Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Insurance Is No Answer
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Health care "reformers" keep talking about getting us more health insurance. Then they talk about cutting costs. This is contradictory nonsense.

Insurance, whether private or a government Ponzi scheme like Medicare, means third parties pay the bills. When someone else pays, costs always go up.

Imagine if you had grocery insurance. You wouldn't care how much food cost. Why shop around? If someone else were paying 80 percent, you'd buy the most expensive cuts of meat. Prices would skyrocket.

That's what health insurance does to medical care. Patients rarely even ask what anything costs. Doctors often don't know. Often nobody even gives a damn. Patients rarely ask, "Is that MRI really necessary? Is there a cheaper place?" We consume without thinking.

By contrast, in areas of medicine where most patients pay their own way, service gets better, while prices fall.

Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business. They often give customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps increasing, but prices don't. "In every other field of medicine, the price is going up faster than consumer prices in general," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "But the price of Lasik surgery, on average, has gone down by 30 percent."

This shouldn't be a surprise. What holds costs down is patients acting like consumers, looking out for themselves in a competitive market. Providers fight to win business by keeping costs down and quality up.

Yet politicians keep telling us the solution is more insurance. And they mean insurance not just for catastrophic diseases that could bankrupt us but also for routine treatments.

The politicians are so oblivious to reality that they are on course to make things worse. Obama would force every business to either give workers health insurance or pay a fine into the public system. Why is that something we should want employers to do? Premiums come out of our salaries, but insurers are accountable to our bosses, not to us.

Why not just have a free market where people can buy whatever kind of health insurance they want? Competition would then bring prices down.

Obama and his Senate allies would limit competition by requiring insurers to cover everyone for the same "fair" price. No "cherry picking," the president says. No charging healthy people less.

They call this "community rating," and it sounds fair. No more cruel "discrimination" against people who have a preexisting condition, obese people or smokers. But such simple-minded one-size-fits-all rules take from insurance companies their best price-dampening tool: Risk-based pricing encourages people to take better care of themselves, just as car-insurance companies reward good drivers. With one-size pricing your car-insurance company must give the town drunk the same deal it gives you.

Insane, but the health-insurance industry is playing along. Insurers say that if government forces everyone to have insurance, they will accept all customers regardless of preexisting illnesses.

They also offered to stop charging higher premiums to sick people. They're even giving up on gender differences.

Sen. John Kerry huffed, "The disparity between women and men in the individual insurance market is just plain wrong, and it has to change." The president of the industry trade group, Karen M. Ignagni, agreed that disparities "should be eliminated."

Give me a break.

Women pay more than men for health insurance for good reason. Despite being healthier than men, they incur higher costs because they go to doctors more often, and they take more medicine. Kerry is pandering. I don't recall him demanding that men be protected from higher life-insurance and auto-insurance premiums.

"Community rating" hides the cost of health care. It's as destructive as ordering fire insurance companies to charge identical premiums for wood frame and stone houses. Universal health insurance with "no discrimination" pricing will make health care costs rise even faster.

When politicians interfere with free markets, unintended consequences harm everyone, except the companies that lobby hard enough to protect themselves.

Is it too much to expect our rulers to understand this?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Health care
John has it right. I have sold insurance for 24 years. The government mandates and interfereance has made coverage unavilable in to most people with health conditons because of the rule to cover all or nothing in Utah.

SMW SLC Utah

No, You give me a break!
No, people are not going to consume as much health insurance as they can. And no, competition is not going to magically lower prices. But cutting out the executive salaries and stock dividends that go to for-profit insurance company investors would. And generally people don't sit around and say, "Hey, I feel fine, but I think I will go get poked and prodded by a doctor and nurse, because hey, what the heck it free."

I am sure for a well paid free-market ideologue propagandist like Stossel he actually believes that it is a simple matter to go out and buy the health insurance ones needs. This is far outside of the reality of most working Americans. Their reality is that if they don't get insurance through a group plan from their employers, then they can't afford it period. They can't even come close to affording it. I know, I did shop around for it before I had my present job, and I could only afford to pay for my son, leaving myself uninsured.

It is easy to make these delusional "free-market" arguments from one's perch in the elite corporate media. But it just doesn't fly here in working-class America!

Don't Start About Health Canada

Before you start extolling the virtues of Health Canada, read these:

"57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room."

http://kevincolby.com/2008/06/27/the-canadian-healthcare-sy stem-and-its-problems/

Waiting time in Canada

http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2615339.aspx

Overburdened Canadian Government & Overworked Hospital Staff

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2 322922

Did CanadaCare Contribute To The Death Of Natasha Richardson

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/26/yes-canadian-health-ca re-helpe


15 Different Systems Within Canadian Universal Health Care System

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/how-does-canad as-health-system-actually-work/

"Sicko" Lies About The Cuban, French, and Canadian Health Care Systems

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-larner/michael-moore-an d-nationa_b_59479.html




Sheldon from CO

Actually Stossel is right. Competition drives down prices. Healthcare used to be very affordable in the United States.

That was before government destroyed free market competition.

I remember when I graduated High School in 1970. I was no longer covered by my parents insurance and had to purchase my own. To get Blue Cross/Bue Shield with Major Medical my cost was $127 a month. Today that same coverage costs over $1,800 a month.

Why the increase?
Heres why;

1. "Cost Shifting" from Government Insurance plans that was not and is not paying its full share. 2. Lack of Tort Reform. 3. Lack of Competition. Many Employers don't offer choices. 4.Defensive Medicine. Today doctors order un-needed tests to protect themselves from lawsuits. 5. High cost of doing business in the United States. State and local taxes, Social Security, workman's comp drive up expenses for doctors. 6.Inefficency/and regulations much of which is the result of government and businesses. 7. Consumers do not shop smart and are not getting "full disclosures" from Insurance Companies.
8. Consumer abuse. Consumers are wasting medical resources. Example; People on Free Government Healthcare refuse to see a family physician and prefer to go running to the Emergency Room for minor illnesses. 9, Doctor abuse. Doctors will stretch out tests and treatments to maximize the amount of money they can earn. 10. Drug companies. As they merge less competion is in the market place driving options and prices up.

Sheldon
Did you actually READ the article?
Did you read that part about cosmetic and lasik surgery?

"When politicians interfere with free markets, unintended consequences harm everyone, except the companies that lobby hard enough to protect themselves."
EWhat part of this quote DON'T you understand?

Seems to me, you just don't want to pay for your own healthcare.

Sheldon.
Wow! I've never seen a dumber statement, "People are not going to consume as much..." and that is the beginning of dumb. So, there is no use talking to a person believing that.

John,

How about telling this story on 20/20 BEFORE it’s too late. Let's see...ABC executives airing a segment counter to Obama’s power grabbing policies...never mind.

Read your hospital bill
Sorry if I keep repeating this - but maybe I'm the only blogger who has been in the hospital. What they charge for routine stuff is insane. But the sad fact is that if Blue Cross is picking up the tab - nobody cares what they charge.

Sheldon - you are flat out wrong
It so blatantly obvious as to what they are doing. Have you actually ever looked at a hospital bill?

carlos, you're half right.
Yes, a hospital bill, without insurance will be outrageous. Unlike John Stossel, I do know what a hospital bill looks like. When our son was born the billing department at the hospital misplaced our insurance information and sent us a bill for the week long stay of which three were in an ICU, and that's just for my wife. Our son was in for two weeks. So, the bill was insane. $40K+.

When we called and discussed this, we discovered their mistake. When we read the statements from Blue Cross Blue Shield the bill came down to $22+.

Why so less? Well unlike Stossel and his mixed goody bag of tricks to create competition, the insurance company has clout. It can force the hospitals to keep costs reasonable to what normal should be. It's the suckers who don't have insurance or enough insurance who foot the gigantic bills. It's sick the way hospitals do that to those without insurance.

Absolutely SICK!

So, Johnnie boy, get with the program and understand how billing works before you slam the insurance plans.


Johnnie, you're also wrong about
limiting competition.

When the poor and lower income people get insurance, and the hospitals have to charge reasonable rates according to pool leverage, the insurance companies will become even better at competition.

Or else they will go out of business. Competition for pricing will actually become a more important variable to the marketing of insurance once there is real competition.

Also, there will NOT be a shortage of care, as if rationing will occur. Wait times will still be long, or short depending on the office you go to and the culture of service of those people working in it.

That's how this all works.

JOHNNIE Clueless (sorry to the musician) you've got nothing here, and it is, as always a displeasure to read you. But, rebutting you is necessary.

Totally agree with this article.
Had an emergency when a branch crashed on my head and drove a thorn into the top of spine. Went to hospital, after it was removed, went to pay bill. “How much?” “$120” I said, “Wow”, they said, “Don’t worry you insurance will pay.” “I don’t have insurance” the lady said, ”Then that’s $80,” “How come some much less?” “Less paper work”, cashier replied.
Tort reform is needed also, The bill always go up because doctors afraid of lawsuits and do extra stuff to cover their butts.

Rick MN
The idea is to compare and contrast before making statements. What you should do is ask your parents what it cost to have YOU then compare it to the cost of your own child. My birth cost $3,500 in 1981 and unless you're pulling down $600,000, something has clearly changed. I ran 1/15th of my parents' annual salary and my mother, born 1948, ran 1/80 of my grandparent's salary (and they were poorer than my parents).

What has changed from then to now? When my mother was born, government had nothing to do with medical care and it was cheap. When I was born, we didn't have SCHIP or Medicare Part D.

Besides, I don't think you understand what reasonable is. Reasonable is what an un regulated market will price in a competetitive system. For medical care, this is mostly true. The ONLY time it becomes impossible for a competitive system to come into being is emergency care (as in you need it right now or you die in 30 minutes). THIS is what insurance is for, this sort of thing that, for the most part, is unlikely to ever happen to anyone.

Don't rush around looking at what things cost now and immediately believing your elected officials' theories as to why and trying to do kintergarden level comparisons of the international medical community. Lest we forget, the reason why Canada and the UK and France and Sweden and all the others went to a Universal Health Care model was because they were jealous of the USA because WE, before all the government got involved, took care of everyone, took care of everyone cheaply and did it at a high quality. They wanted that and, in grand European tradition, decided that only government could. It wasn't they who did well by adding government, it is us who fell behind because of government.

DISAGREE with this article
Stossel says we need more competition. We have had competition for decades and it has gotten us into the mess we are in now.

The way to fix our health care system is SINGLE PAYER. The health insurance industry should be tossed out on its ear. All this nice talk in the recent past is a smokescreen. They haven't changed, and they won't. They refuse to change their rescission policies, for example.

Single payer will also take care of the excess amounts in malpractice lawsuits, because plaintiffs won't have a financial loss from medical bills. They will only have to sue for pain and suffering.

In general, medical care does NOT function like the marketplace, and shouldn't be expected to, as we have had to suffer with for many decades now.

I agree with Kerry that there should not be gender difference in health insurance premiums. Women can't help that they have physical differences such as bearing children that necessitate more doctor visits. The fact that men have to pay more for auto insurance is because they have made a CHOICE to drive more dangerously. THat is something they could change.

LASIK and plastic surgery are ELECTIVE. That's a totally different thing from costs from a catastrophic illness or accident. When they are too expensive, people don't get them. Therefore they function like anything else in the marketplace, like widgets for example.

We have not had nearly enough government regulation of the health insurance industry. They have been given free rein to wreak havoc on the American people. Now the conservatives think it is "unfair" to give them some competition in the form of a public option. GIVE ME A BREAK!! It is the American people who have had to suffer for such stupid ideology.

You guys are right
Sheldon is an idiot. The only thing I disagree with is the use of the words "free market" when people discuss health care. Because (sorry) of the way medical education, doctors offices, hospitals, insurance, and the like are regulated by both the federal and state governments the best we'll ever see is an approximation toward or away from a free market. The point Stossel makes is still valid, but I think if a way were found to express this idea simply in the body of any article it would help the cause of markets. Not just in health care, but with other issues, as well. The other thing that I would like to see covered in discussions of health care is transparency in outcomes and cost-effectiveness in treatments, both by facility and by individuals. Reputation is one of the most misleading indicators in this business.

Earth to Foxyloxy
In case you hadn't noticed, government controls half of our health care system and mandates that insurance companies control most of the remainder.

What free market are you talking about?

Uninteded consequences
"When politicians interfere with free markets, unintended consequences harm everyone, except the companies that lobby hard enough to protect themselves."

I'm not so sure the consequences are unintended. It all comes down to power. With competition stifled, prices go up as will premiums...eventually forcing more and more people out of private insurance and into Bojangles' desired government single-payer system. When that happens, the government's cherished goal of regulating every aspect of people's lives and behavior will have been accomplished.


I agree completely with the article
I lived in South Korea with my family for four years while I was in the military. They do not have health insurance in Korea, so the method of health care payment is usually cash. We had to take our son to the doctor there for an ear infection and could not get him into the military doctor (socialized medicine) for several days. We took him to an ear, nose and throat specialist there that a friend recommended, and were in and out in less than an hour. The cost, 20000 won (less than $20.) including a prescription. My wife had many health problems there and was frequently referred by the military doctors to Korean clinics for medical testing that the military facilities did not have (another sign of rationed care) The insurance company covered it because of the referral. We were told by an insurance rep that they'd rather have the testing done in Korea because it was just as good and cost a fraction of what the same test would cost in the U.S. While I'm glad that I had insurance that covered the expense, I was amazed at how reasonable the prices were in comparison to what we typically see here. Other items, like food, fuel and housing were comparable in price or higher than what we pay in the U.S., but medicine was drastically less.

Liberals
like Sheldon are a big part of the problem. No common sense but they're always right.

Sure Justin, yuh betchya good buddy.
Whatever you want.


dukas I don't believe you.
My reason for doubt is that your bill went down.

That's nonsense. If it's $120; it's $120.00.

Expecting someone to believe your bill went down isn't realistic, in the scenario you provide.

I'm not outright calling you a liar, doubt is just doubt.

Scrap Iron, the straw-man argument
is not valid. Laski and cosmetic surgeries are not covered by insurance, and to claim that we have to not have insurance is insane.

There is no validity in claiming the free market fixes pricing for medical care. It is driven by and large by complexities outside of the normal market forces of supply and demand.

For example research, which supposedly will reduce cost. To the contrary it can be shown that new technologies are actually a large part of the inflation of medical costs. MRI's are an expensive alternative to an x-RAY. How many MRI's are ordered when an x-ray would suffice? It's become common sense to explain cost increases are linked to the use of new technologies, and the push of new drugs. Pharamceuticals and medical device companies are in business to make money, and we've all seen their stocks go to the highest of highs.

What is driving them to make new technology? Is it altruism for the pateint, that the technology will somehow save more lives? You think so? It may appear that way to a researcher in the lab, but when the boardroom meets, it's all about profit and returns. There's big money for these guys and they don't care how much it will cost you.

So how do we reign in cost? How can these guys be made to compete and thereby allow hospitals and clinics to compete on price?

Demand for having the latest likely stable across the market. People think that want the newest. It's new, so it must be better. Who's deciding? What's their motive? Why is it better, if it costs so much more than now? Does it save lives, really? Important stuff to know, and yet all the news hasn't covered on iota of this.

Why is that?

JOHN?

Sheldon
It is easy to make these delusional "free-market" arguments from one's perch in the elite corporate media. But it just doesn't fly here in working-class America!
___________________________________________________
Sheldon, in 1984 I bought my first cell phone, 2,400.00. In 1986 I paid over a 1,200 for a 34 meg PC, In the 70's I bought a CB radio for 400, my first micro wave was 1000 bucks, VCR 1000 bucks.............

The only delusion is your statist vision that government can operate more efficiently than the market. All of the things I bought are cheaper today by far because of the market, the market always works if you let it.
Remove the government constrictions on insurance and the same thing will happen.

Why not call health reform what it is?
A tax.

If the Federal government plans on forcing us to acquire health insurance or pay a fine, then it's a tax.

And I agree with Stossel. Costs won't drop, service won't go up and neither will quality. Not when every American is FORCED to buy something they may or may not need or want.

Little by little, the only insurance we can expect from big government is that we have less choices in our lives and less say over what we can and can't do.

Where has the freedom to be free of government interference in our lives gone anyway? While we debate the wisdom of this plan over that one, our rights are being eroded.

This health reform is just another tax, nothing more. And I am sick of being enslaved and my money that I work hard for taken from me against my will, one tax law at a time.

Two Words: Moral Hazard
Look it up, the insurance industry has known for many decades the insured "consume" more of that which is insured and take greater risks against that which is insured.

It's a no brainer we will consume more and prices will skyrocket.

Obviously ......
Your article is so obvious, I at first wonder why you bothered writing it! Then it hit me! Only idiots & our current politicians need this article! But, these people will not read it or will not understand it! Thus, I am back to my initial thought - Why write it? ....... Ha!

Anyway - Thanks

And One More
Health insurance is the most guarantees that costs will increase while quality decreases. If I can visit a doctor without paying from my pocket while knowing that some insurer will take care of my visit, I'll do it. Government (all governments) controlled insurance in Florida dictated that I pay the same cost of homeowners insurance as does a person that lives on the shoreline where hurricanes occur. Hurricanes do not occur in the center of the state. If you live in an area where tornadoes do not occur often did you know that you are paying to help those in the tornado belt if you have the same insurance company?

Stossel is an idiot
When are Republicans and libertarians going to wake up and realize that the free market doesn't always produce the best outcomes.

Health insurance and schools are good examples.

The whole idea of health insurance is to pool together in an effort to spread out the risk. It's inherently a communal effort. And every country that acts communally has far lower health care costs than the US.

Same thing with schools. If we had a purely private school system, good schools would charge a fortune and the wealthy kids would get an awesome education, while everyone else would be left out to dry––perhaps receiving no education at all. And the results of that scenario would be disastrous. Imagine this country with a 50% literacy rate. (Sarah Palin would elected in a landslide.)

There are certain areas where it works better when everyone gets together and cooperates. And there are other times when competition produces the best results. The trick is to discern which one works best in any given situation.

The problem with Republicans is that they don't want to have to think about that. So they mindlessly follow the mantra that competition always produces the best results.

Studies actually show that groups that cooperate with each other out perform groups that are highly competitive. Teams that play together as a team, do better than those where every individual is looking out for their own interests. Phil Jackson had to get Kobe and Michael to focus less on themselves and more on their teammates. The result was a better basketball team.

In a purely unregulated health insurance industry, the strongest company would drive out all competitors and create a monopoly and then jack up their prices as high as they possibly can. That's what Stossel thinks is a brilliant idea.

Hey, Republicans: Cooperation is not a dirty word!

Phylo out


Rick, I can vouch for dukas
That same exact think has happened to me many times. I haven't had insurance on myself and my husband for about 5 years. For the first few years I didn't go to the doctor at all, because I thought you had to have insurance. The doc-in-the-box urgent care center places are expensive too. So finally, when I was feeling sick, and a friend suggested I get my thyroid checked, I just used googlemaps to find private practice docs in my area and called them up, asking each one what price they offered for uninsured patients.

Competition at work! I told one receptionist that $195 seemed high, because I had heard $120 at the last one-pause-"Yes, but our $195 comes with cheaper labs because we do them here on site." Suddenly, I had a new question to ask.

I ended up with a great doc who charges $150, does bloodwork in the practice, and yes, still looks at me funny when I ask how much a test is going to cost. The price automatically goes down for uninsured patients, because there is one person in her practice who does nothing but insurance coding. She is paid hourly. No insurance, means this person has less paperwork, thus less time on the clock.

Gov't, a fair competitor ?
foxyloxy complains that a 'public option' would create a competitor to private insurance and that would be more 'fair' to us all.
When does the gov't ever compete 'fairly' with anyone? Gov't does not negotiate today with providers for 'fair' compensation rates for services covered by Medicare, it simply dictates the rates it will support. Private insurers cannot do this. Providers are unanimous in stating that the Medicare reimbursement rates are inadequate, and yet Medicare is going broke and will not be able to meet its forward obligations. What a wonderful example of 'fair' gov't competition. How could any private entity compete with a gov't plan that is able to dictate rates far below what a private entity can get ?
The only way a public plan could be made 'fair' would be if it had to negotiate rates on the same basis as private plans, and this is NEVER going to happen.
Creating any kind of plan that will appear to be 'free' to any medical care consumer is folly. All consumers must have financial skin in the game or there will be overuse, overcharging and, ultimately, drastic rationing of care.

Phylo -cooperation

Cooperation works when individuals forming a group share the same objectives. That is clear when applied to sports teams, etc.

In the case of 'universal health care' and most other nostrums held sacred by Statists, there is no such agreement on objectives. Indeed, there is a large body of us who reject your premises outright. What you are seeking is not cooperation, but capitulation, and the license to expropriate our resources to order society to your liking.

The answer is "NO" .. get it?

For my part, I'll not tolerate a government-designed cage, gilded or otherwise.

Disagree
I disagree. (And no, I am not in the insurance business.) In my opinion, the author's basic premise is flawed, even though the ultimate conclusion has a degree of merit.
Insurance is a voluntary contractural agreement to share the risks of cost with a like-minded group of other people. The problem with health insurance, in particular, is that it has become perceived to be the solution to every last little sniffle or cough. If insurance were to become limited to "major medical" or "catastrophic" coverage, the usual minor ailments of people would be paid for out-of-pocket and therefore, people would shop around for the balance between cost and quality (however they define it). It is reasonable to expect that ultimately, costs for major health problems would fall into line in a competitive manner.

Sheldon and Phylo
Sheldon and Phylo are dedicated to fighting any thinkers getting traction on the right. Especially if they are one of their own like Stossel or Goldberg who tell the truth about government and media. They're running the country now because they have run the media for decades. They started unions and civil rights to buy votes, and they bought the media to buy votes. They got their president now as a puppet for Raum, Axelrod and Soros and look around you. Raging liberal failure encouraged by 'our' media.

Health insurance is different
Stossel tries to compare health insurance to having grocery insurance. The two are not even close to comparable. Of course, if I could have any food I wanted I would consume the best, most expensive foods available over and over again.

But what kind of an idiot is going to go get a prostate exam day after day after day? Or even an MRI? Only mentally ill people LIKE going to the doctor. Normal people only go to the doctor when there is something seriously wrong with them. And most men won't go even when there is something wrong.

Further, it sometimes saves money when patients see their doctor for regular check ups. Some diseases are easily treatable in the early stages. If they are put off, however, they often can lead to incredibly expensive surgeries down the road. "A stitch in time saves nine" used to be a conservative notion.

Republicans are so simple minded about this stuff it just drives me crazy.

The bottom line in this whole debate is this: Do you support profits for the health care industry, or do you support a more efficient health care system for all Americans? A public system is simply more efficient. Every country that has universal health care has far lower costs than we do. And we rank 37th among all nations in terms of health care outcomes.

This should be a no-brainer.


Hey Phylo
"Coercion", via the sinlge-payer system, is a very dirty word (washes out mouth). There's nothing 'cooperative' about it.

Upon what moral basis do you make any claim that I ought to pay your medical bills?

Who said anything about wanting a purely unregulated system?

MedicAid, MediCare, SCHIP, regulate the hell out of how much a doctor/facility can charge. That is why doctors are refusing Medicare patients-they are not being reimbursed at MARKET rates. Don't believe me? Go ask for the MediCare version of nursing, chiropractic, or any other care. You will NOT receive the same degree of care you would if you paid the bill yourself. it is ALWAYS less.

Further, insurance used to be for catastrophic cases such as accidents or major surgery. Now, it covers routine maintenance. Why? Your homeowners and auto insurance do not pay for paint and insulation, or tires and oil changes. YOU do. It's part of owning a home or a car. Why shouldn't you also pay for your own physicals (including immunizations), gyno exams, dental exams, eye exams and things like glasses, contacts, fillings, stitches, and other things that are not catastrophic in nature but are simply part of maintaining and repairing the machine? Do you not own yourself?

If you can afford a flat-screen TV, a cell phone, cable/satellite/internet, the payments on the latest model car, you can bloody well pay for your own darn upkeep. It's called 'budgeting'.

What free market?
Sheldon, Rick, and Foxyloxy--what planet are you from?
I am an ER doctor. I recently met with the personnel who do our billing, because our reimbursement from medicare/medicaid affects our paycheck. Noted in one specific example of giving critical care for over an hour--directing CPR, lifesaving medication, putting a breathing tube into the patient's lungs-spending over an hour with this patient to get them to the ICU, the bill submitted was over $800-, government reimbursement was a little over $200. Meanwhile an orthopedic doc saw my wife and performed a steroid injection and got her out of the office in 15 minutes, equivalent bills. The reason I mention this is because reimbursement is based on something called Relative Value Units. The government decides what a service, procedure, or patient encounter is worth in RVUs. This is a reason we have more specialists doing procedures--it pays more to set a broken bone than to provide lifesaving care. The govt then uses their big stick to 'drive down prices' which then causes docs to document differently to ensure their own paycheck-along with creation of an entire billing industry to do battle with the govt and insurance companies. The insurance company's base their reimbursement on govt payment--80-90% of medicare but they generally pay the hospital faster.
Insurance should be similar to car insurance-there for catastrophic problems, but not necessary for day to day use or preventative maintainence like oil changes or check ups.
Healthcare is not a right. Freedom of speech is a right. The bill of rights do not impose an obligation on anyone else --no one is forced to hear you speak. If healthcare is a right it forces taxpayers to become slaves to another's needs. I thought the 13 ammendment outlawed slavery.

Phylo
The problem with your type of "cooperation" is there's typically no room for any disagreement with your side. Under your form of "cooperation" I don't have the right to opt out when it becomes blatantly clear that your side hasn't learned to "compromise."

And let's talk about schools, eh? The public school system my daughter attends isn't any better at finances than the federal government. They closed the middle school this year and moved the kids to the high school because of a lack of money, then had the audacity to try and run mill levies. Didn't work because the taxpayers were angry over the middle school closing. They're going to lay off teachers next year because so many kids left the school system this year for better schools in the area or homeschooling.

I would welcome the chance to send my daughter fifteen miles down the road to another school system better run, but the local school board won't let the buses from the competing school system run in their area. Why? Because they don't know "cooperation" any more than they know "compromise."

My daughter's in fifth grade in the elementary school. To my way of thinking, I have two years to come up with an alternative for this "cooperative" education experiment because when she hits seventh grade she's not going to be roaming the halls with high school senior boys.

Yes, I would welcome an alternative to the school district I live in, if only the school board would "cooperate." None of the taxpayers here wanted the middle school closed, but again, the petty politicians on the local school board didn't listen, weren't willing to compromise, and as a result, the taxpayers didn't cooperate with their design to dig deeper into our pockets for less return.

Hey Bud
Bud writes: "For my part, I'll not tolerate a government-designed cage, gilded or otherwise."

You feel more free when you get to pay twice as much as the French do for health care?

I would personally feel more free under the French system because I would know that I was covered if got sick, and I would have more money in my pocket at the same time.

This might sound crazy to someone so simple minded, but sometimes bigger government means more freedom. Does our gigantic military make you feel more free?

Freedom isn't a simple matter of bigger or smaller government, Bud.

Thanks, Phylo
"...wake up and realize that the free market doesn't always produce the best outcomes.

Health insurance and schools are good examples."


Man, thanks. That is the best reason I have read to oppose a government-run healthcare program or insurance system.

The public school system is pitiful. The executives of the teachers unions have admitted that the unions' have admitted that there are in business to make money, NOT to increase quality in education.

I can see the healthcare system in liberal-controlled cities. What a disaster.

Perfect Phylo, thanks. It is a better example than the DMV.

Phylo
Too late. According to national testing, the illiteracy rate in public schools now stands at 43% and is expected to hit 50% in the next decade. It is less than 5% in private schools, who have to compete for students, you know, competition. In Detroit, Chicago and LA dropout rates for public schools are now 50%, less than 10% for private schools. Seems that when parents send their kids to private schools with their own money they make sure the kid performs. Ain't competition grand Phylo? 50% of all high school grads who attend college have to take remedial high school english and math classes. We have illiteracy in public schools already. Phylo. You should read about it before spouting platitudes.

Freedom to buy your own medical care
Do any of you who are advocating a single payer system such as is in place in Canada realize what an essential freedom you are likely to lose in the process?

Do any of you know that it is ILLEGAL in Canada to go to a doctor and privately pay for treatment that the government "provides"?

Just think about that for a minute. You work hard, have the money to pay for it, you need a new heart to stay alive, or have no time to wait in line for cancer treatment, but it is illegal to make the personal choice to spend your own hard earned money on a procedure that will save your life!!!

Is that what you want to see here!?!?!?

Of course, the justification for the law is that they don't want people to be able to "buy their way to the head of the long line" of people waiting for the treatment. That would not be "FAIR."

Of course, those who are smart, who have worked hard and care about their health realize that there is a very obvious answer to the situation.

They just "go south" to the United States and get the procedure done here! Where it is still legal to spend ones own hard earned money on personal care!

http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2003/04/health.html

The French System

Phylo, you know not of what you write. I lived in France and the UK. The care is rationed, with delays and denials. France might be better than the UK, but it is still awful. Anyone with any money goes to private doctors and clinics.

Do you think that my sister, her husband, their family, and I would go to the socialized hospitals? No, it was/is private hospitals and doctors or treatment in the US.

Alive in him
I have no problem with people paying something when they go see a doctor. But insurance that only covers catastrophic health emergencies isn't the most efficient system. Too many people put off their problems because they don't want to pay to go see a doctor. So a medical problem that could have been fixed early on for cheap, ends up costing more down the road.

No system is perfect. But if you look at the facts, government run health care is more efficient than private health insurance.

Despite what you Republicans think, most of us who support universal health care coverage aren't out to get everyone under government control. We want it because we know that it is the most efficient way to deliver good health care results. That's the only reason. So stop with the silly conspiracy theories already.

Phylo
Again you need to read. The most common reason for doctor's visits are not prostrate exams. They are colds and headaches (over 50 million vists a year). Second is muscle pulls and soreness. It's not the big ticket items which effect costs the most. It's the minor malladies that patients know they can get treated for a $10 co-pay fee, rather than just taking an aspirin or cold medicine, or riding out the soreness and aches from sprains and muscle pulls. These will increase with universal care. And the waiting time for things like cancer radiation therapy will go up to 8 weeks and cancer fataliities will raise 16-20 per cent like in they are in Canada today

Phylo - Hey Bud

Since you are incapable of pursuing an argument without descending to ad hominem polemics, you must not have anything of substance to offer.

If you feel "more free" when you are cared for by a State, please go find one that will care for you.

I know I am free when I make my own choices, pay the freight for same, and take the consequences.

With respect to health care, it is my responsibility, which I cannot and will not delegate to anyone.

With respect to defense, at least that is one of the duties of the Federal government actually specified in the Constitution. Its absence would lead to bad outcomes -- this is not new information. Check with the Carthaginians for confirmation.

good column Stossel
"The politicians are so oblivious to reality that they are on course to make things worse."

Actually, politicians might have a clue about the reality. The universal insurance idea is a political marketing strategy.

I think if the govt is going to do anything in the area of healthcare, they should push for better information on price and service. Information is a key component for an efficient free market.

Medical providers should be required to publish prices for each of thier standard services. And the published price should be the REAL price for all comers.

Public schools
We, here in liberal Minnesota, have an outstanding public school system. We consistently rank at the very top nationally.

Are some private schools better?

Yes. The reason is that these parents are better educated themselves, and are more dedicated to their children's education than other parents.

But does that mean we should entirely privatize education?

Imagine what would happen if every parent had to come up with $10,000 a year to educate each of their children.

Do you folks seriously think that would result in a better educated population? Seriously?

My guess is that it would mean that a lot of kids would be running the streets in gangs because they would have no prospects for a decent career, and that a lot of couples would simply not have children because it would be way to expensive.

God do I wish you Republicans could all get together in one area and put your theories to a real life test. Your society would collapse within a decade.

Rick MN 8:33 post
I'll vouch for Dukas. I just had my first colonoscopy. I don't have insurance so the doctor charged me $450. My friends with insurance are charged upwards of $2000. It was the same story for my mammogram, bone density test and blood work. They love me because they don't have to wade through all the insurance paperwork.

Phylo
Thanks for the obvious lesson in the dangers of brainwashing.

The liberal talking points we've heard already, ad nauseam.

Think for yourself once, or is that verboten in your tiny, narrow slice of a world?

St Dennis and rationing
And you think that there is no rationing in a private system?

People in America wait for surgeries. People in America also pay for health insurance and then get denied coverage when they need it for pre-existing conditions. that's rationing. And the fact 47 million people in this country don;t have any health insurance is another form of rationing. High deductibles are another form of rationing.

The rationing argument was dreamed up by Republican wordsmiths to scare you into opposing a public option. They use it because it polls well, even though it makes no sense as an argument for keeping the current system.

And, for the record, under Obama's plan, you would still have the option of having a private plan.

Some people can NOT get insurance
What do we do about people who are cancer survivors that insurance companies refuse to cover? My mother exercises, eats better than anyone I know, and is at a healthy weight, yet she got cancer. Now, her only health insurance option will cost $30,000 a year for her and my dad. What do we do about these type of people??

O'Roarke was right
"If you think health care costs a lot now, just wait until it's free." (PJ O'Roarke)

Phylo, your school analogy is illuminating. It lights you up pretty good.

Public Schools cost more per student than private schools, but because the cost is paid through taxes, and not paid directly by the people using the product, and because there is no requirement that the per-student cost be published (in most places anyway), the actual yearly cost per student is not usually known by the families using the system. What we have as a result of this complete lack of accountability is horrible schools, paying administrators that could not operate a car wash and teachers who cannot pass the tests which their students cannot read, at a ridiculously high cost.

People make use of education systems in this country for about 13 - 17 years of their lives. People make use of health care systems in this country from cradle to grave.

If the government can make such a dog's breakfast out of education, why would I want them to work that same magic on medicine?

Phylo
Just think of what would happen if each taxpayer kept the money they're forced to send to the local school system through property taxes, whether they have kids in school or not? Hell, competition for school kids might create quality education instead of what we have today.

You even admit that private school in Minnesota is a better education than the public school system. Doesn't that tell you something?

I for one would love to keep the money I'm forced to pay. Then I could afford to send my child to a better school, one with less emphasis on indoctrination and more emphasis on getting my child to think for herself.

I'll probably homeschool in the near future. Seems to be the only way to ensure she learns something in her formative years.


Amanda
The answer you're going to get from Republicans is: tough cookies, too bad, so sad, boo hoo. I got mine, so I don't care about you.

Phylo
Every household already pays for students at a national rate of over $10,000 per student in public schools. They are called taxes. And in case you haven't noticed we already have a lot of kids running around in gangs, and a lot of dropouts that have little or no future prospects. And as I already mentioned, those parents who do pay for private schooling out of their own pockets make sure their kids perform in school, becuase it is coming out of their own pockets, while still having to pay for public schools with their taxes!!!

Rick in #22
You make some valid points about technology.

You've only got ½ the story though. Without a profit motive why would conpanies develop new technologies, drugs, treatment programs, etc? I am married to a health professional. Dealing with our current government programs (medicare/medicade) is a joke. They either won't pay for new treatments ("until they have been proven") or pay less then the treatment costs.

Phylo

I am neither a Republican or Conservative.

There may be some rationing in private insurance systems, but it is NOTHING like socialized systems.

I linked several articles in an earlier post.

Read them. One is from The Huffington Post and described Michael Moore's "Sicko" as a lie and severe distortion of reality.

Trust me, the Kennedy-Dodd bill is modeled after Canada and the UK. Go study the NHS and the NICE board. You will be in for a shock.

Sure, you might not have to pay for care, but it is so delayed or is outright denied, that you will likely be counted as a fatality.

I've heard more than one doctor
say that the problems began when the first doctor agreed to take the first payment from a third party, rather than the patient.

Finally, somebody is pointing out the obvious problem and the solution. Dismantle the third party medical payment systems completely, and let consumers act like consumers. Third party payment, whether by big insurance companies or government, is the cause of all the problems we currently have, and more of the same is the definition of insanity, not the solution.

Luckydog
Right, but the question is, would we be better off if we had a totally private system?

Probably the only country in the world that is experimenting with a system like that is Somalia.

In fact, come to think of it, Somalia is the ideal Republican society, no government at all!

leviticus
Apparently PJ O"Rourke never looked at all of the international studies that show how public health care is far more efficient than private systems.

That's the problem with Republicans these days. You have a bumper sticker mentality. You think that his cute little line ends the argument.

The fact is that we in the US pay twice as much, per capita, as almost every other industrialized country, and they cover everyone.

Phylo
"And, for the record, under Obama's plan, you would still have the option of having a private plan."

Even if that were true, I would still have to pay higher taxes to pay for an illegal alien's socialized medicine. Plus, I would still have to go to the hospitals and doctors, that are part of the public plan.

Do not kid yourself. There would be rationing. Remember Obama's Town Hall meeting at the White House:

"Now, I know there are some who say we can't tackle all of these problems; it's too much; Congress can't handle it; the President is juggling too many things; my administration is taking on too much too soon; we're moving too fast.'

One Rx was: Pain medication for patients with heart problems.



No thanks.

PHYLO!!!
"The fact is that we in the US pay twice as much, per capita, as almost every other industrialized country, and they cover everyone."


Do you understand why this is so? Rationing, delay and denial.

Free market???
Pop quiz:
Who currently has the largest single payer health care system in the world?

Answer:
The United States

If you believe we have had a free market health care system in the US the past several years, then your knowledge of free markets could be shoved up an ants a** and it would roll around in there like a golf ball in a boxcar.

OUCH!
When even John Stossel refers to our elected representatives as our "rulers", it's a sign of serious public misperception of what those in Washington are there for. This country is going down the crapper because we have such a dumbed down electorate. What a shame.

Phylo...typical
Our public schools here in Minnesota are good. It's all those other places that they're bad.

Good grief !

$10,000.00 is a whole lot for a crappy public 'education'. Private education wouldn't be (and isn't in most places) that expensive in a free market. Do some research prior to spouting nonsense.

The problem with the 'health-care' industry is the people who want every last thing paid for by someone else. Check-ups, hang nails, colds, you name it. If most people accepted the fact that health insurance is for MAJOR health issues none of this would even begin to be an issue.

When GOVERNMENT froze wages during WWII and the depression they allowed 'insurance benefits' to be given to employees as compensation without tax. Thus began the something for nothing mentality. Notice GOVERNMENT intervening in the market brought about the usual unintended consequences. What a shock.

Phylo
That's the problem with Republicans these days. You have a bumper sticker mentality. You think that his cute little line ends the argument.
________________________________________________

I wonder if you have read your own words Phylo. You are just repeating the Dem's talking points here and never responding to the very real problem of the rationing of health care in the public systems. Rationing is what causes the longer waiting, the higher mortality rates for things like breast cancer.
Stop being a parrot, this will effect you cause someday you to will need health care and you will want the best not the cheapest and more deadly.

Health insurance vs food insurance
The main difference between health insurance and a "food insurance" is in the usage. Everybody needs the same amount of food. Healthcare is difference. 10-20% of individuals need alot of health care; 80-90% need very little health care. Comparing health insurance to "food insurance" is comparing dialysis with oranges -- not a valid comparison.

Hmmmm
These are the rankings for quality of health care by the World Health Organization.

Note that all of the countries ahead of us have universal health care provided by the government and they pay about half as much as we do per capita.

This is why I am for a public option. If the private health care systems delivered better health care for less money, I would be for that.

I don't have an ideological dog in this fight. I'm thinking rationally, logically, objectively.

You people, on the other hand, are ignoring the facts because you've been trained to automatically assume that anything the government does is bad. The facts simply do not support your argument when it comes to health care.


Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

I wonder if phylo leaves

the country to obtain his health care. Afterall, he believes the health care systems in at least 36 countries are better than ours.

Personally, I cannot think of one country where I would rather receive health care or medical treatment than the U.S.A.

WHO statistics are not based on QUALITY
of care. They are heavily weighted towards "equality of access"...

M3
Feel free to site a study showing that the US offers the best health care outcomes for the least money.

Absolutely Right!
John is absolutely right in his analysis of the PROBLEMS with health insurance, and the disaster that Obamacare will be. Also, if health insurance companies are forced into "community rating" rather than risk-based rating for premium charges, EVERYONE will end up paying a whole lot MORE for their health insurance - not less. For the sheeple who believe in Obama, a community-rated system SOUNDS like everyone will pay LESS, but, in fact, in a risk-based system, people who are generally healthy would pay less, and people who are less healthy would pay more - in relation to their expected usage of medical care. So Obama's plan will have healthy people paying a WHOLE LOT more for health insurance so that less healthy people can utilize the services.

I also know for a fact that health insurance is the one type of insurance where the insured will ABSOLUTELY use the insurance. In fact, just HAVING health insurance pretty much guarantees that the insured will consume health care services. This is unlike car insurance, for example, where just HAVING car insurance does not guarantee you'll be in an accident.

Put the consumer back into the equation in health care. If WE know what medical care costs, if WE have to pay a greater portion of the costs, we will act more rationally in our consumption of health care and costs in general will decline.

Read The Links, Phylo

France is NOT the best in the world. The UK is definitely not better than the US.

Good grief! You people never listen to the stories of others with real-life experience with other countries. Further, you don't do your own research. You merely regurgitate talking points.

Again, my sister, her French husband and their children live in France. They do not go to the state system.

Why would that be? If the WHO was correct, why would they pay for private care?

Why would you want a bureaucrat in Washington to decide on what treatment you can receive?

responsibility
We got stung pretty good buying them all houses. Now, to keep dems in office they want us to pay the health care for those who don't care about their health.

We CANNOT set policy ...
based on a few exceptions. Amanda, I feel for your mom and dad. I've had two sister go through breast cancer treatment. One had great insurance the other didn't. They both receieved excellent care, and now, twenty years later, both are still healthy. The sister without insurance received lots of help with medical bills from private charities and from the doctors and hospitals. One of the wonderful thing about the United States is the benevolence of those who live here (as long as we have some left to give after being taxed to death!).

One thing many fail to recognize is the legal mandate that health insurance has to cover many things that are routine. My autoinsurance doesn't pay for regular maintenance, why should my health insurance pay for visits when I have a sore throat?

I have an HDHP (high deductible health plan) with an HSA (health savings account). My deductible is $4k annually of which, my employer deposits $2k in my HSA. The only truly difficult part is shopping around for prices. Our benefits administrator has negotiated discounts with certain providers and some give better discounts than others. I love this plan better than any HMO I've ever had where doctor visits and meds were only a $10 co-pay.

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington, KY

Anecdotal evidence
Phylo,

It's anecdotal, to be sure, but....

I have never heard of anybody leaving the US for better healthcare, with the exception of unapproved cancer treatments and drugs which are available in LESS regulated countries. That is actually something we should be striving for... letting the healthcare consumer have more freedom to choose alternative care from providers not specifically licensed by the AMA or the state boards.

OTOH, there are neverending stories of people who come to the US to obtain healthcare that thaey can't receive in their own country or that if they can receive, they might have to wait and risk dying first.

I am not doing the research on what research has been done. Most of it likely was done with an agenda, anyway. Certainly, a number of facts and statistics have been posted on various other threads in the past and apparently had no impact on your belief.

Phylo, I'm a bit remiss to ...
be so blunt, but you are total idiot! The WHO is a liberal organization that factors in all kinds of things into their ratings that make them completely useless.

For example, they use the government numbers for infant mortality rates. It is well known that some countries don't count live births until a baby is a month old. So, if it dies after 3 weeks of life, it's as if the child were still born. This type of record keeping skews the numbers making those countries appear to have lower infant mortality rates.

You can believe WHO all you want, but you're only deceiving yourself (and the other liberal idiots to blind to see/read the truth).

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington, KY

a hole in the logic
Here's the problem with using the auto insurance market as an example to justify opposing "guaranteed issue" and capped rates to eliminate "cherry picking." People have a choice to be a bad driver. Yes, there are factors like obesity and smoking that are controllable risks. But what about prostate cancer? Juvenile diabetes?

FROG
So find a study that shows that the US has better quality health care at a lower cost.

And who are you relying on for your information? Rush Limbaugh?

Not on topic but.........
The American people deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.

It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible.
Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.
Conclusion:
When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.
And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter,the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008...

Phylo:
The U.S. DOES have better care than anyone else. However, I do know the info you are refering to. Read it again. There are five things that are rated by them to determine the "quality" of health care. Only ONE of the five items refers to the heath care received itself. We rank No. 1 there. The rest refer to things like the number of people who might not be covered, the ability of people to get free care, etc. That isn't health care; it is economic factors.

Keep your terms straight.

St Dennis
I read the HuffPo piece. Did you? The author basically says that Moore got it right as far as health care in France goes. In the movie, Moore talks to ex-pats living in France. They all enthusiastically favored the French system over the American system.

And the author is also basically in favor of a public health insurance system.

And I'm not going to bother reading stories about Canada. I think the better models are the French and German systems.

Track Record


Obama had to have a stimulus immediately or unemployment would go over 8%. Congress voted on the bill without reading it. The Administration has admitted that it has not worked like it had thought that it would. Unemployment is 9.5%.

Now, they are discussing Stimulus II.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

The House voted on the Cap-n-trade legislation without reading it, especially the 300 pages additional pages of amendments. They did not even have the bill completely written. Obama has admitted that it will not reduce emissions. Paul Krugman said that it will not result in additional jobs.

So, now, Obama is demanding health care legislation pronto. The House is about to vote on it. Again, no one will have completely read it.

When it doesn't work out as planned, will they demand ObamaCare II?

Damages Denied & Lawyers Kicked To Curb
"The 53-year-old Missouri man is one of at least 400 people suing for damages after being hurt or having family members killed in a General Motors or Chrysler vehicle. He is also one of hundreds who, thanks to the government-backed bankruptcy restructuring of GM and Chrysler, don’t know if they’ll ever get their day in court."

So, Mr. Cole will not get full damages for personal injury, pain and suffering, and possible punitive damages, but he will be qualified for ObamaCare.

The trial lawyers are NOT going to be happy, especially since they contributed so much money to Obama's campaign.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/08/gm-leaves-plaintiffs- in-the-dust/



phylo at 9:53
Collapse? Do you mean like in California? The facts are simple, the states that are closer to freedom in not imposing upon the people the burdens of all are the most solvent.
Point, set, match.

Another point, Standard Oil which was and is so villanized for having such a lock on the market during their heyday actually brought the price of kerosene down from .50 to .05 a gallon, thus greatly benefiting the populace at large. You are nothing but a spewer of lies, and an enemy of mankind in that you oppose the liberty of man and willingly seek to deprive him of his natural rights of life, liberty and property/fruit of labor.
Further nowhere in your drivel do you put forward a corresponding accountability on the part of those who would benefit from those who choose to succeed in life. If I am to provide for someone(unjustly)how then is the person being provided for not responsible to make good decisions in life. Think on that, if you don't get it, you lack the critical thinking skills to even take part in the discussion.

monopolies
Phylo sez: "In a purely unregulated health insurance industry, the strongest company would drive out all competitors and create a monopoly and then jack up their prices as high as they possibly can. That's what Stossel thinks is a brilliant idea"

Let me recommned a good book to you. It is called "Winners, Losers, and Microsoft" and explains the realities of monopolies. The only monoplies that can exist either are protected from competition by nthe government or they offer compelling value, i.e. lower prices. Once they control the market and try to increase prices, competititors will re-emerge.

Phylo

Yes, I read it. And, he is wrong about France. As the article said, Moore did not take into account the HUGE welfare class.

You are not going to get France. It is not going to happen. Forget about it. You better hope that ObamaCare is more like Canada and less like the UK's NHS. All are bad, but the UK is the worst.

Phylo, the US beats all of them dramatically on cancer survivability and other conditions.

tridoc at 9:32
Good post.

the biggest problem
People continue to ignore on the issue of health care that it is no ones right to be provided for. It's that simple.

99% Whoo Hoo, 1% off the mark.
Excellent writing! Direct and to the point with analogies that simplifies and explains the obvious. This is a wonderful example of clear thinking and superb communication, at least up until the last sentence.

John, of course our politicians understand what they are doing. This isn’t about what they say. Ignore what they say. This is about the politicians taking more power for themselves. This is about taking away our freedoms.

Shame on the companies who choose to go along thinking they can mitigate the impact to their profitability. They are repeating the mistakes seen throughout history. They give a little now thinking it will end, but it never does.

Joseph
a hole in the logic

Here's the problem with using the auto insurance market as an example to justify opposing "guaranteed issue" and capped rates to eliminate "cherry picking." People have a choice to be a bad driver. Yes, there are factors like obesity and smoking that are controllable risks. But what about prostate cancer? Juvenile diabetes?



Doubt that people really choose to be bad drivers.......

There are laws assure insurance coverage for "non lifestyle" related illnesses like juvenile diabetes. No one is arguing that point.
However, there should be NO LAW that prohibits an insurer from offering a low cost policy to a person that maintains a very healthy lifestyle. Tighter entrance requirements, maybe an annual physical to maintain the low premium status. Thats a market based option that people would strive for if so inclined.

Where do the options exist???



ONe of my friends tried to get life insurance a few years back....he liked to chew tobacco. Test results came back positive. His initially low premium skyrocketed.
His option......he could either pay the higher premium and continue to chew.
Or he could stop chewing and take another battery of tests over the next year to qualify him for the lower premium....
Of course he quit.....it was his money, it was his perrogative. Options and money drive choices......

Phylo
If there really is going to be a public option that is going to drive prices down and be SO MUCH better than the private option...then go for it.

If its that much better, then the government will essentially be the ultimate low cost provider and drive prices down. They must have a secret potion??

BUT....if its going to be that much better, it needs to be self funded......if the govment option is that good like the idiot in chief says it is, it will have private enterprise flocking to its services and only too happy to pay a lower price for insurance.

Simple.....is government going to be the ultimate low cost provider?


They already have admitted that they will need additional "funding" for this in the form of higher taxation........

So.....your dear geek in chief lied when he indicated that he simply wants government to be another option.


Sure, its easy for the government to be the low cost provider when they support their premiums with taxes garnered from their competitors.......

Thats like Honda giving GM $1000 every time they sell one of their own cars.

Partly Right
Stossel got it halfway right. If we do not return the rationing decision to the person who needs the service, you cannot possibly control prices effectively. But he is wrong about health insurance. People with health insurance also will not make that rationing decision. And this lack of insurance argument is full of holes. Anyone can buy health insruance. All you need to do is watch TV to find companies who are selling health insurance. There are even people saying they will sell you health insurance even if you have a pre-existing condition (one of the phony arguments the left uses why there needs to be a governnent run insurnace program). And it is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. Becuase this will not control medical inflation, which is higher than the consumer price index. Which means that the insurance rates will go up just due to inflation, which in turns means people with health insurance will pay more and more for their insurance.

Phylo...
Phylo sez: "Every country that has universal health care has far lower costs than we do."

But there is an adage that reminds us you get what you pay for. Can you name one country with universal healthcare that attracts Americans for the low prices and high quality? I doubt it. For one thing, unlike in America, where nobody is turned away regardless of citizenship or ability to pay, you won't be eligible for publicly funded or subsidized healthcare as an American in many places. In fact, to get a visa to visit most countries, you have to show the ability and guarantee to pay all of your expenses, including medical. But even if you were eligible, the lower cost of care, even free care, doesn't make up for the quality of the healthcare.

If you aren't sick, you don't need healthcare. If you are sick, you need care now and you want it from somebody you know and trust.

Phylo...
Sure, there are examples where there are people who through no fault of their own, are saddled with excessive medical costs. Frankly, these examples are so far and few between, that charity and caregivers working pro bono or on a sliding scale make it possible for them to get healthcare, without government involvement. Perhaps the hardness of your own heart makes it impossible to imagine charity working. As much as I would like, I cannot help you with that problem.

Your constant spewing that republicans and conservatives are all about "I got mine, tough luck for you" is clearly the exception, not the rule. Most conservatives are not rich, but recognize that the best way to become wealthy is to have the freedom to pursue their dreams unfettered by government regulation, bureaucracy, and taxes. And as we usually see when we peer into somebody's tax files, conservatives tend to be far more charitabloe than liberals regardless of wealth. When you claim conservativesd are selfish, you are simply projecting your selfish liberal worldview on good and honorable people. And I, for one, resent it!

Phylo de psycho
You are so right about public education and intelligence. The drop outs and related felons and/or criminals, teamed up with morons like you to elect Stuart Smalley and osama!

You are a typical liberat with a one solution fits all approach and that has worked out real web for the country hasn't it? Living in Minnesota, home of two of the largest HMOs in the country, I would think that this would be obvious, but let's nationalize healthcare and put thousands of people out of jobs! Now there's your economic stimulus in action!

How many doctors have you spoken with that agree with a national health care system?

You know, every time that I hear a transplant like you and Rick complaining about how bad it is here vs where they came from, I like to remind them that I35 and I94 go BOTH WAYS! So, if you think that you would rather live in a country with nationalized medicine, please quit adding to Minnesota's tarnished image. grab your buddies Rick, Robert, royinoslo and leave! And take Mark Bitchie with you!

And for you Rick, have you attempted to get your insurance and bonding for your contractor business yet? How much did that cost you? You mentioned in another post that you were going to get government projects and let us pay for it. Well, guess what numb nuts, no insurance/bond, no contracts! If your work is as good as your intelligence, I suspect that you'll need that insurance for all of the law suits. You are in yet another industry whose costs are affected by lawyers!

BTW to both of you; if you can find one, you ought to look at all of the legaleze in obamacare and yet, the lawyers don't get hurt at all!

David
Not that you are wrong on passports. But you can go to Cuba by flying to Mexico then flying to Cuba. Quite a few people have done that and Cuba won't stamp your passport because they know American government can get in a huff about it. When I went to Cuba (for school) they didn't stamp me even though my trip was legal.

And he could have easily gotten a passport from Kenya or Indoneasian whether he was born their or not. If his dad or step dad had connections then it wouldn't be hard.

I am not saying you are wrong, but their are ways to get around the system and I am certain someone as adept at lying as Obama could. He is a master at manipulating the system, whether it be to get in to schools or political circles.

Dumb
This whole idea of government run healthcare is dumb just on the basis of cost alone. We cannot afford to add this to the national credit card. We already have the unfunded mandates of Medicare and Medicaid which are in the 10's of Trillions of dollars. We have as the President has said trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Are deficits only important when Repubs are in power?

Jason
I am not big on this 'illegal President' conspiracy but this argument makes more sense than the others.

Real numbers
Great story about Healthcare in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

14,000 French people died because of a heatwave. No government official was fired. I am sure the French bureaucrat got award because it helped their ponzi scheme survive. Could you imagine if this happened in the United States? People freaked out about New Orleans. 1,800 deaths in the same weather conditions with a hurricane/flood/no electriciy and no water. Either Americans are made of tougher stuff or our system might be slightly better. But I am certain the 14,000 dead people (and their families) in France will be happy to know their country is number 1 in healthcare as far as WHO is concerned.

Promises
Here is how dependable government promises are, SS, Medicare and Medicaid have the previously noted unfunded liabilities ( means no money in the bank to pay the bills, for those in Rio Linda) in the 50 to60 trillion dollar range. Dems passed these safety net programs with plentiful promises of lower cost and savings and perpetual care. All BS as we now know! Their board of govenors report that they will be broke before 2020. This Obamacare will suffer the same fate.


Worse yet the promises that were made are now being
reneged on by the same government. They just announced a big deal with major hospitals to pay less on the Medicare and Medicaid programs so they use the money (they don't have0 to pay for Obamacare. So much for promises.

FDR Tried To Get Universal Health Care

"U.S. Social Security is a social insurance program funded through dedicated payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). Tax deposits are formally entrusted to Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, or Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund or the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund. The main part of the program is sometimes abbreviated OASDI (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) or RSDI (Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance). When initially signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935 as part of his New Deal, the term Social Security covered unemployment insurance as well. The term, in everyday speech, is used to refer only to the benefits for retirement, disability, survivorship, and death, which are the four main benefits provided by traditional private-sector pension plans."

He was unsuccessful in his expansion for coverage of the unemployed because it was deemed unConstitutional.

There is no longer a Trust Fund because LBJ started raiding it in the 1960s to pay for part of his Great Society.

At the latest, Social Security will be insolvent in 2016.

At the latest, Medicare and Medicaid will be insolvent in 2017.

The US currently has unfunded mandates (SS and both Meds) of $50tn - $99tn. I have seen projections that the figure is actually $113tn.

The US Govt. could seize all of the wealth of every citizen and it would only be a drop in the bucket. Further, it would be a one time dip in the well. Once everyone was poor, there would be little tax revenues.

I have never been denied under my health insurance and the premiums are not cost-prohibitive even though I have been hospitalized 3 times in the last 4 years.

Phylo
I'm not into conspiracies, thanks. But anyone with two eyes in his head can see that if the Government gets into the health insurance business, the private insurance market WILL die. Government has no profit motive because it can tax the hell out of you quite simply because the alternative for you is jail. There is no such compulsion in the private market, except that companies may only charge what the market will bear or they will lose customers-the market being the individuals who purchase its services. If the cost of a policy is more than Joe is willing to pay, he'll buy his insurance elsewhere.

Insurance 'rations' care only to the extent you allow it. You are perfectly free to pay for whatever the insurance will not cover. Under ObamaoCare, not so much. As in HillaryCare, you will face prosecution if you choose to go under the radar and contract and pay for services yourself. This is good exactly how?

Knock off quoting how good the other socialized countries have it. In Sweden, there is ONE mammogram machine to serve the ENTIRE female population. In Canada, cancer death rates are 15-25% HIGHER than here. Infant mortality is defined differently in different countries-not a good measure. And, have you ever seen a working-class Brit's teeth?


Phylo @ 9:09
"Imagine a country with a 50% literacy rate(Sarah Palin would be elected in a landslide)."

Actually there is a city whose education system is almost entirely public and has an adult literacy rate of just under 50%. It's Detroit. The Detroit Public School board is rife with corruption(ie family members on the payroll & millions of dollars missing and unaccounted for). Sarah Palin couldn't be elected dog catcher in Detroit. The last time that city had a Republican mayor was 1961.

Right-Wing Retards Need a Time Machine
So you can all go back to the 18th Century - an era you clearly would feel more comfortable in. You wouldn't have to worry about taxes or insurance premiums or being saddled with being taxed to pay for someone else's medical care. Of course, if you want that type of society then you have to take ALL of it, not just what you want. So, you'll get a healthcare without antibiotics, without any of the medicines and drugs which prevent or cure 90% of the maladies that guaranteed death 250 years ago. You'll be free to use tree moss in lieu of penicilin. Get an infection in your arm or leg - you have to cut it off to prevent the poison from reaching your heart. And let's not forget bleeding and leaches - the "cure" that killed George Washington when some hot soup and some Biaxin would have cured him. You retards are precious - why not just return to your back-country cabins and duckblinds and let the rest of us deal with a 21st century problem with 21st century solutions?

Amanda & OMT 4 Phylo
I feel for your plight. You are exactly the types of people that should get a hand from somewhere and that's where the government part of healthcare should come in. To offer nationalized healthcare just to accommodate a small group doesn't make sense.

All of you should be outraged that we pay our elected officials six figure salaries with benefits worth another six figures, but I see no outrage from the libs over that.liberat contrived "47 million people without health insurance" is a classic example! Way to be your own person, lemming!

Talk about wordsmithing, the


Wolfie
Way to put in your worthless 2 cents, Nazi!

Jason, SC & David, TX & The St. Dennis
Jason:
I was in France for the month of August in 2003. Many of the 14,000 deaths were due to lack of air-conditioning, adult children on their 5 week paid holiday, and poor medical care.

David:
Current unfunded liabilites on SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are anywhere from $50tn to $99tn. I have even read that they are as high as $113tn. We cannot be certain because of the secrecy of the Federal Reserve, which is owned by private corporations and individuals. There is NOTHING "Federal, as in the Federal Reserve. FDT allowed his cronies, like the Rothschild family, to buy the Federal Reserve.

"St. Dennis":

Someone referred to me as a homme. I am a femme. My name is pronounced as "San-Deni".

Last post was
a victim of MS Vista

PHYLO, to continue my point about your comment on Republican wordsmithing, the mythical "47 million people without healthcare insurance", is a classic example of the liberat version. Way to be your own person, lemming!

Wolfgang

I am a fiscally-conservative, Constitutionalist, without party affiliation.

I have degrees in Finance and Economics from Harvard, a Juris Doctorate from Georgetown and a Masters in Economics from the London School of Economics. I know about which I speaak.

No Ponzi scheme

Why do people keep calling these Gov't programs a Ponzi scheme.

Did Madoff tell all of his "customers" and "investors" what he was going to do their money? Of course not.

Did the original Soc Sec Bill, and the amendments since, tell what was going to happen to your contributions (taxes)? Of course it did, so none of them are a Ponzi scheme.

No one promised you all your money back, it was going into a pot where it would be distributed to everyone who met certain conditions.

It may not be the investment you expected. After all Sweetie and I invested nearly $10,000 in Soc Sec, and in spite of the fact she has been gone for nearly 5 years, we still have collected only about $220,000 on our $10,000 investment.

Some healthcare issues nobody talks abou
Taxing healthcare benefits-they already do-for the self employed health insurance is only 50% deductible (we pay 100% our our medical expenses & get a 50% deduction) union employees & govt workers get a 100% untaxed free ride.

On insurance companies accepting sick & predictibly sick into health plans at the same price as healthy people is good for insurance companies because it will drive up overall premium costs for everybody as long as all the other insurance companies are forced to insure unhealthy people in equal amounts.

What we need is more discrimination in pricing, sickly diabetic people should pay more than healthy ones, not less, if they can't afford the care on the same terms we need to change the terms for sickly people.

CA & the Congress last year outlawed genetic discrimination in medical insurance pricing effectively forcing all private carriers to insure sickly people at a discount and at the expense of the healthy population.

Not only is this practice anti-evolutionary, it diverts resources from healthy individuals to sickly ones and diverts growth from healthy individuals to sickly ones it also has a moral peril, it diverts lifestyle choice costs (like gay orgy STD costs) from risky behavior to people who engage in non-risky behavior. The current system allows for gay junkies to divert their lifestyle costs onto Christian heterosexaul librarians.

Poeple will engage in more dangerous behavior more if they can dump the costs of their dangerous behavior or lifestyle on others, many people forego dangerous activities when they don't have medical insurance, they worry about the costs of their actions.

If we indemnify individual behavior from medical expenses we'll get much more dangerous individual behavior.


Liberals HATE facts...
If large goverment is the answer; explain the Soviet Union!!!!! EVERYTHING was centrally run, and the country fell flat on its face.

Of course; their answer would be:

It wasnt centrally run well enough, we the brilliant people we know we are can do better.
Look at how well we, the gov, have handled: SS, Medicare, Medicade, Amtrack, Post Office, Education, Welfare....

A question for Noah
Where did you buy your Brown Shirt uniiform? Reading your post is like reading Nazi propganda. I got a better idea - why not do what the ancient Spartans did - take every baby who was sickly at birth and place him upon a rock where the birds of prey could feast on them. And let's eliminate everyone who isn't a blonde blue-eyed athlete. Amazing - our fathers won a world war against people with your mindset - and now a new generation crawls out of the ooze.

To St. Denis In Obama's Red America
Considering the documented grade inflation rampant at Harvard I wouldn't be throwing those degrees in anyone's face.

wolfgang's intellect
Wolfgang you moron, YES YOU ARE A MORON, how else does one extract from the discussion some desire to return to times where the medical profession was not as advanced as today?
Not one person has advocated such a thing, nor without extremely twisting the arguments put forth here could one come to such a conclusion. The debate centers on whether or not individuals are somehow obligated to provide for others well being. Along those lines people also point out how government intervention or interference in the market leads to a decline in the efficiency, convenience and affordability for health care.
I suggest that if you can't keep up, that you go back to school, just don't go the public route this time.

Wolfgang

I only wrote about Harvard because people think that all of those in South are rubes; however, I was in the top 5%.

Don't you Liberals tout the fact that Obama went to Harvard? I suppose that he is not as smart as you think that he is, a notion upon which we would agree.

Did he go to Georgetown and the London School of Economics?

No. As I thought, I am smarter than Obama, the Marxist.

How's that Stimulus working out for you because I am on the record, in writing, as saying that the Stimulus package was structured poorly and would lead to higher unemployment?

wolfie...
You made a point... now remind all the holier than thou liberals who eschew "outsiders" like Sarah Palin because she didn't go to Harvard that their credentials shouldn't be thrown in anybody's face. Perhaps you could start with Obama and Hillary (Wellesley alum) and don't forget everybody's fave, Keith Olberman.

Having been raised in NO and lived long in LA, one wonders how it has managed to keep somebody with St Denis's obvious capabilities and experiences from leaving. Gotta be the food! ;)

jim, CA

"Why do people keep calling these Gov't programs a Ponzi scheme?"

Cher, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the mother of all Ponzi schemes. The The Great Depressioners and Baby Boomers came from large families. There are adults now did not come from large families. So, you may have one employee paying for 2-3 people, who are either retired or about to retire.

There is no SS Trust Fund, as I have previously written.

SS will be insolvent, at the latest, in 2016, according to the CBO.

Medicaid and Medicare will be insolvent, at the latest, in 2017.

We have not had a budget surplus since 1957.

#1) The Federal Reserve is printing trillions and does not have to disclose the information to the Congress. It is a PRIVATE entity.

#2) Raise taxes now, and you will have another Hoover.

#3) Spend like a nut, and you will have another FDR. The national debt will be $23.9tn in 10 years.

Bottomline: Monetary collapse. Study up on the Weimar Govt. and Mugabe's Zimbabwe, which prove the fact that you can have both a depression and hyperinflation.

My advice: My gold and silver coins. They cannot be taken away because of the intrinsic value.



FeetFwd
Thank you for the compliment, but:

It is not the food. I am 5'6" and weigh 101 pounds.

It is the O&G business.


"real life test" ???

Phylo Se Fiser says.

"God do I wish you Republicans could all get together in one area and put your theories to a real life test. Your society would collapse within a decade."

Actually educated people know the test you speak of has already happened. Wjat we are doing now is experimentation. Experimentation that has resulted in failure throughout history.

For the first 150 year of this country there was no National Healthcare System, no Income Tax, no Social Security no unemployment insurance.

Now Review your history books. There was no starvation in the streets, no homeless people lying in doorways, no people dying in the streets for lack of healthcare.

We did have was a lot more freedom. We did have a country that people from all over the world were saving up money to come to. We did have a more civil society. Neighbors were nice to their neighbors because next week they may be sick or out of a job and needed their neighbors help for a few weeks. We did have children who respected their parents because if they screwed up in life, the government was not going to take care of them. Our prisons were not full and had plenty of room.

So yes the test of conservatism has already happened and the result was the greatest nation on earth.

Mr. Stossel
You did a very good job of laying out the problems with our current health care system. But what is the solution?

You seem to say we should abolish the insurance system and just pay for services rendered. It would definately lower costs, but one serious health problem would bankrupt the average family. The level of care would plummet as well as patients seek bargain basement solutions. When you go to the hospital in China, you have the option of having family members provide food and do bed pan duty. This lowers costs. Paying for services rendered would lead Walmart style hospitals.

Robert in CA
You made some valid points, but as I indicated in a earlier post to Amanda, in the case of either a catastrophic or a pre existing medical situation is where the government could step in and offer a helping hand. Nationalizing healthcare for the situations like these, are akin to killing flies with a shotgun.

Unless I've really misunderstood my fellow conservative posters here, I would bet that none of them would be opposed to correcting that obviously broken portion of the current system.

To Liberals & Progressives:


In a 1973, Louisiana had a Constitutional Convention, which among other things, mandated that budgets be balanced. It became effective in 1974.

Under Jindal, we have not seen state income taxes increases nor will we. Further, he has taken an axe to the pork in Govt. And, made the necessary cuts to bring the budget in balance.

We have jobs galore from private businesses.

Construction is booming from private investment.

We had our deep recession after Katrina. Our economy is not in shambles.

How are your States doing?

I read this on a bumper sticker 30 years
And it's still true:

If you like the post office, you're going to LOVE government run health care!

Bruce
You are wrong. Such situations should only be decided on a community level, never federal, and not even state. It can only justly be decided at a level where it truly is community, otherwise government needs to adhere to protecting life, liberty and property/fruit of labor along with such things that are mutually beneficial such as roads. Further such situations are why there is family, church, charitable organizations.

Jim: Ponzi schemes...
Ponzi schemes do not require deception. They are characterized by later participants paying earlier ones. In Ponzi and Madoff's cases, they actually had to deceive in order to attract new participants. In the case of government programs, the deception is simply replaced by force. Other than that, they are essentially the same.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html

define it first
Insurance is a risk pool.
Liberals that insist that those with pre-existing conditions be treated like the rest shows ignorance of basic concept. INsurance and health care are expensive due to government distortions. Libs use medicare as an example ferchrisake. it is $50 trillion in debt. Libs want free lunch and think there are endless deep pockets to pay. We have officially run out of other people's money.

No discrimination in health care?
If I were in the insurance business I would have no problem not discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, obesity and the like.

I would just raise the cost of everyone's insurance -- including those with pre-existing conditions. But hey, everyone would be paying the same amount and so I guess that's: fair.


Terry from GA

If Obama gets his way, your medical records will be available on the internet.

Insurance companies will be able to check if your parents had cancer, diabetis, heart desease and charge you based upon risk.

Liberals support Obama putting medical records on the internet.

I love the false choice logical fallacy
"You either support insurance companies coming into your house, kicking your dog and taking all of your money or you support everyone being free of all disease for eternity with free food delivered to your doorstep by magical talking gnomes."

It's fun to pretend to be on the left.

If You Want ObamaCare

Think about this:

Neither my Mayor, Governor, or FEMA could pass out water fast enough in the Superdome following Hurricane Katrina.


When you are rationed, delayed, or denied your healthcare, will you be saying, "Heck of a job, Obama"?

More On The US Ponzi Scheme
I detested Bush's bailouts and TARP I. I was vehemently against Obama's Stimulus I, TARP II his bailouts, and his takeovers. Now, they are talking about Stimulus II.

Unemployment was not supposed to go over 8%, but it is currently 9.5% and rising.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."


When the Socialist, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Republican, Sen. Jim DeMint tried to introduce the Senate version of Ron Paul's failed bill in the House to audit the Federal Reserve, they were both denied even the right to speak. The bill was voted down on in a procedural vote.

Got that? A Socialist and a Republican.

What does the Obama Administration not want us to see?

We know more about the CIA, which is Federal Agency, than we do about the Federal Reserve, which is a private corporation.

STOSSEL IS MR COMMON SENSE
God bless you, Mr. Stossel. You are consistently a breath of fresh air in fetid times in the USA. The bottom line IS unless you know the cost and feel it directly, YOU CONTRIBUTE TO rising costs. But too many people WANT to be 'free' to pillage others, and get something for nothing (or less than their neighbor pays), and don't give a d*mn about true 'fairness' nor have any qualms about Reaping when You Didn't Sow. "Do unto others what you'd have them do unto you" is ancient nonsense to many people. Same with self-reliance and prudence - outdated, for 'fools.'

I'm appalled at how STUPID and MORALLY BANKRUPT many Americans are; they prove it daily on blogs.

Logic has been killed off. Same with truthfulness. We have plenty of evidence from history and have had plenty of intelligent writers who attempted to counteract irrationality over the decades BUT EMOTION APPARENTLY TRUMPED ALL AND THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR PREVAILED. Public Education has grossly failed, and few people educate themselves; most simply 'live in the moment' and 'follow the herd,' spewing back spoon fed dogma like robots, instead of applying critical thinking. START with an ideology-laden premise and work backwards to 'cover' it, obfuscating or suppressing reality. We are left in Dog eat dog competition for (usually) mere scraps. 'What does it gain a man to win the world when he thereby loses his eternal SOUL?!'

Pro life?
Republicans tend to be pro-life. This contradicts their response to the healthcare crisis in America. Say a woman gives birth to a pre-mature infant; to keep that infant alive can cost $1 million. Who pays? According to Stossel (and many posters here), the answer seems to be: if and only if that woman has access to $1 million will the baby be kept alive. If the woman does not have the resources to pay for care for the pre-mature infant, then let the infant die a "natural death".

Fast forward a bit. How about a 6 year old who had a stroke? (happened to a neighbor of mine in the 1990s) The 12 year old diagnosed with juvenile diabetes? The 4 year old who has a seizure ... then another seizure ... then another seizure .... etc., etc.? Now we have SCHIPS to pay for the children who are sick. What happens when the children turn 21 years old, and no insurance company will insure them? When they are 21 years old and cannot get a job because adding someone with the above-mentioned medical conditions would result in the health insurance being cancelled for everyone in the family? The Stossel/above posters response seems to be: too bad, we'll pray for them at their funeral.

The Democrats have a more pro-life stance when it comes to insuring access to medical care than do the Republicans.

georgiagal
I don't know if your illogic is intentional or not, but to attempt to contrast the position on abortion/baby murder and health care doesn't work. It's so simple, that either you lack the requisite intellect to involve yourself in this debate, or you are attempting to be disingenuous.
Simply, abortion is to intentionally bring fatal harm to a human being. This is an negative action. Health care, in the manner you argue is to do a positive good. To legislate in such a manner is to then dictate to one their moral behavior. As Jefferson said, "so long as he's not picking my pocket, or breaking my leg".
I could elaborate further on the imposition of ones liberty and property also, but if you don't understand the contrast above, you need help.

buy a loaf of bread with a gold coin

St. Denis In Obama's Red America Location: LA
Reply # 18
Date: Jul 8, 2009 - 3:07 PM EST
jim, CA

"Why do people keep calling these Gov't programs a Ponzi scheme?"

You: There is no SS Trust Fund, as I have previously written.

Me: You are wrong of course. There are billions of $ in Gov’t Bonds.

I went on the Net and the first thing I saw was … … …
“There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund.”

Wouldn’t it be stupid to have a Fort Knox building filled with $100 bills. The bonds in the Fund, earn interest. Of course the taxpayers pay that. Name me one income to a Gov’t that is not a tax.

You: We have not had a budget surplus since 1957.

Me: That has nothing at all to do with too little income by the Gov’t, it has to do with too much spending by the Gov’t.

You: My advice: My gold and silver coins. They cannot be taken away because of the intrinsic value.

Me: Let’s see you buy a loaf of bread with a gold coin.

What is it you don’t like about the PO?

new_ed Location: FL
Reply # 12
Date: Jul 8, 2009 - 3:50 PM EST

You: If you like the post office, you're going to LOVE government run health care!

Me: Generally the PO works fine. Just a week or so ago I experienced the first PO mistake in over 80 years.

But still, anyone can mail a letter, and anyone with an address can receive a letter.

What is it you don’t like about the PO?


no Ponzi without deception.

arlanjio Location: CA
Reply # 10
Date: Jul 8, 2009 - 4:00 PM EST
Jim: Ponzi schemes...

You: Ponzi schemes do not require deception. They are characterized by later participants paying earlier ones.

Me: Not true.

You: In Ponzi and Madoff's cases, they actually had to deceive in order to attract new participants.

Me: If you are going to call it a Ponzi Scheme, you must go by his rules, and as you say, “Ponzi and Madoff's cases, they actually had to deceive in order to attract new participants.”

Now tell me you are so stupid that you believe the Gov’t somehow is not doing what they promised to do. There is no Gov’t deception, they told what they intended, and that is what they are doing.

There can be no Ponzi without deception.

stand corrected
Yes, you are correct, but in the case of the Govt we call it STUPIDITY, kickbacks and corrupt officials.

May as well relax and "enjoy" it.
We are going to have a federal health insurance monopoly and inevitably government regulated (rationed) health care because the “useful idiots” want it . . . and our legislators want both the “useful idiots’” votes and more power and control over their lives.

Short of a miracle, universal health care is a done deal. So, relax and "enjoy" it.

Better Healthcare outside US
FeedFwd queried if anyone leaves the US for health care. Absolutely--India has chains of hospitals catering to medical tourism. One of their specialties is hip resurfacing. In the US--it is a $60K+ operation; you can fly to India and back, get the operation, stay in luxury for two weeks for about $12K. Surgeon? If you made a list of the ten top, worldwide, at least one would be Indian (in India), likely two. Maybe one of top five; some people would put one of the Indians number one.

Same prothesis, dedicated care, maybe the best surgeon in the world and one-fifth the price. Including travel and two weeks stay.

I know--I just had it done in the US. My insurance (high deductible) covered it; otherwise I would have gone to India.

RPM
And it doesn't concern you who paid for it?

Another "free lunch"

BEAUTIFUL!

Grant--free lunch
I am 65 yrs old. I have paid one insurance company or another for the last 40 yrs. My mean time between Dr's visits is about 5 yrs--biased a bit by the last five years or so. Before that, I probably averaged close to ten years. Two of my three children were born before I had health "insurance"; I wrote checks.

"Free Lunch"? My a**. I paid for it. The last couple of years I have been on Cobra--paying out about 25K/yr for myself and my wife. I think she got a mammogram out of it.

Put your guilt trip somewhere else.

Phylo's Free Market Education Fallacy
Phylo had this to say about Education:

If we had a purely private school system, good schools would charge a fortune and the wealthy kids would get an awesome education, while everyone else would be left out to dry––perhaps receiving no education at all. And the results of that scenario would be disastrous. Imagine this country with a 50% literacy rate.

This fallacy is easily exposed. Suppose the automobile industry operated this way. This would mean automobile manufacturers woould produce only Ferraris, Lotus's, Rolls Royce, & other "Wealthy" type cars, ignoring a vastly bigger market segment that would make less profit per car on Corollas, Cobalts & the like, but a larger overall profit from a vastly bigger set of clientele.

The wealthy would have expensive private schools with teachers from high profile colleges, but the average lower to middle class family would have schools with teachers from competent but less prestigious schools.

The inherent "greed" of the free market system insures that a market with a need will always be filled, because there is money to be made.

That is ANY market, including health care & education.

The amazing thing is that people who find the wealthy in the free market greedy fail to find & see the even greater greed found in the government. No free market capitalist can force you to buy with a gun. The government CAN.

Apples and Oranges
"Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business. They often give customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps increasing, but prices don't."
-----------------------------------------------
When one is looking to get a tummy tuck or corrective eye surgery, I'm sure that competitive shopping is helpful. But how many people are in the position to compare doctors when they get appendicitis at 2:00 AM or are involved in an auto accident?

new_ed, Reply # 125
"I read this on a bumper sticker 30 years
And it's still true:

If you like the post office, you're going to LOVE government run health care!"
----------------------------------------------
Last time I checked, the post office was doing pretty good. Who else will pick up a letter from your house and deliver it to a house 3,000 miles away for just 44¢? Certainly not UPS or FedEx.

Post Office
Last time I checked, the post office was doing pretty good. Who else will pick up a letter from your house and deliver it to a house 3,000 miles away for just 44¢? Certainly not UPS or FedEx.


Know of many private shippers that have the US Post Office's shocking record of loosing mail, damaging packages (particularly the ones specifically marked 'fragile'), or take as long to get something as simple as a letter to point A from point B? Let's not even talk about cost-effectiveness.

Of course not
"Last time I checked, the post office was doing pretty good. Who else will pick up a letter from your house and deliver it to a house 3,000 miles away for just 44¢? Certainly not UPS or FedEx. "

Well they are prohibited by law from doing so. As well as from using your mailbox in most cases.

Lets let Goverment run everything
The problem is once the government takes over an industry ther is no recource for disatisfaction over the service. There is no one responsible in the end if the job is not done right. Heart surgury, brain surgury. Do you want the same level of care to your body as the government takes care of roads for example.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.