IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

I suspect President Obama intends to use his forthcoming meeting with Republicans to discuss, not health care reform generally, but rather the specific aspects of it which he has already specificed (and in a very self-serving way), as a pretext to declaring that Republicans have rejected a "bi partisan" approach and that, as a result, forcing a modified version of the Senate legislation through in the reconciliation process is now "justified".

It will be an interesting spectacle ... and the public response, likely far more interesting.

I doubt it....the smart move is to go in and say "ok, you dont like the dem ideas, not a single one of you could find a way to vote for it, so what do you think that we should do to fix healthcare? Sell me on a better way to get people service, and to do so at a reasonable cost to the country"and then he does not say a word.

Even the dems didn't like the dem ideas, though. Not to mention the public opposition.

Either way, I suspect it will be the pretext or rationalization for the "necessity" of an attempt to (mis)use the budget reconciliation process to pass the health care bill. I agree, they may not have the votes among the now very worried Democrat legislators to do so. However, even this may be regarded by the President and his advisors as a needed sop to the radical left.

The Dems liked the ideas well enough. It passed overwhelmingly in the House, and the bill had 59 in favor in the senate. But the Reps, who don't care about the poor and middle class, opposed everything, and were working to destroy Obama.

I doubt very much that the Democrats could now muster more than about 80% of the voted previously cast in favor of the health care legilation they passed earlier. They are all scared of being voted out of office by the electorate that is, according to their propaganda, overwhelmingly in favor of their programs.

The House bill passed narrowly (220 to 215 margin), with 39 Democrats voting against it. The Senate bill was voted along straight party lines 60-39.

There's been overwhelming public opposition to the bill (not reform in general) and that's probably why they haven't had the votes to get it to the president's desk for signing.

This is a bad bill, bloated and full of favors for special interest groups including insurance companies and big pharma. At the end of the day the politicians on both sides have to answer to their constituents and that's why it's been stalled and will continue to be stalled without a major overhaul or flat out starting over. JMHO.

It is a disgrace that the USA is the only industrialized country without universal health care. Under our system, insurers look for any excuse to deny its policyholders coverage for ailments, and are happy to just drop those who are sick and who, say, miss a payment due to illness.

Anthem Blue Cross of CA is raising its rates up to 39 % despite having super-duper profits.

http://sundial.csun.edu/2010/02/the-national-anthem-of-insult/

You are right in that the vote was close in the House. It is interesting to me that only one Rep voted for reform in the House. This is despite the horrors in our present system, including the fact that at least 44,000 per year are dying due to lack of coverage, and that costs in this country are at least double. It is amazing how well the Reps march in lockstep. Maybe they are afraid that Rush will come down on them.

Just out of curiosity, Advocate, where did you get the 44,000 deaths per year number due to the lack of health care? You cite this as a "fact" but have provided no factual basis for it.

By the way the 2006 mortality data for the U.S. ccounts 2,426,264 deaths, half of which are due to heart disease and cancer. Your cited 44,000 constitutes about 1.8% of the 2006 total, comprising, for example about one-third the number of deaths resulting from accidents.

Just from the numbers it appears that you are countiung varioius (partisan) estimates of the uninsured and inferring all of their deaths (using average mortality figures) were due to the lack of health care insurance. This is both absurd and deliberately misleading.

However, I don't expect more than that from you.

Irishk recently posted a link on that. The number turns out to be 22,000 and is rated a half truth. You could probably backtrack the Irishk posts and find it. I'm not that interested, either, but it is there if you want to spend the time.

Thanks. I agree even 22,000 is high by a factor of at least two, just using common sense.

I have no interest in pursuing this further.

It is interesting to me that 39 Dems voted against reform in the House. Maybe they are afraid their constituents will come down on them (by voting them out of office).

I love your cheap shot at me, especially considering your stunning display of ignorance on something that has been all over the media.

See http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=lack-of-insurance-causes-more-than-2009-09-17

I wager this is quite conservative inasmuch common sense should tell you that the 44,000 figure is greatly understated.

Actually George, I just remembered, haven't we heard of thousands of deaths each year due to the health care system? I think the estimate is several times the 44,000, on the order of maybe 200,000, so perhaps it is appropriate to ask the question, how many people do not die because they don't have medical insurance and therefore are not exposed to dangerous and risky medical treatment? I am being only partially serious, but I am mentioning this because it would be very difficult to prove a number of people dying due to lack of insurance. And we just heard recently about Murtha dying because of a medical error.

My dad used to say it was dangerous to go to the hospital because that is where most people die. Of course he was being humorous, but sure enough he went to the hospital and died there when he was past 90.

I believe our length of life is at least as much determined and probably moreso by lifestyle as it is medical care. I believe preventive care that people talk up all the time is highly overrated. Preventive care included in lifestyle, I am not talking about that, I am referring to the practice of alot of screening and tests, as well as routinely visiting a doctor for no other reason than to have a routine physical, etc.

Maybe you missed my question here.....

http://able2know.org/topic/89938-285#post-3902003

So, someone w/o health insurance is 40 times more likely to die a year than someone with health insurance.

Does that mean that if no-one had health insurance and we exclude those that die over the age of 64, that 1.0mm x 40 = 40,000,000 (40 million) people would die each year. Nationwide only 2.5 million people die each year, and the study is saying that health insurance is responsible for saving 39 million people?

The number just doesn't seem right.

It is just a reminder that "The Scientific American" is about everything but science. Advocate did indeed post a cite of a SA report of a "study" that came up with 44,000. It was interestingly based on very approximate (and partisan looking) estimates for the "uninsured" and comparison with a sample that excluded anyone covered by medicare and other government policies, and based on unstated comparitive methods. One could get the same number simply by multiplying the average national mortality rate (per 100,000) by the claimed number of uninsured. Thus the inference that all deaths in the (highly questionable) uninsured count are exclusively the result of their lack of insurance.

Stuff like this doesn't pass the laugh test for people who think for themselves.

An Ironic Thank You to a Senator

Upon reading the quote by Sen. Mike Enzi: "If I hadn't been a part of the debate, you would already have universal health care," I was puzzled at first because I did not understand how universal health care would be bad for me.

Well, I've thought it over and I am beginning to understand. If we had universal health care it would cost us taxpayers too much money -- money that could be better spent defending our country from Iraq and Afghanistan and all of those other countries that pose a threat to us.

If we had universal health care, not enough people would die each year and that might create overpopulation.

If we had universal health care, it would encourage more illegal aliens to seek shelter here in the United States because their health needs would be served.

If we had universal health care, it might put the health insurance industry in a serious bind resulting in the loss of many jobs and adding to the current job loss problems we are facing.

If we had universal health care, it would harm the pharmaceutical industry by importing drugs from Canada and Mexico to the extent that they might not be able to afford TV ads showing a man and a woman in separate bath tubs holding hands. Again there would be a tremendous job loss.

If we had universal health care, hospitals and those in the medical profession might have to lower their fees, which could result in poor service.

If we had universal health care there might be no need for my living will or medical power of attorney.

If we had universal health care, those children who don't have insurance now would be running for medical help at every little scratch or cough.

If we had universal health care, the people who make false teeth would be put out of business.

I cannot thank Senator Enzi enough for saving us all from this curse of universal health care which would move our great country another step closer to a socialist state and erase the disparity we so need between the rich and the poor. People need to know their place.

CORNELIUS F. KELLY

-- trib.com/news/opinion

More irrelevant and factually distorted nonsense from Advocate. Apparently he believes the majority of folks in this country, who don't want the Democrat plan or the massive public debt and government interference in their lives that go with it, are somehow delusional.

Could it be that it is Advocate who is delusional ?