with….. looks like material for starvation, death by taxation, and eventually revolution brought on by loss of all hope for a future.
You go feller… Obama loves you~!
A comment was made on a news program last night to the effect that the people voted when they elected the present congress. Both parties seem to ignore the wishes of the people. We are not voting for their idealogy, we were hoping for representation.
I expect a reversal of the state in congress, but I fear it will just be a change in idealogy. that is all that has occurred in the last several elections.
Good to hear from all the tea party, John Birch Society, birthers and general cranks. Just to remind everyone, President Eisenhower was a conscious agent of the Soviet Union and President Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate.
Why don't we all refuse to file income taxes as a response to our out of control government that has already been bought and paid for by the special interests in our country. There are not enough jails to arrest everyone. That would be our only way to carry out a modern day Boston Tea Party. United we stand, divided we fall. I do not believe that there are enough individuals out there that would stand as a group for what really needs to be done.
The House needs a clean sweep (so does the Senate)! The problem is everyone wants the other persons senator/representative to be replaced! Whether you were for health care reform or not, surely the vast majority (MYSELF INCLUDED) was not/is not behind what we know about what they are supporting now, just to get it done!!!!! Their agenda is not why they are there. They are servants to the populous, you and I and their defiance needs to be addressed – – directly . . . that's our agenda!!!!! They on the other hand believe and know that the American people will let it pass come next November, we always do!
As for the current state of the health care industry, it is broken and needs to be fixed. Rather, they propose taking over an out of control monster into an unknowing, inexperienced, irresponsible Federal burocracy. We can be sure the unemployment rate will be lessened with yet another cabinet with another thousand federal employees. All this when what they need to do is:
Require that all prescriptions be digitally written so there is no legibility errors or incorrect assumptions by pharmacists. (Health care treatment is the 4th largest killer in the US; INCORRECT DRUG ADMINISTRATION IS A LARGE PART OF THAT);
disallow major medical insurers from utilizing preexisting conditions exclusion for medical costs;
stop the FDA from preventing the use of natural healing, homeopathics, holistic care etc. Those that are successful should be paid for by insurance. Most of those practices are less invasive, less costly, create less if any side effects and heal without drugs or surgery. Doctors are not allowed to share with other patients natural treatments they have witnessed that were a cure. Who is being paid off to cause this not to be allowed? Lobbyists are effective;
as have most other businesses, the medical industry needs to be held accountable for their overhead/efficiencies. The top ten percent of hospitals could be credited (incentive bonus) for their budget reductions which would be paid by the hospitals in the lowest 25 percent of savings; based on expenditures. We will just about all agree there appear to be no cost restraints on hospitals, they buy and spend at will;
we all know that there will be loss of life an other complications made when dealing with very or terminally ill patients. When however there is a reasonable certainty of neglect or negligence their should be an open review of the circumstances and an appropriate settlement/payment made. This payment would come from a fund established by the hospitals, possibly in a territory agreement, money that otherwise would have been budgeted for defense costs and higher liability insurance premiums. This (new system) could be allowed to be appealed with plaintiffs attorney's receiving no more that 10% of the settlement and costs reimbursements of no more than 20% of that. This would end frivolous suits and larger out of court cash settlements where fault is questionable just to "get rid of it". The vast number of Hospitals and Nursing Homes are not neglectful and their costs of insurance are extremely high due to association and the attorneys who prey on them;
and finally, allow health care insurers the right to offer their insurance coverage across state lines where properly licensed as is the case with most all other lines of insurance. Who is being paid off to cause this not to be allowed? Lobbyists are effective;
THERE ARE MANY MORE REASONABLY QUICK, EFFECTIVE, COST SENSITIVE, IMMEDIATE CORRECTIONS THAT COULD BE MADE, and then:
With no need for a health care cabinet, simply set up legitimate payments for those requiring care who are between jobs and those who have no insurance due to an inability to pay, etc. The federal government could set up an assigned risk insurance program and pay that premium. With their buying power for the entire group and the likelihood of many of the insured's being in reasonably good health but uninsured for reasons of inability to pay or being between jobs, this could be very cost effective and bring additional premiums to insurers from those who are in good health and who are not concerned about not having coverage. Major Medical Insurance providers would share in a percentage equal to the percentage their writings represent of the entire premiums written. For example an insurance company that writes major medical Insurance for 10% of the total insured population in a state would write 10% of those who are otherwise not insured in that state, with the premium paid by the Federal Government.
The costs for the uninsured should not be the financial responsibility of the hospitals providing the care who then seek reimbursement from you and me by charging $7.00 for an aspirin and the like. We could also better determine whether the costs charged for services rendered were reasonable.
In closing, I am not aware of "any" Federally managed public program that is fiscally sound or that has been fiscally sound in reasonable memory, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Now add the US Health Care industry to the heap, I hope not.
Simple is better! Mend what we have and use an assigned risk program for the uninsured with limited/restricted benefit levels, (including the use of private practices rather than Hospital Emergency Rooms for non-emergency/elective care) so that this does not become the preferred method of acquiring health care.
enough with the medicare problem. Just order all your medications from Canada and save instantly. No premiums or co pays. I have been doing it for my Cialis for 2 years at a fraction of the cost. I use http://www.totaldrugmart.com – great customer service too!!
J Howard
Here is an approach that includes corrections in the current medical delivery system and a simple way to make health care available for all US citizens.
As for the current condition of the health care industry, it is broken and needs to be fixed. Rather, they (Congress) propose taking over an out of control monster into an unknowing, inexperienced, irresponsible Federal bureaucracy. We can be sure the unemployment rate will be lessened with yet another cabinet with another thousand federal employees. All this when what they need to do is:
Require that all prescriptions be digitally written so there is no legibility errors or incorrect assumptions by pharmacists. (Health care treatment is the 4th largest killer in the US; INCORRECT DRUG ADMINISTRATION IS A LARGE PART OF THAT);
disallow major medical insurers from utilizing preexisting conditions exclusion for medical costs;
stop the FDA from preventing the use of natural healing, homeopathics, holistic care etc. Those that are successful should be paid for by insurance. Most of those practices are less invasive, less costly, create less if any side effects and heal without drugs or surgery. Doctors are not allowed to share with other patients natural treatments they have witnessed that were a cure. Who is being paid off to cause this not to be allowed? Lobbyists are effective;
as have most other businesses, the medical industry needs to be held accountable for their overhead/efficiencies. The top ten percent of hospitals could be credited (incentive bonus) for their budget reductions which would be paid by the hospitals in the lowest 25 percent of savings; based on expenditures. We will just about all agree there appear to be no cost restraints on hospitals, they buy and spend at will;
we all know that there will be loss of life and other complications made when dealing with very or terminally ill patients. When however there is a reasonable certainty of neglect or negligence there should be an open inquiry, an in depth review of the circumstances and an appropriate settlement/payment made where deemed appropriate by the judgment of their peers. This payment would come from a fund established by the hospitals and doctors, possibly in a territory agreement, money that otherwise would have been budgeted for defense costs within insurance deductibles or retentions and higher liability insurance premiums. This (new system) could be allowed to be appealed with plaintiffs attorney's receiving no more that 10% of the settlement amount and costs reimbursements of no more than 20% of that. This would end frivolous suits and larger out of court cash settlements where fault is questionable just to "get rid of it". The vast number of Hospitals and Nursing Homes are not neglectful and their costs of insurance are extremely high due to association and the attorneys who prey on them;
and finally, allow health care insurers the right to offer their insurance coverage across state lines where properly licensed as is the case with most all other lines of insurance. Who is being paid off to cause this not to be allowed? Lobbyists are effective;
THERE ARE MANY MORE REASONABLY QUICK, EFFECTIVE, COST SENSITIVE, IMMEDIATE CORRECTIONS THAT COULD BE MADE, and then:
With no need for a health care cabinet, I suggest setting up an assigned risk program for those requiring care who are between jobs and for those who have no insurance due to an inability to pay, etc. The federal government could set up an assigned risk insurance program and pay that premium. With their buying power for the entire group and the likelihood that many of those insured's are in reasonably good health but uninsured for reasons of inability to pay or being between jobs, this could be very cost effective. It would also bring additional premiums to insurers from those who are in good health and who are now not concerned about not having coverage. Under an assigned risk program, Major Medical Insurance providers would share in a percentage equal to the percentage their writings represent of the entire premiums written. For example, an insurance company that writes major medical Insurance for 10% of the total insured population in a state would write 10% of those who are otherwise not insured in that state, with the premium paid by the Federal Government.
The costs for the uninsured should not be the financial responsibility of the hospitals providing the care who then seek reimbursement from you and me by charging $7.00 for an aspirin and the like. We could also better determine whether the costs charged for services rendered were reasonable.
In closing, I am not aware of "any" Federally managed public program that is fiscally sound or that has been fiscally sound in reasonable memory, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Now add the US Health Care industry to the heap, I hope not.
Simple is better! Mend what we have and use an assigned risk program for the uninsured with limited/restricted benefit levels, (including the use of private practices rather than Hospital Emergency Rooms for non-emergency/elective care) so that this does not become the preferred method of acquiring health care. As a further incentive to provide major medical insurance by employers a tax incentive should be allowed.
Statistically, if there were a review of the numbers, it may be possible that we could get every citizen insured, including those between jobs, and remove the preexisting conditions coverage exclusion without additional costs. Hospitals are now providing care for those uninsured and passing those costs onto those who are insured, through their insurers, that would stop. There are many in their early twenties to mid forties that have not needed and do not have major medical insurance who were/are not contributing premium into the system. Their inclusion by way of assigned risk now may be an adequate enough additional premium into the system to offset the cost to insurers of the removal of the preexisting conditions exclusion.
The proposal now being supported in the Senate and sent to the House does little to fray the cost injustices in the system which is part of the reason so many are against it. Consequently, the House needs a clean sweep (as does the Senate)! The problem is everyone wants the other persons senator/representative to be replaced, not theirs!! Whether you were for health care reform or not, surely the vast majority (MYSELF INCLUDED) was not/is not behind what we know about that they are supporting now, just to get it done!!!!! Their agenda is not why they are there. They are servants to the populous, you and I and their defiance needs to be addressed – – directly . . . that's our agenda!!!!! Every incumbent who has more than six (6) years needs to be replaced. They on the other hand believe and know that the American people will let it pass come next November, we always do!
We don't need health insurance. We need doctors and good food.
There is only one question to ask: "What are people for?"
If our government isn't working to make people useful to each other and to the future, then everything else is a waste of breath.
Health care is something provided by doctors, not insurance companies.
It is a crime to pass a bill requiring us to pay insurance companies for something they do not provide.
The simplest solution may not be perfect, but it is the quickest to implement: HR 676: Medicare for everyone. Notice how it doesn't get any air time on TV: because the drug companies have clamped down on the media.
Why are we being required to buy a service? Which company will we be required to buy it from? A choice between health insurers is like a choice between dying by drug overdose or by a bullet to the head. It is still an unacceptable solution either way.
Where is the real leadership in this country?
Our country as we know is in a world of hurt. We as free Americans must never give up are guns, never loose are faith in God because it all might come down to a lot of praying to turn this mess around and vote all the bums out of office. God bless to all
Some items in the bill "should reduce health care costs". But not really. The cost of health care is what is PAID buy the insurance company, NOT what is charged by the provicer. The paid amount will remain low enough to ensure CEO salaries and company profits. This is NOT a supply/demand situation. Benefits paid and premiums charged are manipulated yearly to ensure risiing profits.
I say impeach 'em all — they don't deserve to have a lifetime job
In 50 years of providing patient care as an internist I have become disillusioned by the waste of time and resources necessary to (1) satisfy the health insurance companies, (2) protect against frivolous malpractice claims, and (3) deal with the poorly thought out policies of Medicare. Make no mistake, the insurance companies could care less about the adequacy of coverage or quality of care provided – they just want their 20% off the top and the hospitals, patients, pharmacies and doctors can argue about what is left. They have no proper place in the provision of medical care to patients. Theoretically the government should have an interest in seeing that its citizens receive adequate care without exposure to possibel financial ruin. Unfortunately the government is corrupt, bought and paid for before reaching office and plied with endless bribes after reaching there by industry's pimps. The government that we currently have (never mind parties or individuals) has demonstrated its total incompetence for many years. No thoughtful person can reasonably expect them to solve a problem. They, and the system that places them in office, needs to be replaced.
Bottom line???? This entire nill is against the Constitution…and first year law student should be able to get this entire thing thrown out on that grounds.
The key error is assuming that the Marxists that so thoroughly infest the Democrat party and have control of Congress now actually WANT to improve the American health care system, rather than maliciously destroy it. They aren't stupid – they know full well what they are aiming to accomplish here, and it is no accident – they have been planning how to pass government-controlled health care for the better part of a century, with the aim of changing the government-citizen relationship into one of master-slave. The Marxists of the Democrat party know that if they can get government control over the citizens' health care system, they can control the citizens every bit as thoroughly as masters used to control slaves, but without the physical chains and whips to force obedience and punish dissent. They replace those with fines, taxes, and a government panel controlling whether you can even get to see a doctor at all when you need one. If the people fully understood what these Marxists were after, they would show up at their offices during the Christmas break with pitchforks, boiling tar, bags of feathers, and long wooden rails. The November 2010 election cannot get here soon enough to end their power, and who knows if the Marxists will get around to such an egregiously greater abomination that the military must take action even before then to fulfill their oaths to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, in this case domestic.
i love it when people say let the government pay for it! Where do they think that money comes from. THE TAX PAYERS.
To solve the problem one has to look at the cause. Health care costs are high because the govt is licensing & regulating the medical, pharma, & insurance industries. This is eliminating competition & the need for efficiency. The solution is to repeal the laws requiring licenses & end the regulation of these 3 fields. Market discipline will then lower costs & insure high quality care.
More govt intervention will only make things worse. They caused the problem after all.
Members of the Senate and House of Representatives should be forced to receive the same healthcare coverage that they are mandating for the rest of the population. By doing so and not allowing them to design a plan "for others", the program may be vastly different.
the marxist Goverment the american people elected has divided the american people and is at work creating poverty so that the only option is to rely on this monster for years to come. The new generation will conform like sheep.
I wish I was uneducated, that I didn't know how to comprehend what I read and instead let others do my thinking, that I had never traveled and lived abroad to observe how other people solve their problems, that I was a bigot, a hypocrite and a racist. In other words, that I was a knave or better yet, a red neck. That way I would be able to agree with Hutchinson, a good republican who, like the Fox channel spinners, capitalizes on the rabid ignorance and cupidity of the American people. These relentless, acrid and fanatical opposition to whatever Obama's proposes (he doesn't write the law but simply presents his general parameters to the elite of the American establishment, the congvress) can only be explained by one sad fact about America. Racism is still a predominant trait of this nation . . . and the rest of the world is taking note. It is also tragic that a publication like Money Morning Newsletter should feel obligated to ram it up the reader's nose by stressing the intelligence and achievement of the author of the article. And I am expected to trust his business acumen? Good luck my fellow Americans!
"we need to focus on how to make the government foote the bill for the whole
thing." Junie – who funds the government? The taxpayer does; this bill simply is a tax increase of epic proportion to fund an another entitlement program. Racist, YES. The plan provides even less incentive to young people (of all races) to make any meaningful contribution to society; I predict in the long run this plan will cause more HARM to young, black males than any other segment of our society.
"America let the Republicans screw us up for twentyfour years" I's unfortunate you conveniently ignore the Clinton presidency and that Democrats controlled the Congress for over half of the period when you make this statement. Congress makes the laws, not the President. Over the last 24 years Democratic Congresses are at least, if not more, guilty than Republican Congresses for the sorry state of the econmoy.
OBTW – I'm 54, black, a veteran and a former Democrat; I got tired of Democratic policies that primarily serve to make blacks more dependent on welfare programs (like this bill) and to ultimately promote even more racisim. As Bill Cosby observed, the biggest obstacle to overcoming racisim is promotion of welfare over productivity within the black community.
Jai – add my sister to you list of hospital admistrators who say health care costs would drop dramatically if unecessary, Govt mandated paperwork was eliminated
the problem is that the regular John and Jane doe think that they can live without working for it, and the social democrat bolshevicks around the world will bank government seats on those thoughts, in the USA will have to dismantle the current system by term limits, and make laws base on studies and science not on popularity contests!!!
Every body in American should be treated just like President of the United States when it comes to health care no one should suffer because that do not have means to pay for it
The numbers you use for trial lawyers are absolutely ridicules. No reason for the Government to tell us made up stuff like that.
For those of you who want to look at someone to blame, look at which party was the ruling party and control of congress for the last 40 years. No matter who the president is, hes not nearly as powerful as congress. And its congress that controls spending, wars, and continuation of same. The president can only send a temporary military force overseas for a short period. Then congress has to allow it, and continue to allow it or they all come home. And if you look back at the current war, the sending of troops in the first place, had to be with the approval of congress. Also, on expenses. Look at the federal budget and military costs. If you think the military costs so much, cut it off completely and see what happens to the budget. The total cost of the military, all services, cant hold a candle to the cost of social programs that we call entitlements. Look at what your congress has approved in those areas and you will see that the military is not nearly as large.
No country in the world can afford universal health care and universally good health care at the same time. Every person can not be guarnateed the best, most sophisticated treatments just because they are available and just because they are a citizen of a country. Medical research, medicine and drugs, complicated surgical procedures, sophisticated medical testing, new technologies, etc all add up to medical costs that that are too high for countries to hand it out for free to everyone. Supply only very basic care for free, beyond that people will have to ellect whether they can pay for more care by looking at their bank accounts or their insurance policies they may or may not have. To make it more affordable and make those decisions easier, cut out the lawyers, illegal aliens and government red tape with some construcive new legislation. People can also help reduce their own costs by taking care of their own bodies and eating properly. Not being able to afford medical care or chosing not to have insurance can be a big incentive to take care of ones body. Just because we want something doesn't mean we can have it.
The bill is totally unconstitutional and treasonous. Those congressmen who voted for any of these items should be tried for treason, convicted and executed.
i vote for that ….
I will volunteer to pull the switch or inject the needle. Just tell me which.
Can you guys not see that all the rangling that went on over the last months actually forced the gov. to make concessions left right and centre to all these behemoth insurance and pharma companies , doctors, surgeons and lawyers……..?
You should be happy though, because if you lose in healthcare costs you can pick it up in shares…You won't lose out but maybe you cannot stand that some humane consideration for basic needs of inopportune sick are turned into a policy. And then you dare call yourselves a"Christian" nation: did Christ not say/and act with the moto of "do unto others as you would like done unto you".
I guess that means since Obama lied to me, I get to lie also.
do you not realise that,as far as social security is concerned, the U.S. is a mere medievial country where only the rich people have some security!
I have often traveled to your country and as a European I have always been thankfull for the huge efforts and sacrifices during the last world war,but please think of this: the wild west is history and guns in every home are no longer needed and in a civilized country every citizen should have acces to healthcare at an affordable cost.
marcel
you talk about ww2 .. if the people had guns in their homes maybe ww2 wouldn't have happened .. ever think of that ? i don't believe that citizens of a country need to be without health care that is why i have paid for mine for over 35 years .. there are some people that don't believe in paying for their on care .. they are the dead beats and want every thing paid for them by someone else … charity starts at home ………
Marcel,
I have to wonder what would have happened to you, your country and your family over the course of the past 100 years, if it had not been for that 'gun toting' America to save your sorry ass along with many other places on this planet. Thank your llucky stars America wasn't a socialist European country during the first half of the twentieth century. If it was, we would have looked the other way while the Huns and the Nazis laid waste to your landscape. Where was your family when the Nazi 6th Army rolled into Paris? My guess is that if every Frenchman had a gun in his home, the Nazis might have thought better of that. But I am missing my point. The very fact that you are anti-gun means you, like much of your nation is pascifist. Just try to imagine the millions and millions of people who have been murdered because of pascivists like yourself. Lastly, our citizens enjoy a 38% better chance of not dying from Cancer than you and your fellow Europeans. I guess as far as health care is concerned, that makes Europe 'a mere medieval country'.
Having recently listened to the US Ambassador to Switzerland, Donald Beyer, it appears that the US likes to copy some of the unreasonal things the Swiss do. All Swiss are obliged under the law to have minimum health insurance (LaMal). We are only allowed to be insured by Swiss companies (we cannot go across the border and get the same coverage for less ie France). The insurance companies have a monopoly on the 7.5 million Swiss residents and premiums continue to go up without any clear justification. Insurance companies are not obliged to open their books to audits. Therefore, in US like in Switzerland, you are forced to be insured at the benefit of the insurers and medical companies, with very little recourse. Best to own stocks in those companies that will reap the benefits, at least you will recuperate something via the dividends. Bonne Chance
Insurance companies are large institutional profit-driven investors. What do you suppose they invest in? Couple the losses in the markets with the fiduciary responsibility to pay claims and just where is the money going to come from? The whole national insurance argument is a hidden bail-out that side-steps the direct taxpayer bailouts of the financials.
We are not being taxed(?), but rather forced to purchase a promise. The result is the same; increase the reserves of the insurance companies that played the game, lost and are now marginally solvent. Why else is it mandatory for everyone? It is a another bail-out.
Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change a thing. It is still a pig. This is a tax. The citizens are just fearful sheep huddled together waiting for the next fleecing. It is for our own good and the politicos will tell you so.
Can no one see that insurance companies have cerated the currenthealth fiasco? And we (not me) are looking to them to rectify the situation? If we belive that, we are dumber than a rock!
The trial lawyers cost health care and citizens between $80-200 Billion per year. 1% of our GDP!. The US is the most litigious society on earth with more litigation here than all countries combined! In Japan there is 1 lawyer for every 20 enginners. In the US, there is 20 lawyer for every engineer. These trial lawyers advertise more now than car dealers on television. They pay the DEMarixst Party in $100 millions in what amounts to be political bribes. Don't whine to me about insurance companies until you tell me you are going to whine and go after the John Edwards of this country. They are all scum….greedy scum.
Everyone acts as though the health insurance companies have behaved in humane and decent manner. They have not! In fact, the number of people that they have harmed and killed is in the thousands. They have killed more people than all the serial killers combined. This coupled with their CEO's being paid $30 million a year is pathetic. Those that fought to preclude the public option have greatly harmed US citizens. Congress has known that health insurance companies have been harming and ripping people off for more than 30 years. Today if you get sick, health insurance companies do all they can to not pay for your medical claims. Yet campaign money talks louder than what is righteous.
i don't know what insurance you are using but mine has been great .. doctors are the problem .. as far as someone ripping the people off , look at the government .. they have been doing that for over 100 years .. we need to go by the constitution and keep less government intervention out of our lives …
Expecting anything new from the Govt. is like getting the catholic church to admit they harbor pedophiles and when they both do give in a little because of pressure guess who pays.
They have spent a whole year "working(?)" on health insurance reform, that name quickly changed to health care reform and what do we get? A new regulation that is once again only sum of all interest groups.
Here in B C Canada we have a medical system in place where it is compulsory for all to pay, regardless of age, sex or state of health, my wife and I, both retired, pay $102 per month, our combined income is below $2000 per month, we seldom if ever use the system , visits to the chiropractor are not covered by medical , an ambulance trip is only partly covered, but on the bright side, if we really had a lengthy stay in hospital we would not have to mortgage our home to pay the hospital bills, in England, my place of birth, practically everything is covered, it would be interesting to explore their system, I am sure they are not 'taxed to death' in order to enjoy this coverage– Bill
The current bill does have serious flaws, but seems to be the only way to get health care coverage into law. The current system is horrible, and serves those currently insured very well. A large number of people receive no care, are unemployed, may be unfortunate enough to have a chronic disease, such as diabetes, and suffer the ravages of the disease with amputations and early death. My hope is that we will eventually get a single payer system, with controls on lawsuits and the heavy costs to the health they currently incurred. I have practised surgery since 1963, and directly observe that this is the worst climate for providers, and patients. And everyone in the country shoiuld be eligible for health care, regardless of ability to pay. That is what requires higher tases and costs.
I have said this to Bush. I have said this to Obama. It is not healthcare that needs reformed. Healthcare reform by Obama is going to try to make insurance affordable to everyone. (Which it will not!) There is a reason insurance is sky high. First. It is because the price of medication and medical service is jacked up due to greed. The higher the prices, the higher the insurance premiums. An example. $10 for 2 Tylenol in a hospital visit. Price gouging is illegal but it is done in healthcare and they get by with it. What is needed is medical price regulation and lower medicines. If this was done, the prices of health insurance would come down to amounts affordable to the people.
But to force something on the people is not the American way. In any case, to pass this healthcare into law will produce criminals out of law abiding citizens. If I am not mistaken, the constitution forbids the passing of laws that turn law abiding citizens into criminals. Besides. How will the unemployed pay for this? They have no income except unemployment checks and then that will also dry up soon and then they still will not be able to afford it.
The real question that should be asked in this is, "Who is going to make the most profits from it if this healthcare reform is passed?".
Those that accept it will wind up paying more in the long run for their healthcare. Watch the prices of medicines and health services to go up.
One thing I almost forgot. Drug manufacturing companies and hospitals get government grants to develop new medicines and equipment and hospitals get grants to purchase that equipment. So why does it all carry exuberant high prices to patients and insurance companies when grants are not paid back and grants come mainly from the taxes the citizens have paid?
Please see You Tube video titled: "Severely Autistic Boy Beaten by Big Government"
It's an eye opener. Mom takes you inside the crazy system serving disabled and exposes some of the apathetic people we have working in our agencies. Amazing. Shocking. Sad. We need big change with less government right now.
communism? in 2014 it will be the law to have insurance or pay a fine,even though it will start out as small fine, isn't that a form of communism to force people to do that
I think it is a human rights abuse and nauseating to force health care on people, some people may opt for alternative and natural medicine as well as natural health, and it is very wrong to force people to the vilely indecent especially prophylactic examinations of modern health care which have not stopped cancer in a decade, let´s stop imitating Oriental fools with their prophylactic medicine, afterwards they spent the time executing or detaining those physicians, they would not have done it if they were so wonderful
What this article isn't telling you:
The article only tells you half of what's in the CBO prediction for insurance premiums. First, it's important to note that only policies "purchased by individuals" will go up by 2016. If you have health insurance through your employer, your premium will go down by that time. But more importantly, the article fails to mention that government subsidies will make most individually purchased insurance premiums *go down by 56-59%* in that year. Go ahead and argue that's socialism if you prefer to be free to continue paying more.
LGF, wake up — do you seriously believe premiums will be going DOWN on any front??? Wow — naive ignorant cattle like you are what's allowing our government to railroad the masses and drive our freedom into the ground. How terrifying. Absolutely pathetic.
I am under medical care for a broken ankle and a prostate cancer radiation program. My health insurance is paying the bill and medicare is picking up some costs too so good for all concerned. But the Obama health care program will not cut costs, will not cover medical needs, fewer doctors, med techs, medicians etc will spin supply and demand into the ground for the consumer, see England, Canada and other European nations, the demand goes up the supply goes down, and economic fact from Econ 101. Sweden is going back to private practice slow but sure. Canada comes to the U.S. for care so why can't the Congress listen to the people a majority in many polls say no, say repeal. start over. The people should write the health care program not politicans. Local write their ideas sent to state sent to national meeting and finally give to Congress and allow them to shape but not amend the meaning and procedures written, the people will pay so they should write program they will suffer under it otherwise. The people should rule and the Congress and President should listen.