OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

This idea has already been posted, those seeking to contribute would do well to search for the idea they wish to support first, and only if it does not already exist, enter a new one.

The flogging of blogs and pet rocks can be done in comments.

No this notion has not gotten posted here before. How much have the insurance companies paid you to criticize my plan?

http://bit.ly/single_payer_baucus

http://bit.ly?single_payer

If someone is doing a poor job, I believe the best approach is to do a better job beside them until they are irrelevant or they perform to the new standards. Can Congress raise the standards without resetting the whole system? I don't believe they will pass S703 or HR676 or any other single-payer only system, and I'm skeptical that they will offer a public option that provides some real competition. I think the major health care legislation of the 111th will include a public option, but it needs to attract at least 40-100 million customers immediately if it's going to have any teeth.

I have a hard time voting no on this one as I admire the spirit of all of the people who KNOW we can make a more efficient system that is responsible for the health of our citizens instead of the the profits of shareholders, but I believe we can make some immediate (hopefully LARGE) steps down the correct path without a new 2% payroll tax or forced enrollment.

Speaking of taking those steps, I have an issue with bullet point one of the administration's health care goals [and some notes on the rest, it turned out]:

* Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government [If administrative costs for private insurers are around 30% and Duke Medical Center has more billing clerks per bed than nurses, let's talk seriously about what costs we can cut now, not "slowing future growth." "How about savings over previous year" - and make it happen]

* Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs [I hope this means immediately eliminating when found reasons for costs being out of control, not just writing checks to insurance companies in the names of people who got screwed, let's unscrew them]

* Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans [94% of communities only have access to one or two plans because of insurance company consolidation. These insurance companies can currently charge what they want. Hello, government, provide some competition and renew some regulation]

* Invest in prevention and wellness [FDA sanctioned suppression of natural products protects the profits of patent holders. Just because it can't be patented doesn't mean it doesn't work. An apple a day still keeps the doctor away, and so do a lot of other things]

* Improve patient safety and quality of care [eliminate 3rd party "insurance adjuster" types]

* Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans [back to that "long term growth" business]

* Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job [make the public option the fallback option - back to that business about making the public option a place where people would want to be]

* End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions [of course]

http://www.tndp.org/profile/EricScottLykins

It should have a small deductible to keep people from overusing their physician's time.

Read this excellent blog post, "The SUPPOSED Difficulties of Converting to Single-Payer"

By Joel A. Harrison

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=144312962&blogID=491626677

What kind of democracy do we have when congress can ignore the will of the majority of people want and Doctors who want single payer. Remember this taken from blog post above:

Gradualism, given all of the above, is just a code word for keeping the unearned, disruptive, counterproductive profits of a dysfunctional fragmented for-profit health care industry that never should have been allowed to come into being in the first place (a recent phenomenon even in the U.S. basically starting in the 1980s).

Anyone supporting gradualism has either not really studied the problems we face (just as one example look at Barlett and Steele’s book, “Critical Condition), and all the research and studies on single-payer and international comparisons (many can be found on Physicians for a National Health Programs website at www.pnhp.org. Or is a shill for the for-profit health care industry.

Given the fraud and misconduct found in today's marketplace, I see no other option to offer fair and equitable health care to all Americans but single payer/private delivery care. Even while out of one side of their mouths the insurance companies promise "internal reform", they are jacking up rates and cutting benefits siting "the economy". This is unfair to those who depend on this insurance.

If you love Dickensian society, become and actor and perform in plays and movies based on Dickens's work. Otherwise learn from history or get out of the people's way!

A public option will result in only a 9% savings over the costs we share today. A single payer is more fiscally sound and is the only truly universal approach to health care. The young doctors coming out of medical school today favor a single payer approach. This wonderful new generation has decided that providing health care for people should NOT be a profit derived decision. We have a lot to learn from them.

Our health as a country should be in OUR hands, not the hands of private, profit driven corporations. "In our hands" means that the government needs to provide a system of funding by which WE THE PEOPLE can access health care from the medical professionals OF OUR CHOOSING. When someone is talking about "choice", ask them what kind of choice they are talking about. We don't need health insurance choices, heck, we don't need health insurance! What we need is a government funded system of public health care administration that will save everyone a lot of money.

As taxpayers, we are already paying for the private insurers to administrate health plans: Federal employees, Medicare and Medicaid recipients. Go online and take a look at what they charge us taxpayers. Why do you think health insurance is so high? The private insurers have us over a barrel and they know it. The public (at least a segment of the public) realizes this and is speaking out (single payer advocates). Now the industry is promising to "play nice" and bring the cost down by a little over 2 trillion within the next several years. A single payer system could save us over 10 trillion within that same time period. Yes, that's right.

Those corporate legislators who wish to "reform" the present system we have in place do so at their own peril. The people of the United States are not doops! Sooner or later, the facts behind a single payer system will be revealed to the public, despite the best monied interests to squelch it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5412191/Patients-forced-to-wait-hours-in-ambulances-parked-outside-AandE-departments.html

If you want to wait four hours in an ambulance before seeing a doctor put the government in charge of health care.

If you want better health care kick the government out of the doctors office and hospitals.

REQUIRED READING FOR MEMBERS OF SENATE FINANCE AND HELP COMMITTEES

There is a very good article in the New Yorker today titled "The Cost Conundrum." http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all Here's an excerpt, which doesn't exempt you from reading all 8 pages of the original:

...We would do well to form a national institute institute for health-care delivery, bringing together clinicians, hospitals, insurers, employers, and citizens to assess, regularly, the quality and the cost of our care, review the strategies that produce good results, and make clear recommendations for local systems.

Dramatic improvements and savings will take at least a decade. But a choice must be made. Whom do we want in charge of managing the full complexity of medical care? We can turn to insurers (whether public or private), which have proved repeatedly that they can’t do it. Or we can turn to the local medical communities, which have proved that they can. But we have to choose someone—because, in much of the country, no one is in charge. And the result is the most wasteful and the least sustainable health-care system in the world."

Comment to cashman57:

Of course we will have to redesign our system of health care delivery, and guess what, we NEED to do just that. Several months ago I had the misfortune of accompanying my husband to the hospital emergency room. You see, a lot of people don't have medical situations arise during "doctor's hours". Of course triage was done as it should be. In an emergency room, people get treated in order of medical priority. He was seen after 14 hours. Yes, 14 hours. When was the last time you had an emergency room visit?

The benefits to be obtained from a single payer universal system far outweigh the potential "problems", esp, the kinds of problem horror stories coming from those poor uncivilized countries with universal coverage. Try to imagine a health care system that does not have at it's hub a for profit insurance industry. Imagine the possibilities for all of us. Health insurance companies have NOTHING whatsoever to do with quality of care. The government will only ADMINISTRATE payments, not delivery of care. We the people will make decisions about what we want our system of health care to look like, not a private corporation making those decisions.

The last time I had an emergency room visit was last July when my wife needed immediate care. We had no waiting. We had a decision to admit her within minutes and she received high quality care.

If you have a problem in your region, fix it, don't ask me to sacrifice mine for yours, yours has been shown to be worse.

We have nobody in America waiting in an ambiulance four hours before getting in to the emergency room.

Ruining our health care is not fixing it.

Single payer bureaucrat run amok red tape waste fraud and abuse health care is not better than what we have now.

Take responsibility for your city, your county, your State before you come asking all of the rest of us to sacrifice because your region has no leadership.

"The government will only ADMINISTRATE payments, not delivery of care."

Come on, are you really falling for that?

They will streamline it by only allowing certain procedures and if you don't fit the criteria they won't pay and you are stuck.

Ever heard of an HMO?

That was the last time the federal government interfered with health care.

How did that turn out?

Is the HMO the best place to go?

Not from what I have read and heard.

How many times must the government come up with the wrong answer before you stop asking them for things they are not qualified or authorized to do?

If the Clintons past single payer health care what would Bush have done with it by cutting coverage it offered. That is why I do not want single payer.

I would like to share my ideas regarding national health care with you.

I believe that someone such as the Surgeon General or someone else should determine what a basic health plan (driven by public health care policies) should be. Once such a basic plan is determined all health insurance companies will be required to provide the provisions of such plan to any United States citizen. Insurance companies would be allowed to charge whatever price they determined is equitable but they would have to charge all of their customers the same price, though each company would differ in price. Everyone would get a tax credit that would cover most of the cost for buying the basic plan and be required to buy the basic plan before buying any optional health insurance. Along with this basic policy for everyone, the paperwork would be standardized across all insurance companies, hospitals and health care providers.

Since the insurance company has to charge each one of its customers the same price they can advertise the price on radio, television, print advertising creating a competitive market. Since the basic plan is the same, consumers will be able to compare the base rate and optional coverage easier. This would eliminate insurance companies from refusing people for insurance for the basic plan. However, insurance companies could charge accordingly and set their own guidelines for optional insurance. Also government can help the poor with their premiums. The government also should set up an insurance plan for the insurance companies that thay all pay into, so that smaller insurance companies could offer health insurance, so if a insurance company has a person with health cost of over a million dollars thay could collect from the government plan. Also make medicare and mediaid cradle to grave plans so to make insurance companies to keep you healthy for your whole life and not just keeping you healthy till you get on medicare. And to make every one get health insurance give a tax credit to everyone that buys health insurance that will pay for most if not all of the cost of the health insurance, the tax credit would be base on the number of people insured for the household and not the cost of the health insurance, but it still should cover most if not all of the cost of the health insurance. For people doing unhealthy acts, I say tax them, tax smoking, tax unsafe cars, tax unhealthy food, and use those taxes to help fund health care.

I posted my plan under

uncategorized

please read all of it and tell me how to make it better and vote on it

my email is debdaveandpets@gmail.com

if you want to contact me, I think my plan would be easier to do than most other health plans.

David McDonell

E5273 Airport Road

Ironwood, MI 49938

Make basic health insurance like milk, you do not see huge difference in milk prices because milk is milk someone charges to much and people will buy it elsewhere, but for the free market to work well people have to be able to compare the different plans, and by making the basic plans the same across all health insurance companies people will only have to compare price and service for the basic plans and what optional insurance is offer by the health insurance companies. By having sick people pay the same as healthy people, employers would not have to pay more for workers with medical problems and those people can change jobs and find work easier. Unhealthy items and acts would be taxed. Insurance companies can not use paper work to denied coverage and would get rid of most of it. Freemarket would keep costs down. people and retirement plans owning stock in health insurance companies would not lose a lot of value. Putting health insurance companies out of business would have costs.

I have a good idea! If Democrats want single payer so badly, why not allow only Democrats to participate in it. In order to be allowed to use or to contribute to a government run health plan, you must be a registered Democrat. Those not registered as Democrats would not be allowed to use the national health plan and would also not have to pay for its funding.

Sounds good to me!

I don't think you could get Democrats to sign on to more taxes, less service, and treatment based on what some pencil necked geek in DC decides.

Want to see the surplus money the US government and all states, local governments have? http://CAFR1.com and http://TaxRetirement.com

and support Campaign for Liberty

debra,

I can't connect to the link you posted. Is it correct?

Google CAFR1, or The biggest game in town, you will find it it is the first hit.

cashman

you are assuming that a national plan will limit your access. i am happy you had no wait. i wonder where you live?

the reality is we have insurance middlemen making coverage cost more than it should and you and i pay for that in the form of taxes. every federal employee and Medicare and Medicaid recipient...we pay for them. employer based coverage is tax free. we fund that indirectly. who wins? insurers.

listen, we obviously have a philosophical difference of opinion. i happen to think that health coverage is something the government should provide, just like i expect the government to provide other things like roads, public education, etc. we are already funding government funded health care, you must know that. we are subsidizing an entire industry and they repay the favor by creating an insurance nightmare where people are paying upwards of 10,000 to 15,000/ yr for coverage. single payer would make the system more fiscally efficient.

your concerns about rationing and "standards" are warranted, but if you think that the present system is going to be able to support business as usual for too long you are sadly mistaken. have you heard about health care inflation??? we are on a collision course to medical disaster and pretending that the system we have is just peachy because you don't have to wait that long in an emergency room, or you yourself have not experienced financial disaster is short sighted and dare i say selfish. no one wants to take anything away from you...people want everyone to have the same access to care at an affordable price by a system that will sustain itself in the long run.

ls072456

There is no such thing as "single payer", since it is all of us who must contribute to pay for those who would abuse the government health care system. Like any other program that has been forced on us by the government, it will be an abject failure.

See my previous post. If you think such a program is a good idea, participate. Just don't force me to participate in a program I want nothing to do with.

Do a search in Google on "Government Wealth" then if you are inclined, support this man that has provided this great service for us that make up the USA. We need volunteers to audit their city, county, state, etc...

Please call this what it is, socialized medicine. I do not believe that the majority, or anyone who has seen the effects of such systems in other countries, would want this.

right now we have corporate medicine and it costs too much and actually PREVENTS people from buying health insurance at an affordable price. there is a myth that only freeloaders don't buy health insurance. the reality is, many just cannot afford it because premiums can cost them up to $1200 to $1500 per month. ask yourself if you could budget this into your finances.

here's another fact. people that buy less expensive policies because that is all they can afford find themselves underinsured. the industry is actually selling faulty products to the public.

the insurance industry is not contributing to the overall health of the country. the fact that we place 37th on the list of health indicators is enough evidence of this.

republicans are also embracing the idea of single payer. look up republicans for single payer.

single payer means there is a single point of administration to reimburse health care professionals for their service. we are all insured by a single provider. the government guarantees that we will not get rejected by an insurance company or be told that a certain condition does not fall within the policy. the government will not cherry pick among the healthy. the government will not spend millions of dollars trying to statistically determine who among their policy holders is most likely to get sick, cost them money, and thereby drop them. the government will not need to advertise it's services and thereby waste precious healthcare dollars.

you have no idea about what single payer is about because you refuse to accept the idea as socialized medicine. for every "horror" story you may happen to stumble upon about patients in "those" countries, there is an even greater abundance of horror stories about patients in this country. medicine is not a perfect science. private for profit medicine makes it even more susceptible to errors in judgement.

the truth is we all need to take responsibility for our personal health. this means lifestyle and prevention. for those who cannot afford such medical access, preventative tests and medical intervention is underutilized and the health of the patient is compromised. in addition, many with insurance feel that they can "rely on modern medicine" to fix whatever. our system needs to be designed around prevention, not just fixing. unless we make health care more available to more people at an affordable rate, this will not happen and we will continue to experience medical inflation.

if this system we have now is so great why do we have so many uninsured and underinsured? why are we ranked 37th in the world in health indicators? and why are we all paying so much?

your CAFRI site has excellent points. here is the question for you. who has the most to gain from a private health care system? pharma does not want single payer. CAFRI is right, but the "government" they speak of is not the government we want is it? we all have to figure out ways to get our country back from the monied interests that are strangling the lifeblood from us all. I know single payer "looks like" more taxes, but in realty, private insurance and the way taxpayers subsidize private premiums actually costs more in taxes than a single payer system. and who benefits? not us, but the monied interests of big pharma and insurance who can then continue to exert influence and shape even more policies.

there is a new study out connecting the health insurer, wellpoint, with the tobacco industry. sound like a convenient market plan to you. actually, it makes a lot of market sense except when you consider that you are talking human lives here.

the money behind our two party system is the real cause of the problem. they keep us distracted with "philosophical" differences of opinion while they continue to buy their way into power. once there, they use their influence to extract money from the taxpayers. they are clever and the ways they do this are not always evident. because they do this is why the "average" person pays too much personal income tax. do you really think that we don't need a government to do things? are you an anarchist? please, i would like to know your philosophy. the problem with the public is that we have too many who just don't care. too many uniformed and too many politically polarized. the money behind our two party system is the real problem, not out government. the money behind the two party system needs to be kicked out of power. the way i see it, a reform on the health care front is a real first step in that endeavor.

Is072456, Where are you getting your numbers? The private health insurance my wife had, before we married earlier this year, cost about $100 per month.

I live in a mostly rural area because I knew long ago what was coming. Not only am I insulated from the medical problems of big cities with high numbers of illegals clogging the system but am also closer to food sources.

The numbers for the cost per person in medical costs include all research and development, all advertising, and all other related expenses.

There is absolutely no way we should even THINK about going single payer.

The fact is the last time the federal government interfered(helped?) with the problem of health care they came up with the HMO.

How is this "single payer plan" any different than the HMO?

If government had the solution they would have started using that solution.

Calling health care single payer and not what it really is, rationed care, is just a lie.

When our system has more government involvement it gets more expensive every time.It also becomes less responsive to the consumer since they are not going to have to worry about people needing their services.

Anyone here who thinks this single payer is a good idea, tell me how it will be different than the HMO act.

"if this system we have now is so great why do we have so many uninsured and underinsured? why are we ranked 37th in the world in health indicators? and why are we all paying so much? "

#1 in those world indicators is France and there is not a level one trauma center in the entire country.We are "paying so much" because of governmental interferance. If the government had a solution they would have crafted something other than the HMO.

If you think HMO has increased our standing in some poll of health indicators then by all means go to single payer.

The supposed cost of medical care is including everything from advertising on TV and race cars to the Xerox machine in the doctors office.

If Princess Diana had her accident in Philly instead of Paris she would be alive today.

She would have been extracted and transported by professionals and she would have been taken to the trauma center where people with injuris as severe as hers were are routinely stabilized and eventually released from the hospital.

The sacrifice is too great.

No to "single payer" because it is the new HMO

Is72456, "listen, we obviously have a philosophical difference of opinion. i happen to think that health coverage is something the government should provide, just like i expect the government to provide other things like roads, public education, etc"

Please sit down for a day or so and read your Constitution and after reading it, tell me again what government's responsibility is.

Remember a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away every thing you have.

One other thing, the government does not provide anything to anyone. The taxes and fees taken from the people pay for all government projects. What out government does is facilitate the people buying things for themselves. It is sort of like giving your child money to buy you a birthday present with. You still bought it

I guess we can safely say that the single payer plan is just another word for HMO

cashman,

drug companies spend three times as much on marketing than on research $$$$$$

insurance companies spend 30 cents on the dollar on non-health related expenses$$$$$$$$$$

executive pay is in the tens of millions$$$$$$$$$

for profit health care results in health care inflation. single payer eliminates for profit administrators and all their greed incentives that influence medical providers.

big pharma will be reined in with single payer.

you can see any doctor you wish.

ls072456, How is it equitable for a person, who uses no medical services other than routine well visits but earns a large income, to pay a large amount into the health care system while another, who uses medical services frequently but refuses to work, pays nothing?

Sorry. Had to jump in here...

Refuses to work??? Do you mean disabled people? How unchristian of you! Am I to assume you are the rich person? I do advocacy for the disabled and am appalled that one of you trolls would have the cohones to post such drivel. I am also one of those disabled who "refuse to work". Palley, I worked from age 14 until age 45 when my body broke down. I made a lot of owners rich and a lot of stockholders happy. What did I get out of it? Health Insurance by the "Flybynight Co." and fired whenever I used it. What do I have now. Medicare that I can't afford to use. Because I'm on disability, my wife, who could work if she could get a few medical problems fixed, can't work because she can't get the health problems fixed. I would love to go back to work, if I could find something to do that did not involve toting barges and lifting bales. My wife wants to go back to work, but can't.

I do not get where some of you come off about paying taxes. Don't you understand that taxes are the dues we pay to live in a democracy? Were I fortunate enough to have benefited from the freedoms offered here in the US and become wealthy, I would not complain about paying more taxes. Provided those taxes went for the most part to funding programs and services for the PEOPLE, not for war and other foreign adventures, or more better nukes. If you people (and by that I mean Ditto Heads and other Talk Radio sycophants) are so tired of living in a Democratic Republic that offers its citizens services to live a proper life, then why not follow your money to the Camen Islands or Brunei or Switzerland even. Oh, you won't like Switzerland...Upon becoming a citizen all males under 60 are drafted into the militia. Maybe you can even reinstate slavery there (not Switzerland). Won't that save you some money?

I did not say disabled people. I pointed out that, under socialized medicine, someone can be able bodied and made a free choice not to ever work. That person would still be entitled to the same medical service as everyone else, at everyone Else's expense.

I am sorry you and your wife have medical problems but in 31 years of work you could not accumulate any savings or purchase any supplemental insurance?

Under socialized medicine, you and your wife would both likely be on a waiting list for your needed treatment. You would not have to pay for it, but you would have to hope you survive long enough to get to the top of the list. The wait can be as long as several years in counties that have socialized medicine now.

My problem with taxes is that the people proclaiming "taxes are the dues we pay to live in a democracy" aren't paying any.

Allow people to give to medical charities according to their own personal conscience. Tax funded social programs mean that someone else (congress) decides how much I am supposed to give to charity, even if they are cheating of their own contribution (and they are). I am then told that if I don't hand over the amount of money demanded, I will be dragged from my homke at gun point. In Law enforcement, we call that aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.

I am aware of Switzerland's compulsory military service and their restrictive immigration policy.

The slavery comment was pointlessly inflammatory and based on a false premise. Even if you ignore the immorality of slaverry, employees cost companies less than slaves would.

welborn, stop the fear mongering about single payer. also, i pay taxes. also, americans should not have to rely on "charity" to get medical care.

you need to realize that not everyone in america has been privilege to it's promise. we have a chance to make this a better democracy. this means not letting corporations run our government. this means reordering our priorities as a nation towards people over profits. corporations should exist to make our lives better, not the other way around. health care reform is an important first step. it does not mean that we will turn into socialists or communists. it means we will place capitalism in it's proper place and only condone it's proper functioning within our society.

private institutions can actually become menaces. they make products that are harmful or they do business in a dishonest manner. are we supposed to just let them because we believe in capitalism. that is crazy thinking.

i really think you need to get your facts straight about universal coverage. it is not socialized medicine. it is freedom from the bondage of the private health insurers for both patient and medical professional. it may take effort to get the system working, but it is worth the effort. we as americans can do this and the sorry state of our current system demands we be given that chance.

Kudos ls072456! My wife is on a 2 year waiting list with a "charity" to see a dentist for cavaties she has had for several years. In this economy hospitals are turning away uninsured poor at a record pace. Down here in Bristol, the local hospital will not see non-paying customers. They used to be an NPO. Now they won't even do a legal exam on rape victims if they owe the hospital money. I think all for-profit hospitals should be closed. Nobody should be allowed to profit on the suffering of others.

Now, welborn, you know that I know that you know that I know that "people who refues to work" is a Conservative Talk Show Euphamism for disabled people since accoring to the drug addicted Rush (an appropriate name). I hear it every day. "Why don't you get a job?" Well, where I live if you show up with a cane or wearing braces, you can forget about it. These people are so addicted to the media stereotype of the Healthy Believer (old Puritan belief), that they publicly state that we should all just give up "the scam" and get a job. So says Rush and so says Phill Valentine.

As to taxes, you obviously don't live in Virginia. WE ALL PAY here. Everything is taxed, EVEN FOOD. I may not pay INCOME taxes because my Social Security payments are too low to be taxed, even here. But I pay taxes on my rent, on my car (personal property tax), on my perscriptions, on my diabetic supplies, on my clothes, on the food I bring home and eat, on the food I eat in a resturant, on everything except air. The air they make money on by allowing people to polute it and then tax them. Why is this? The Legislature is full of Falwell Republicans (I call them Republicrooks and members of the Gay Old Pary for obvious reasons). They are just Representatives of the Rich. Now, the only people I know that don't think taxes are the dues we pay to live in a democracy are the Rich and Greedy like yourself who feel they are above the common fray and above the law and above everyone else. For too long we have allowed this unchristian madness to go on. Now there are even preachers saying Greed is good. I'm sorry as a Catholic I have been taught that Greed is a Sin! Even Jesus said "If you want to follow me, sell all your goods and give the money to the poor (in a statement in Matthew - I forget the chapter and verse - to a rich man). Read Acts about how the early Christians lived in Jerusalem. They sold all their goods and gave the money to the church for the poor. They lived communally. I'm not saying it is a sin to be rich, but if you are, you must remember the concept of Nobless Oblige. That is an old concept that means "the Nobles must lead - it is their Obligation"). They must lead by example, not sit back in their gated communities finding more and more clever ways to avoid their responsibility to society. Like not coming on government sponsored lists to spread fear about solutions that would benefit the MAJORITY of Americans just to protect your insignificant little pieces of paper with the fancy pictures on them.

Oh, and I am glad that you understand the big mistake of slavery. But as to inflamitory, well, what do you think your Ditto Head fearmongering is doing here?

ls072456- yes they do and those costs are figured in to the figure that says we have the most expensive health care. It isn't true no matter how much you would li8ke to make it true.

Today our health care system needs revision but that does not include telling me what procedures are the most cost effective for the government.

Have you ever heard of an HMO?

That was the solution from the Democrats the last time they decided they could fix health care.

Why should we believe "single payer" is going to be any different than "HMO"?????

First to Well Born, I forgot to add something: Why don't you work for 35 years for the minimum wage and try to save something.

Cashman57 why don't you join your Ditto Head friend, Well Born on Limbaugh Island? We are not talking about HMOs here. We are not talking about a Government delivery system. We are talking about Single Payer PRIVATE Delivery care. This soumd to me more like Mediare with a Private Fee for Service Advantage Plan. Currently, there is a public option as part of the Insurance Co. approved (some of them). You richie-riches have the option of buying all the coverage you want. But if you want a government to meet the demands of the 21st Century, ya gotta pay your taxes!!!

John, let me see if I got this right. You worked for thirty five years for minimum wage? I never had a job that paid minimum wage. When I started working there was no minimum wage, and my first job paid me $1.38 an hour, and guess what. I didn't stay at that wage for very long. I either increased my value to the employer or found a job that paid greater. I just remembered something, I lied. My first job paid only fifty cents an hour, but I was only twelve at the time, but the first job I had when I got married was paying me only $1.85 per hour. Needing more when my family started, I moved on to a job that paid more, and that was the experience of almost everyone I knew.

If you worked for minimum wage for thirty five years it was either because you are too damn lazy to advance yourself or you are not of value for some other reason to an employer. Nobody....repeat, nobody stays at minimum wage for thirty five years.

cashman

you cannot deny the facts that even your republican legislators agree with! man, get your brainwashed head out of your you know what.

may i ask you what experience you have in the medical filed or areas of public health? do you have actuarial experience? have you taken the time to become informed by those who actually may know a bit more about this than you or are you relying on the likes of hannity, limbaugh and beck to school your opinions? i don't want to get nasty, but you my man are not making any sense.

single payer avoids the pitfalls of HMO because it is meant to be designed a totally different medical paradigm. what is your problem with HMO other than out of group issues? i think some of the HMO pitfalls are a result of the overall health care inflation it is a complicated issue, but some people actually think they get more bang for their health care buck with an HMO. HMO pitfall is . too much care in the HMO means not enough money to deliver services. in addition, some HMOs hire insurance companies to administrate...oh well, those pesky insurance companies fouling everything up!. the result: patient gets shafted. we NEED a new medical paradigm...single payer is really the only administrative way to reform HEALTHCARE, not just health care insurance.

i don't know what percentage of your income you devote to insurance and out of pocket expenses, but i'm betting it is over 10%, and that would be low for alot of folks. single payer would require you to contribute 4.5% of your income to ensure ALL your health needs are met AND all the health needs of alot of other americans. can't you take a moment to consider what that would mean to americans and the resultant stimulus to our economy? i mean, if human misery doesn't bother you at least try to consider the fiscal possibilities.

darrel

like a lot of people you are totally unaware about how people with health issues or disabilities live. have you ever heard of the americans with disabilities act? do you realize that they are discriminated against? do you realize that there are many jobs the disabled just can't do because of their health? do you think some people are even healthy enough to work a 40 hour week? have you ever lived in a wheelchair, crutches, experience chronic pain?

i am not assuming to know what john's particular circumstance is, but no matter what it is your comments are way out of line. you are one of the people who make open discourse difficult because you view anything as threatening that challenges your small little view of the world as you would like it to be.

gee, i'm glad you are making more than minimum wage, but your attitude still pegs you as a paper boy.

Is:

Be honest now. Do you really know anyone personally who has worked for minimum wage for thirty five years, or for that matter for any great length of time. Most people who start off at a minimum wage job don't stay there for very long, regardless of their health or physical impairment. Besides, with today's manditory minimum wage, anybody working is making much more than I did when I started. Even in real dollars!

First family, then community, and last of all, government should be responsible.

darrel

i know people who wouldn't even be able to work a minimum wage job. people have problems darrel and not everyone has family either.

apart from physical problems, many people have mental and emotional issues that limit their capacity to engage in meaningful activities. i can't believe you don't know anyone who has some sort of disability.

darrel, depending on the state you live in a minimum wage is not providing you too much. here in CT, one cannot rent decent housing for under 800/month. that eats a lot of minimum wage monthly income.

listen, people have their reasons for working minimum wage jobs and you can't assume they are just lazy. they are working. minimum wage jobs should be entry level, but for a lot of people they are THE job. maybe you should expand your network. not all minimum wage earners are losers. they are people like you and me.

Am I the only one who's comments are failing to post to this thread?

Not worth worrying about. Since the discussion in this thread has degenerated into childish name calling and advocating class warfare, it is probably better that my longer comments disappeared.

ls072456, I will speak to you directly because you seem willing to have an actual discussion without hostility.

My father is disabled. The "care" he has received from the VA is the main reason I oppose government regulation of health care. If I had been a nit older and wiser when his injury occurred, I would have paid for him to have proper treatment. Instead, he sought treatment via the "workers compensation" system and the VA.

The "treatment" he received aggravated a neck injury he suffered while in the army and he is now paralyzed. With hard work on his part, he may one day recover the ability to walk. Private hospital treatment would have been MUCH cheaper in both money and suffering.

Patients' Choice Act:

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/index.htm