IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

I'm starting to think we're not ever going to see a health care bill. Or maybe we should starting calling it an Insurance Reform bill.

That's a simplification of the senate bill, but it's 100% correct.

What I'd like to see is all legislation being planned by both houses of congress fail; what is happening now and will continue to happen is that health insurance premiums will continue to increase much faster than the inflation rate or wages. We'll see more companies dropping health insurance and/or the percentage that employees pay will go up accordingly. Private insurance will be for the rich and famous, and the middle class and poor will not be able to afford health insurance.

Give those people what they want; lost health insurance. Let them suffer for about ten to fifteen years without health insurance.

As these health insurance costs continue to increase, our products and services will become less competitive in the world marketplace, and more jobs will be farmed out to foreign countries.

We should give them what they want; less jobs and no health insurance.

There's no cure for stupid. As a matter of fact, our congress should start talking more about takeover of health plans and death panels. They deserve no more.

President Barack Obama last week quoted Wendell Potter's recent Congressional testimony. Yesterday, speaking before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, Wendell "warned that if Congress 'fails to create a public insurance option to compete with private insurers, the bill it sends to the president might as well be called the Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act. ...

Potter, who was previously a vice president of communication at Cigna, also sharply criticized Democratic Senator Max Baucus' health care reform bill in a conversation with reporters Monday, calling the plan an 'absolute gift to the industry.'"

In his testimony, he stated that the Baucus plan "would create a government-subsidized monopoly for the purchase of bare-bones, high-deductible policies that would truly benefit Big Insurance. ... It's hard to imagine how insurance companies could write legislation that would benefit them more."

There are six health-care lobbyists for every member of congress. This is double the number of lobbyists for the defense industry. The expense for the former is over $500 M per year.

In view of this, what chance does the American public have?

None. Our congress members have already sold their souls to the highest bidder, but more of the damage comes from the voters themselves. They don't want health care reform, because of death panels and the government take-over of health care.

I no longer give a **** about the American people doing without health care; they will get what they are crying for; higher health insurance premiums and/or no insurance.

I'm no longer advocating for the American People; they don't deserve it. From now on, I'm supporting the health care industry and those people who don't want universal health insurance.

Advocate wrote:

There are six health-care lobbyists for every member of congress. This is double the number of lobbyists for the defense industry. The expense for the former is over $500 M per year.

In view of this, what chance does the American public have?

Our elected representatives are selling their souls to the devil in broad daylight . . . and one-half of the population is too stupid to see what is going on under their own noses . . . but what about those of us who aren't stupid? Are we going to allow Congress to sell our future to the highest bidder?

Conservatives often hold up the 'free market' as a tool of innovation and efficiency; but what innovation and efficiency do private Health insurers bring to the equation? What is their added value? I'd like to hear specific examples, not generalizations based on ideology. I ask, because I can't seem to figure out what their added value is; that is to say, since Health Care isn't a commodity or product, but rather a service, the upside of 'innovation' seems to be rather limited compared to the billions of dollars the downside costs us, in profits and money wasted on things like advertising and marketing.

Cycloptichorn

Now would you enlighten us with a description of the value government will add to this equation. I know this --They will tax some and redistribute benefits to others - all subject to political favoritism - and consume a great deal of what is taken in along the way. In the process they will restrict the freedom and initiative of individual caregivers, subjecting all to the dead hand of brueaucracy and political manipulation.

I've answered your question George. You have a layer of expense in health care derived from charging and nothing to do with health care which you don't have if it's free. How big is that layer and could it be put to better use is the question and you ignoring it won't make a shite of difference even in the short run.

georgeob, You worry about government takeover of health care and impose restrictions. I worry about a) how they are going to pay for it vs how much they can reasonably save in cost, and b) how the plan will be implemented to insure that the majority of Americans will be covered at what rates and costs? What limitations will there be based on the rates people pay? If they plan to provide everybody with a cadillac plan, how are they going to pay for it?

spendius wrote:

I've answered your question George. You have a layer of expense in health care derived from charging and nothing to do with health care which you don't have if it's free. How big is that layer and could it be put to better use is the question and you ignoring it won't make a shite of difference even in the short run.

Perhaps we should also eliminate all those competing automobile companies; food processers; clothing manufacturers; producers of industrial goods and entertainment -- each with their own individual and duplicative billing & financial staffs; marketing & advertising, procurement and quality organizations. Think of all the analogous (to your point) savings that would evolve. What could be more duplicative and wasteful than competition? What could be more efficient and economical than centrally run economic activities? The problem is the world and human nature don't work that way.

All of this, of course has been tried before. The history of the 2nd half of the 20th century is the story of the desperate attempts of people from the former USSR and across eastern Europe much of Africa and Asia to escape from these systems which delivered only drab poverty and the loss of individual freedom.