Democrats are working hard to improve the health care bill..

[Will Robinson]

....improve the chances a bunch of idiots will vote for it that is!
When they could be concentrating on understanding the problems and fine tuning solutions they have taken a different approach, one they are more comfortable pursuing. They are planning to stir up the emotions of stupid people to fool them into thinking they have our best interest at heart.

They are planning to tell all of you just how much money insurance executives earn and how much largess their companies provide for them and no doubt they will use language like 'spending your premiums on...' etc. etc.

Read about it here: class warfare brought to you by congress.

Now I'm completely in agreement that insurance companies don't provide nearly the quality of product per dollar compared to most other products and they enjoy having the government mandate we citizens buy their product in many cases, HOWEVER, if you think you are getting quality representation by having the congress stir up hatred instead of dealing with the many flaws in their plan then you are one of the idiots they are counting on to enable them to fake their way through their job.

Basically they came up with a bad idea, filled it with more bad ideas and then when you decided you don't like it they decided to manipulate you into accepting it out misplaced anger.
Don't you just want to vote for them over and over again

[Tunnelcat]

I don't see conservatives coming up with any viable alternative ideas yet either.

[Gooberman]

Now I'm completely in agreement that insurance companies don't provide nearly the quality of product....

What is their product?

[Will Robinson]

I don't see conservatives coming up with any viable alternative ideas yet either.

You are right but if that point is all it takes to make you ignore the substance of this topic then you are part of the problem.

[Will Robinson]

Now I'm completely in agreement that insurance companies don't provide nearly the quality of product....

What is their product?

Their product is the thing that is so important Obama wants everyone to have it no matter the cost..."even if it if it short-dicks every cannibal on the Congo"!

[Spidey]

As you all know already, I have no love for insurance companies, but with that being said…if I were them, I would give Waxman the middle finger.

[AlphaDoG]

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html


Tell me where you stand AFTER you read THAT!

[Dakatsu]

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html


Tell me where you stand AFTER you read THAT!

Actually, it seems quite supportive of universal healthcare:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[BitSpit]

And that was enough to get me to delurk. I don't like being angered before breakfast.

If you had clicked on Welfare, you would have gotten this definition:

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

If you had read article 1, section 8 properly, you would realize that everything that follows the end your quote are what makes up the power that qualify as providing the common defense and general welfare. I will state that page doesn't show it well. In history books I've read, the powers listed were bullet points.

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

This is the first power listed. It does not say general welfare of the individual. It says \"general Welfare of the United States.\" That means the country as a whole entity. An individual may need health care. The country itself does not.

The Constitution simply does not give the federal government power to provide universal health care. The Constitution was written to transfer a few selected powers to the federal government. That's why we have the 10th amendment. If the power is not listed, it belongs the individual states. Anyone that wants universal health care should pursue it on the state level and leave the rest of us alone.

[Insurrectionist]

Hear Hear

[Will Robinson]

I think BitSpit has the proper interpretation of \"General Welfare\" down cold.
In spite of that we all know it has been abused to enable congress and past Presidents to enact all sorts of unconstitutional legislation so I have no doubt that health care reform will be enacted in some form or another.

My hope is that enough people will look at the details that are written, the lack of details in so many areas and most important seeing that the President and those in Congress who are insisting we \"pass this bill now\" DON'T EVEN KNOW THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THEY ARE DEMANDING WE ACCEPT!

We already passed one bill that 'had to be passed now', it added a trillion dollars to our debt with a stimulus package that didn't stimulate the economy it was 99% pork and payoff to democrat special interests, unions etc.
In fact the best stimulus attempt so far was not part of that trillion in printed money, the cash for clunkers, and it has been full of problems.
Are we ready to let them do that to our health care system which is a giant sized chunk of our economy?!?

I figure we can afford to have some kind of federal intervention to curb expenses by regulating the players or even subsidizing the individual to a certain extent to cover costs but no one is trying to accomplish that.

Right now the democrats are planning to ram through a Trojan Horse of a bill that is so blatantly empty of real solutions but at the same time packed full of back doors into our personal freedoms and free markets that if they succeed they will have given Obama his tools to \"remake america\" like he talked about in the campaign. Unfortunately no one ever asked him what he meant by that and his history and unscripted comments have exposed his intentions and a policy of class warfare, revenge and reparations is not a sustainable foundation to build a future on.

This could be the beginning of the end if we just let them pass a blank check to be payed by us upon demand. On the timeline of all civilizations the American experiment is a mere blip. It has a lot of potential but it is fragile. The thing that has sustained it so far is the foundation and Obama is a god damn jackhammer!

[CUDA]

and here I thought it was only the republicans that profited from healthcare

Consulting Firm Tied to White House Given Millions for Health Care Ad Campaign

While lobbying analysts say the move to hire a White House-connected ad agency is logical, some Republicans are questioning whether White House senior strategist David Axelrod stands to gain from the profits in the multi-million dollar deal.

[AlphaDoG]

and here I thought it was only the republicans that profited from healthcare

Consulting Firm Tied to White House Given Millions for Health Care Ad Campaign

While lobbying analysts say the move to hire a White House-connected ad agency is logical, some Republicans are questioning whether White House senior strategist David Axelrod stands to gain from the profits in the multi-million dollar deal.

Which leads us back to : http://descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?t=15744

[Duper]

\"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.\" - Thomas Jefferson

[Birdseye]

and here I thought it was only the republicans that profited from healthcare

Consulting Firm Tied to White House Given Millions for Health Care Ad Campaign

While lobbying analysts say the move to hire a White House-connected ad agency is logical, some Republicans are questioning whether White House senior strategist David Axelrod stands to gain from the profits in the multi-million dollar deal.

I'm sure he does!

This is why I HATE partisan politics.

Did Bush and Cheney's policies make their people rich ? Filthy. Obama is GOING TO DO THE SAME THING.


It's called Government! We have to be together and fight the lying and outright THEFT of our tax dollars that goes into every bill.

[CUDA]

dont get me wrong I wasnt accusing. I was just pointing out the Hypocracy of those that claim it is only one side thats getting rich off this issue

[Will Robinson]

dont get me wrong I wasnt accusing. I was just pointing out the Hypocracy of those that claim it is only one side thats getting rich off this issue

Yea, the stereotype that republicans are the ones who get rich in office is just as full of crap as the stereotype that democrats are the ones who care about the little people.

[Dakatsu]

So BitSpit, I made you delurk and \"angered you\" because you couldn't tell my comment was very tongue-in-cheek?

That was why I had the laughing face under it... because I was kidding... *sigh*

EDIT: Although you could argue that healthcare for everyone is part of the general welfare of the nation as a whole, but I still meant it as a joke...

[BitSpit]

I have no sense of humor before 10:00AM.

[Birdseye]

dont get me wrong I wasnt accusing. I was just pointing out the Hypocracy of those that claim it is only one side thats getting rich off this issue

Yea, the stereotype that republicans are the ones who get rich in office is just as full of crap as the stereotype that democrats are the ones who care about the little people.

WORD TO THAT!


God I'm so sick of arguing partisan politics.
I want these THIEVES called "Senators" and "Representatives" to STOP STEALING MY G*DDAMN F*CKING MONEY


...

anyone who is self employed feels EXTRA RAPED by the government, imo.

[Ferno]

Running an already established business isn't that much better.

I almost had a heart attack when I saw exactly what the government up here takes from our total revenue. From our gross, to the employee's pay, to the taxes that come out of all the supplies we need to just keep the place running.

It's enough to make you want to throw up.

and they WANT MORE! gddmn mthrfsckin HST. Someone shoot these people already.

oh and hey bitspit. good to see you again. we should have a game sometime.

[snoopy]

Summary: Democrats and Republicans alike are doing a crappy job of representing us, and an excellent job at grabbing for as much power as they possibly can. I thought Bush was over-hated for the wrong reasons (his biggest fault was the way that he grew federal government and invaded our privacy), and now somehow we're being tricked into thinking that Obama is better because the media is still ignoring the biggest problem- too much federal power and invasion of privacy- which is being picked up right where Bush left off.

I agree that it's not about conservative vs liberal anymore.

(Note: federal government has been steadily growing for a very long time.... think that a century ago income tax, interstates, social security, and a whole long list of other federal things didn't exist- this isn't really anything new, but we're facing the next big hurdle, and and pessimist in me says that it will get passed... I just wonder what will be next.)

[CUDA]

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

truer words have never been spoken

[AlphaDoG]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

[Tunnelcat]

I don't see conservatives coming up with any viable alternative ideas yet either.

You are right but if that point is all it takes to make you ignore the substance of this topic then you are part of the problem.

So 'Republicans' and yes, a lot of damn Democrats like the status quo of health care FOR PROFIT, so all we're going to get out of this mess is that the insurance companies are getting richer and the patients are getting poorer. So, since they like the status quo and the money that greases their skids, they block any change and don't come up with any ideas on how to fix the health care hemorrhaging of our nation.

You don't see anything wrong with the CEO's of these health insurance companies making millions off of the suffering of sick and dying people? Doesn't that bother you AT ALL Will? I do see this mess as class warfare and we the people are losing out and being subjugated by the corporations. Health Care is NOT a free market. It's driven by inelastic demand that's being exploited for PROFIT with absolutely nothing being done to reign it in! I'm willing to pay for health care, but I'm not willing to be robbed blind into bankruptcy to pay for the high standard of living for some CEO and to please Wall Street.

It's going to get worse too. The insurance companies now want to raise policy holder base payment responsibility requirements from 20% to 35%! Can we bleed any more?

[woodchip]

Hows about looking at health insurance like auto insurance. Those of us that lead healthy lifestyles pay less than those who smoke, are obese or drink to excess? How about the govt. just pays a pecentage of any catastrophic illness/injury instead of trying to pay the whole thing? This way the insurance company could easily lower their premiums.

[dissent]

sorry for the chopped up quote copy, but there is just too much food for thought, for both proponents and detractors, of the current health care debate in the following article. You really have to read the whole thing. It's a total rethink of the whole health care system. Oh, and don't be either misled, or encouraged, for your viewpoint by the title of the article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

….The reason for financing at least some of our health care with an insurance system is obvious. We all worry that a serious illness or an accident might one day require urgent, extensive care, imposing an extreme financial burden on us. In this sense, health-care insurance is just like all other forms of insurance—life, property, liability—where the many who face a risk share the cost incurred by the few who actually suffer a loss.

But health insurance is different from every other type of insurance. Health insurance is the primary payment mechanism not just for expenses that are unexpected and large, but for nearly all health-care expenses. We’ve become so used to health insurance that we don’t realize how absurd that is. …

…Every proposal for health-care reform has featured some element of cost control to “balance” the inflationary impact of expanding access. Yet it goes without saying that in the big picture, all government efforts to control costs have failed.
Why? One reason is a fixation on prices rather than costs. The government regularly tries to cap costs by limiting the reimbursement rates paid to providers by Medicare and Medicaid, and generally pays much less for each service than private insurers. But as we’ve seen, that can lead providers to perform more services, and to steer patients toward higher-priced, more lightly regulated treatments. The government’s efforts to expand “access” to care while limiting costs are like blowing up a balloon while simultaneously squeezing it. The balloon continues to inflate, but in misshapen form.

Cost control is a feature of decentralized, competitive markets, not of centralized bureaucracy—a matter of incentives, not mandates. What’s more, cost control is dynamic. Even the simplest business faces constant variation in its costs for labor, facilities, and capital; to compete, management must react quickly, efficiently, and, most often, prospectively. By contrast, government bureaucracies set regulations and reimbursement rates through carefully evaluated and broadly applied rules. These bureaucracies first must notice market changes and resource misallocations, and then (sometimes subject to political considerations) issue additional regulations or change reimbursement rates to address each problem retrospectively. …

…Health care is an exceptionally heavily regulated industry. Health-insurance companies are regulated by states, which limits interstate competition. And many of the materials, machines, and even software programs used by health-care facilities must be licensed by state or federal authorities, or approved for use by Medicare; these requirements form large barriers to entry for both new facilities and new vendors that could equip and supply them. …

…Not every hospital relies on paper-based orders and charts, but most still do. Why has adoption of clinical information technology been so slow? Companies invest in IT to reduce their costs, reduce mistakes (itself a form of cost-saving), and improve customer service. Better information technology would have improved my father’s experience in the ICU—and possibly his chances of survival.
But my father was not the customer; Medicare was. …
…The most important single step we can take toward truly reforming our system is to move away from comprehensive health insurance as the single model for financing care. And a guiding principle of any reform should be to put the consumer, not the insurer or the government, at the center of the system….

…A more consumer-centered health-care system would not rely on a single form of financing for health-care purchases; it would make use of different sorts of financing for different elements of care—with routine care funded largely out of our incomes; major, predictable expenses (including much end-of-life care) funded by savings and credit; and massive, unpredictable expenses funded by insurance. …

…First, we should replace our current web of employer- and government-based insurance with a single program of catastrophic insurance open to all Americans—indeed, all Americans should be required to buy it—with fixed premiums based solely on age. This program would be best run as a single national pool, without underwriting for specific risk factors, and would ultimately replace Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. All Americans would be insured against catastrophic illness, throughout their lives. …

…How would we pay for most of our health care? The same way we pay for everything else—out of our income and savings. Medicare itself is, in a sense, a form of forced savings, as is commercial insurance. In place of these programs and the premiums we now contribute to them, and along with catastrophic insurance, the government should create a new form of health savings account—a vehicle that has existed, though in imperfect form, since 2003. Every American should be required to maintain an HSA, and contribute a minimum percentage of post-tax income, subject to a floor and a cap in total dollar contributions. The income percentage required should rise over a working life, as wages and wealth typically do….

…What about care that falls through the cracks—major expenses (an appendectomy, sports injury, or birth) that might exceed the current balance of someone’s HSA but are not catastrophic? These should be funded the same way we pay for most expensive purchases that confer long-term benefits: with credit. Americans should be able to borrow against their future contributions to their HSA to cover major health needs; the government could lend directly, or provide guidelines for private lending. Catastrophic coverage should apply with no deductible for young people, but as people age and save, they should pay a steadily increasing deductible from their HSA, unless the HSA has been exhausted. As a result, much end-of-life care would be paid through savings….

…For lower-income Americans who can’t fund all of their catastrophic premiums or minimum HSA contributions, the government should fill the gap—in some cases, providing all the funding. You don’t think we spend an absurd amount of money on health care? If we abolished Medicaid, we could spend the same money to make a roughly $3,000 HSA contribution and a $2,000 catastrophic-premium payment for 60 million Americans every year. That’s a $12,000 annual HSA plus catastrophic coverage for a low-income family of four. Do we really believe most of them wouldn’t be better off? …

…All of the health-care interest groups—hospitals, insurance companies, professional groups, pharmaceuticals, device manufacturers, even advocates for the poor—have a major stake in the current system. Overturning it would favor only the 300 million of us who use the system and—whether we realize it or not—pay for it. Until we start asking the type of questions my father’s death inspired me to ask, until we demand the same price and quality accountability in health care that we demand in everything else, each new health-care reform will cost us more and serve us less.

[Will Robinson]

...
You don't see anything wrong with the CEO's of these health insurance companies making millions off of the suffering of sick and dying people? Doesn't that bother you AT ALL Will?...

Isn't anyone who earns a living off of delivering health care profiting "off of the suffering of sick and dying people" ?

In addition to deflecting the focus of my original post towar republicans you also seem to have a need to charge the debate by assigning uber-evil intent upon the insurance company.
How about the doctors and hospitals? Don't they also make profit? Is there something horrible with their profit margin as well?

Is providing health care the only time profit is evil? How about housing? Shouldn't we also demonize home builders and real estate developers for building homes that too expensive for many people to buy? Isn't it totally unreasonable for people to live in slums when rich people live in mansions?

You see, in a predictable way you have illustrated the point of my post. Instead of offering a solution to the out of control health care costs you offer class warfare as justification for passing an unspecific yet all encompassing legislation that is really a carte blanche mandate to authorize the democrats and Obama to remake America into a pseudo socialist part fascist controlled society.

They will use the passage of whatever vague and unfinished form this legislation has to control a giant sized portion of our economy and life style making the often used phrase "nanny state" very much a reality and you will have helped them do this the same way the Germans helped Hitler use the jews as a scapegoat to rally support for his agenda.
Before any of you try to use the argument that anyone who uses a Hitler analogy looses the argument you better go and actually study the subject and you will see that in this case the parallels are dead on target!

My original post wasn't designed to start yet another partisan tit for tat spam fest it is just my rant pointing out how the democrats are going into campaign mode because they see their leader has no command of the subject matter and their legislation is being exposed for the Trojan horse that it is. They have no defense other than their fallback plan which is always the same, incite class warfare because they know that TC isn't the only one who will abandon critical thinking at the drop of the class envy hat!

they don't even care about the insurance companies as the cause of our troubles because if they agreed with TC on that as the source they could easily regulate that industry to control cost without taking over! But TC and others don't want to think that through because they have their fur up like good little democrats at the mere mention of rich people!

Here it is in simple form:
I don't care if the insurance companies lose a major portion of their profit margin because the congress passes legislation that regulates them into providing insurance and care plans at a reduced cost BUT I do care if congress uses this problem to seriously alter the very foundation of our republic by fooling a bunch of emotionally driven idiots into letting them take over!!

[Tunnelcat]

What's so wrong with a little socialism for those necessities that benefit our entire society as a whole? It's not as evil as you keep touting and we use it all the time. What about fire and police protection? How about government funded and maintained roads? How about our damned Military? Would you want all of that 'privatized'? Not everybody could afford it! We've all seen what 'privatized' electrical utilities devolve into when greed takes control. Remember ENRON, hmmmmmmmm?

You use housing as an example of a 'for profit' entity. What about all those people that are homeless because they can't afford housing? Aren't homeless people a drag on society? They require charity or thievery to survive. As a nation, is that the way we want for our people to have to live or should we just kill them off to dispose of the problem?

You talked about doctors and hospitals making profit. How much is too much to make in an inelastic market. There's an emergency room doctor who just built a new house worth a million dollars in my neighborhood (raising the local property values as well, grrrrrrrr!) all because he wanted a view that his old $800,000 house didn't have. I personally think he makes waaaaaaaaaaaay too much off of the suffering of others for this type of luxury. By the way, insurance companies aren't in the business of helping sick people, their purpose is pure profit to please Wall Street, not helping people who are sick or dying. JUST PLAIN EVIL! So those who can't afford health care because some CEO's and their corporations want to make billions in profit I guess should just suffer and die! Nice way to keep a society strong and vibrant!

You're worried about class warfare, well it started with good old Reagan and his tax cuts for the rich, check the dates on the graph. And yes, the rich are getting poorer too now, but not nearly as bad as the bottom wage earners. Mark my words, if we get a revolution in this country, it will be started by the larger numbers of bottom wage earners in our population, not the small percentage of the top wealthiest and I'm really afraid health care is going to be the match that lights it if we don't find a way to get costs under control, since people will always see life and good health as a right and they will fight for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/ ... aphic.html

[Spidey]

Those charts are probably before taxes.

And when the poor people steal all the land and business from the rich, like they did in South Africa…

Yea…that worked…

[CUDA]

How about our damned Military?

I find this HIGHLY OFFENSIVE, I served in that DAMNED Military, I protected people like you. and I find this attitude totally unacceptable, if you don't like the government its one thing, but to smear the service of the men and women that VOLUNTARILY served this country with their lives

[Will Robinson]

...

You use housing as an example of a 'for profit' entity. What about all those people that are homeless because they can't afford housing? Aren't homeless people a drag on society? They require charity or thievery to survive. As a nation, is that the way we want for our people to have to live or should we just kill them off to dispose of the problem?...

Thanks for playing along. You displayed the problem I have with your position beautifully by suggesting the only choices are death or socialism!

No, I don't propose we kill off the homeless.

Do you propose the government run out of business all real estate developers and home builders so the government is the only place anyone can turn to buy a house? Making government the sole arbiter of what kind of house you can buy?

Believe it or not the health care "emergency" isn't so bad that we need to rush through another democrat slush fund and power grab!

Your other question is to the point as well.

What's so wrong with a little socialism

A police force or fire department funded by the government is not exactly a socialist entity. It is run by the local government not the federal government. But lets call it a little bit of socialism like you said.
Federalizing the health care industry is A WHOLE LOT OF SOCIALISM.
Whatever impact the socialist aspect of a police force has on the economy and the quality of service is minimal. The health care industry is a MAJOR component of our economy and transforming it to a government ONLY source would be devastating to our economy and the chaos the transformation would bring would be deadly to many..literally deadly.

Where a competing police force or fire department makes no sense because it would add to chaos instead of safety and where they are NON PROFIT the health care industry is not non profit and competition would be welcome and helpful.

There are solutions to the high cost but the democrats are after something else and you seem to be willing to shut your eyes to the reality and just follow their voices into the tunnel.

Finally let me add the old warning: 'Be careful what you ask for'
When liberals in government decided there weren't enough kids graduating to the next grade in school because they couldn't read properly their solution was to pass them on to the next grade anyway.
So what happens when the government health care Czar decides there are not enough neurosurgeons at work?
From pharmacy tech to brain surgeon in two days and one training session?!?

[woodchip]

You talked about doctors and hospitals making profit. How much is too much to make in an inelastic market. There's an emergency room doctor who just built a new house worth a million dollars in my neighborhood (raising the local property values as well, grrrrrrrr!) all because he wanted a view that his old $800,000 house didn't have. I personally think he makes waaaaaaaaaaaay too much off of the suffering of others for this type of luxury.

Yet John "Family Man" Edwards built a huge house, and when he looked out the front window and didn't like the view his neighbor caused, bought him out.
"I personally think he makes waaaaaaaaaaaay too much off of the suffering of others for this type of luxury."

since people will always see life and good health as a right and they will fight for it.

Too bad the obese\\alcholic\\sedentary\\drug users don't worry about their good health yet we that do should pay for it?

[Spidey]

“Give me Socialism, or give me Death”

Just doesn’t have the same ring…ya know.

………………………………

Police, Fire and the Military don’t fall under the category of Socialism…

Nor do civil services like trash collection.

1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles

People seem to think Socialism means anything that is done by the government and paid thru collecting taxes…that is simply not true.

[CUDA]

A police force or fire department funded by the government is not exactly a socialist entity. It is run by the local government not the federal government. But lets call it a little bit of socialism like you said.

Actually Will, where TC lives most of the fire departments while Publicly funded are Privately run, so that isnt even an accurate assessment.

[CUDA]

so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

I particularly like definition #2 \"in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved

but they are working on it

pro·le·tar·i·at (prō'lĭ-târ'ē-ĭt)
n.

The class of industrial wage earners who, possessing neither capital nor production means, must earn their living by selling their labor.

they've already started by GIVING the auto companies to the Unions

[Bet51987]

How about our damned Military?

I find this HIGHLY OFFENSIVE, I served in that DAMNED Military, I protected people like you. and I find this attitude totally unacceptable, if you don't like the government its one thing, but to smear the service of the men and women that VOLUNTARILY served this country with their lives

I believe, in the way she presented it, the word "damned" was being used as an intensive and not something demeaning.

Bee

[Tunnelcat]

Thank you Bee. I WAS using it as an intensive, NOT as a demeaning slur, Cuda. Calm down! We NEED our Military and we can't possibly afford it unless everyone in the country helps PAY for it! I was only pointing out that if everyone had to privately pay for defending themselves from foreign invasion, the spotty protection supplied by private militias would NOT be enough to stop an organized foreign army. That's why the government runs it, to spread the risk for ALL of our society, not for just for certain wealthy individuals. So does that mean it's technically a 'socialist' entity?

That's why police and fire protection are publicly funded, to spread the risk for all. The city of Chicago had privatized fire protection until the great fire. Before that, if you didn't have a medallion on your home for any of the local fire agencies proving that you paid for their services, they would drive right by and let your house burn down. But the folly of that was laid bare when most of the city burned down because of this method of fire protection. One person's little fire turned into everyone's disaster. That's what spreading the risk is all about.

There are things that are necessary for the functioning of our society that should be publicly run to spread the risk. Health care may be one of those things that require a partial non-profit government intervention. I'm not advocating a full government takeover. You've all made points about that one. But the risk to society is not being addressed by private insurance. If anything, it's making things worse. What we may need is a government entity or life endowment to be used as a 'safety net' for those who can't afford private health care.

Costs will be one of those painful decisions that ALL of us will have to address, doctors, hospitals, specialists, insurance companies and most of all, patients. Everyone gripes about what insurance companies make, but doctors and hospitals expect a giant chunk of our hide too along with most patients that demand the best treatment possible. We as a nation have gotten too greedy and have lost our altruism and human ethics. We're going to have to decide how much is too much to pay to maintain our bodies and yes, even how much is too much to extend life. If everyone wants to live at all costs, who'll end up paying for it and how?

[Will Robinson]

....We're going to have to decide how much is too much to pay to maintain our bodies and yes, even how much is too much to extend life. If everyone wants to live at all costs, who'll end up paying for it and how?

You suggest "We" need to decide but you advocate surrendering the decision making process from "we" to the same people who 'decided' taking our Social Security contributions out of the general fund, spending it on their own re-elections and writing worthless IOU's to replace them was a good thing...the same people who decided that Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were "doing fine" and decided to ignore and ridicule the regulator who reported to them that there was a serious problem....the same people who have proven over and over again they can't be trusted to deliver what they promise!
And in this case the administrations own accounting department has declared the plan isn't sustainable!!

So again I ask, why give them complete control of so much of our lives? Why not instead insist they actually regulate just the particulars of the high costs, insurance reform, supplement catastrophic coverage for people who are in need etc. etc.

[CUDA]

this is a quote from the Oregonian in this mornings paper.

this was one of the government run health-care programs that was heralded when it first came out around 1990. and now we want to nationalize this

A year ago, the national debate over assisted suicide was inflamed by news that OHP administrators denied coverage for expensive cancer treatment to Barbara Wagner of Springfield, while promising to pay for end-of-life care.

At the time, The Oregonian's editorial board urged that this obvious \"ethics glitch\" should be corrected by eliminating OHP funding for doctor-assisted death.

The editorial board also observed that \"administrators of the Oregon Health Plan had to make a difficult call. But that's what they do every day in performing the tough, thankless job of rationing government-paid health care to the needy.\" If only President Barack Obama and the other proponents of national health care would be so forthright about the realities of any government-run health system. Oregon wasn't the first to ration, but it was among the first to admit to it.

There are only two ways to avoid rationing of government benefits: more tax dollars or less demand. We will never fund every beneficial medical procedure or drug for every American, even with continued unrestrained growth of the national debt. While there are constructive measures that could be taken to reduce demand, the approach most familiar to governments is the queue or wait list, a well-practiced method in other nationalized health systems. Otherwise, the only choices are to provide fewer services, reduce the quality of services or provide services to fewer people -- all forms of rationing.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... aliti.html